State of the Union

What a tremendous and unifying state of the union speech. I hope we all found something to like in it. My favorite part was when he called on Congress to pass legislation for the transparency and fair pricing practices of prescription drugs. I think we can all agree that’s long over due. I think President Donald Trump struck the perfect tone to help bring the country together—- in a time where it was needed. I see a brighter future ahead for all Americans. Feeling optimistic.

I did not watch so I have no idea what he said. But I am going to take a wild guess and say that most people who are on the other side of the aisle did not perceive the speech as unifying, LOL.

I think we need to change something in prescription drug pricing for sure. Bu of course the devil is in the details.

Actually they did, that’s what was remarkable… he received many standing ovations from the left side of the aisle, a stark contrast from last year… it was a good tone set

At one point all the democratic women stood up in unison and gave him a standing ovation and he even joked “whoa I wasn’t expecting that” or something like that

oh I meant the metaphorical side of the aisle, like, people on the other side of the political divide. But good to know!

Yes… so did I…

The metaphorical side of the aisle is actually the physical side of the aisle too inside the chamber… I believe that’s the origin of the term but I’m not certain

yes that’s probably where it comes from. Or else it would be a very bizarre metaphor.

I didn’t watch, but from the reports of it, yes, women stood up and applauded when he referenced the more women in congress thing specifically. That particular point is awesome and deserves applause, and it happened in spite of Trump and the best efforts of the GOP. The left certainly did not approve of SOTU more broadly, and Stacey Abrams’ response captures the sentiment well. Additionally, AOC is getting flak for her maintaining a serious face throughout in fact; apparently women are supposed to smile now not just in general, but specifically at men who are doing everything they can to remove their reproductive rights. Regardless, talk of unity from a man who brought the entire federal government to a halt as part of what was essentially a tantrum because he didn’t get his inane wall (and thereby increased security and safety risks in our country far more than the wall would actually help anything)—a move even the rest of the GOP warned him not to make—is patently absurd. Then again, I would not expect logic from the apparently very confused man who was recently talking about elements from the movie Sicario 2, rather than reality, in his fantastical tweets about the situation at the border.

4 posts were split to a new topic: Politics subcategory and notifications

@cardamom, it’s so funny, I’m a journalist but I basically have ceased to read any news about Trump because it just makes me feel so disheartened.

Not by him per se. But by how “hackable” the formula for journalism can be. That’s a luxury I’m able to indulge in because I’m a science journalist and so Trump only occasionally intersects with our news beat.

Basically, as journalists we’re taught that a story should be covered if it’s two out of three: interesting, new or important. And I feel like Trump has (either consciously or not) figured that out and basically has figured out how to trigger the media to report on all the dumb, inane, inflammatory, blah blah blah stuff he says or does because it’s interesting and it’s technically “new”. It’s so viral, it’s sooo ridiculous, and people can’t help talking about it. And reporting on it is easy. You can just pull up his twitter feed! or Show up at a press conference with a mic in your hand!

But ultimately, it diverts attention from the genuinely awful stuff that might be happening behind the scenes.
For instance, the NYT ran a huge expose on how the senior Trump basically committed tax fraud to enrich his son. It got no play because Trump did something inflammatory or said something dumb (I can’t remember what?) . Or how many of his cabinet members have been embroiled in financial scandals? That’s just yawnworthy now because aside from Scott Pruitt, no one can anywhere near match the ridiculousness of the commander-in-chief.

Anyways, your comment about Sicario 2 made me think about that. I mean, sure, it’s dumb that he’s conflating reality and a movie. But I’d like to reframe it as also boring and not worth paying attention to. Like his comments about global warming, we already knew he didn’t believe i global warming and every year when there’s a cold snap somewhere he uses it to predictably say global warming is a hoax. Similarly, we already know that this president gets a lot of his information from TV and movies. That’s not news. Which particular movie he plans to get wrong, which particular lie he tells, is uninteresting. They’re also sad rehashes of things he’s said before.

I think people who oppose this presidency would be more effective if they weren’t triggered by all his evil/inane/ridiculous statements and focused on: Where is the money going? Who is being appointed for positions? What policies have actually been changed? Where is there corruption or mismanagement? And then opposed those.

