General State of the Union Thread

[Dashinka 25,405]

8 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So please tell me how and which parts he lied about in regard to immigration.

 

How will he not be here if curtains plans are enacted?

 

 

WE NEED THE DETAILS!!!!!!!!

So do you really think that Stephen Miller is a racist?

 

I thought the entire Trump WH was racist and sexist?

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

16 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I don't think that Stephen Miller would find his presence here in any capacity acceptable. But this is the SOTU, where all varieties of people are used as optic pawns for brownie points.

I'm not trying to disagree with you on your sentiments, but maybe elaborate more? He is a visitor here, presumably on a regular tourist visa (perhaps expedited so he could attend the address). Yes I agree he was used as a political pawn to send a "positive message".

 

Obviously it would never happen for geographic reasons but if he had somehow escaped directly into the USA I'd venture to guess that his application for asylum would have been approved. Asylum from North Korea would be kind of a "no brainer" I think.

 

13 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So please tell me how and which parts he lied about in regard to immigration.

 

How will he not be here if curtains plans are enacted?

 

 

WE NEED THE DETAILS!!!!!!!!

For me it wasn't as much lying as it was an exaggeration and misrepresentation. I think he could have explained his points a little better. I honestly think his immigration plan may be close to the best we are going to get, and I think it does actually reach across the aisle to try to find common ground. I liked his sentiment that not everyone is going to get everything they want, and I think we need to focus on that more. However he did heavily exaggerate the issues, when for me I would have preferred more honesty (Though I realize honesty doesn't send as great of a message in a big speech).

 

When he talked about focusing on the "nuclear family" by eliminating chain migration...he just didn't explain it that well. I think he could have been clearer that by limiting it to spouses and children we could let in those groups QUICKER and in greater numbers. At face value saying that ending chain migration will "protect" the nuclear family just doesn't instantly explain how/why. Why can't we have both? Providing more details as to why would have been nice and important.

 

He talks about our current "open border" (a massive simplification) and how he will "fully secure the border" - Also a massive simplification. Our border won't be "fully secure" with a wall. We have an entire Northern Border that will remain open. And vast numbers of immigrants come in via plane. He paints an exaggerated picture of now, and an exaggerated picture of what he proposes (But to be clear - That isn't unexpected in a SOTU address).

 

When he talked about the visa lottery program - He says that it hands out visa without regards to skill. That isn't entirely true. You need to meet requirements to be considered. Skill IS considered, though once you meet the qualifications the actually selection process is still random. But everyone who is ABLE to enter has to meet the skill qualifications (work experience or high school education I think? I forget). You could argue that is a lie, or just an exaggeration of the truth. He also seems to apply that the majority of those who enter through the lottery program now don't want to work, and don't love our country. "Bad apples" get through every immigration system, and they will continue to do so. There is no evidence that the majority of people who enter through the program don't meet those qualities that he supports.

Edited January 31, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 25,405]

Just now, bcking said:

I'm not trying to disagree with you on your sentiments, but maybe elaborate more? He is a visitor here, presumably on a regular tourist visa (perhaps expedited so he could attend the address). Yes I agree he was used as a political pawn to send a "positive message".

 

Obviously it would never happen for geographic reasons but if he had somehow escaped directly into the USA I'd venture to guess that his application for asylum would have been approved. Asylum from North Korea would be kind of a "no brainer" I think.

 

For me it wasn't as much lying as it was an exaggeration and misrepresentation. I think he could have explained his points a little better.

 

When he talked about focusing on the "nuclear family" by eliminating chain migration...he just didn't explain it that well. I think he could have been clearer that by limiting it to spouses and children we could let in those groups QUICKER and in greater numbers.

 

He talks about our current "open border" (a massive simplification) and how he will "fully secure the border" - Also a massive simplification. Our border won't be "fully secure" with a wall. We have an entire Northern Border that will remain open. And vast numbers of immigrants come in via plane. He paints an exaggerated picture of now, and an exaggerated picture of what he proposes (But to be clear - That isn't unexpected in a SOTU address).