Not to lecture; it’s just a sore subject to me.


I love it when the left calls late term abortions “reproductive rights”

How about when they come up with an in vitro test for the propensity to develop diabetes at sometime in the undocumented infant’s lifetime and then the left rushes to wholesale approve of their unlimited slaughter. How about if that test occurs only one minute after the baby is born? Would that be a reproductive right? Where is the line drawn? Nowhere within reason or morality clearly. Geez some “champions” of “reproductive rights” are even now arguing that infants should be able to be euthanized shortly after they’re born… I’m looking forward to the day when men actually have some reproductive rights…

The “progressives” have some serious soul searching to do if this is really the side of the debate they want to be on

(Prepares to be censored and scolded for expressing a non liberal viewpoint, doesn’t care)

oh no, they did not receive it as unifying. You will not unify if you ridicule your opponents. Let’s askTed Gowdy about “ridiculous, unnecessary partisan investigations”.
I agree with that there were some good points the President* made as “right to try” as well as some he did not make not to tick off some organizations as the “bump stock ban”? This administration did some good stuff. And there were an equal amount of wtf?
Let’s see how the next 2 weeks pan out with that remaining budget. Remember that there was a 100-0 Senate bill on the Presidents* desk. At that moment you will be able to separate the BS from the real stuff in this SOTU. By now you can only separate the “El Paso” and other ''rewrites" from the facts.
Somebody said: “We do disagree with the policies but we do not wish for the president* to fail”. That sums it up quiet well.

The country came to stand still becuase democrats wouldnt fund wall we need, and they wanted before trump was in picture.

What’s actually the purpose of this State of the Union theater?

1 Like

Hi @T1john, In my past life I basically worked on a project where my job was literally to map the entire length of fencing/wall on the southern border. We already have about 650+ miles of wall there. The areas that did not have a wall (at the time I was doing my research, 8+ years ago) are places where either a) there were a bunch of lawsuits about the government seizing property (say, in Texas, where a ranch crosses both Mexico and the US and the wall would cut right through it – this is typically an issue where conservative justices might rule more in favor of individual landholders, by the way) or b) there was no practical reason for one, because the territory was so unforgiving to pass on foot that few people crossed that way, or difficult to build due to harsh terrain so it was essentially abandoned as impractical by the administrations in charge at the time. Also, fencing was mostly complete by 2009 and there has not been much correlation between that construction and total immigration across the border. The total number of people crossing illegally was pretty flat over that time, according to the government’s own statistics:

Here’s a link to a libertarian think-tank’s analysis of the wall:

I’m not a libertarian but I think it does highlight why this proposal is not a very good way of deterring unlawful border crossings, even if you happen to think that’s a high priority. The reality is there are “push” reasons that people immigrate and “pull” reasons that people immigrate. Pushes are things like war and adverse conditions in their homeland, whereas “pull” reasons are things like economic opportunity, family living in the destination country, better rights, etc… A wall is not going to do much about most of those push factors, and decreasing economic opportunity would be bad for us.

another reason I don’t watch. It seems like it’s supposedly laying out the president’s agenda but let’s be real, most of us already know a given president’s agenda beforehand and whether he can implement it or not has more to do with the political headwinds than any pretty speech he may or may not give.

1 Like

also, consider that for the last two years @T1john had both a Republican majority in the house and senate, and yet no wall funding was ever approved. If the sole reason there’s no wall is because of Democratic obstructionism, why wasn’t it a higher priority for him when he had that blank check?

It’s written into the constitution that once a year the president would advise congress on the state of the union… which 200 years ago probably had a different meaning than it does now because there were likely actually things the executive branch knew that the legislative didn’t. Now it is more of a tradition and a ceremony but its roots are written directly in the constitution

1 Like


This subcategory now requires topics to be related to diabetes:

The only theme in this topic that is related to D is the single sentence of the original OP discussing medication pricing. We will need to close or delete this thread unless it follows category guidelines. There will be no more warnnings, sorry.

Thanks for your help! We all wish we did not have to do this—but many previous political threads have resulting in bad feelings across members. The mod team spends more time in the forum ironing out political issues than anything else. None of us have time for that.

1 Like

I discussed diabetes and it’s implications in the context of politics in my most recent post as well