 

When he talked about the visa lottery program - He says that is hands out visa without regards to skill. That isn't entirely true. You need to meet requirements to be considered. Skill IS considered, though the process is still random. You could argue that is a lie, or just an exaggeration of the truth. He also seems to apply that the majority of those who enter through the lottery program now don't want to work, and don't love our country. "Bad apples" get through every immigration system, and they will continue to do so. There is no evidence that the majority of people who enter through the program don't meet those qualities that he supports.

I think ROK citizens can enter on a waiver for tourism, and yes, he was here for political reasons (shows someone that will do anything to get away from socialism).  Isn't that why presidents and the opposition invite these folks to SOTUs?  I am mystified that anyone thinks the SOTU is anything but a political speech.

 

 

[TBoneTX 46,895]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

that was a little long winded...especially for someone who didn't actually watch it. Pretty standard for my posts though I guess

It's a very nice post.  Thank you.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I think ROK citizens can enter on a waiver for tourism, and yes, he was here for political reasons (shows someone that will do anything to get away from socialism).  Isn't that why presidents and the opposition invite these folks to SOTUs?  I am mystified that anyone thinks the SOTU is anything but a political speech.

 

 

I don't think he was escaping NK to escape socialism...

 

Socialism is not NK's problem, or its underlying political or economic theory. They may try to call themselves socialist but they are far from it. The people own nothing in that country. It's like the official name, which is a joke. Nothing Democratic or Republican about the country.

[Dashinka 25,405]

Just now, bcking said:

I don't think he was escaping NK to escape socialism...

 

Socialism is not NK's problem, or its underlying political or economic theory. They may try to call themselves socialist but they are far from it. The people own nothing in that country. It's like the official name, which is a joke. Nothing Democratic or Republican about the country.

It's not?  The DPRK started out as a socialist regime put in place by the USSR.  Their economic system is still socialist and now they have a totalitarian regime that treats their people even worse.  

[TBoneTX 46,895]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

ROK citizens can enter on a waiver for tourism

Yes.

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It's not?  The DPRK started out as a socialist regime put in place by the USSR.  Their economic system is still socialist and now they have a totalitarian regime that treats their people even worse.  

I would never call them socialist. Totalitarian yes, fascist probably. While they are a relatively secretive "closed" country, I can't think of a single current feature that fits socialism. I think the vast majority of the USSR/Chinese "socialist" governments are all a farce. 

 

Socialism is about collective ownership and collective benefit. North Korea has almost always been about control, and limitation. Its people don't own their industries, they don't collectively support one another. Power rests in the hands of its Dictator and he controls everything. That is about as opposite from Socialism as you can get.

 

The Russian Revolution took the term and abused it to fit their political agenda. Similar to Communism as well. The whole original philosophical goals were to relinquish power to the people. That never came close to happening. They argued it was a necessary "transition" period but instead the leadership abused it to establish greater power.

 

This really isn't the topic of the thread though so we can carry the discussion on elsewhere if you'd like. I just think it is a horrible misrepresentation to say that someone fleeing North Korea does so because it's a socialist government. You don't torture political opponents and centralize power and control in a socialist society.

Edited January 31, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just for the record Religious liberty is very much important and a bed rock of our country, as is freedom to be non religious if one so chooses. 

[TBoneTX 46,895]

I was listening and watching very closely for something.  Despite the natural (no pun intended) trumpeting of accomplishments  that occurs at SOTU speeches, I never once got the impression that any of the address was about "him"; rather, he geared everything toward what it meant for others.

 

I was also actively looking for signs of insincerity.  I perceived none that registered even a remote personal alert.  In fact, I thought that he was most sincere of all when he was talking about elected officials' roles as servants of the people.

 

Seeing the grieving parents really ripped me up, carrying over into today.

 

Overall, the speech was targeted to a broad audience.  He wasn't going to lose his base no matter what he said.  I think that it was meant to reach independents, the I-voted-against-Hillary faction, and similar segments.

 

Finally, as a sidebar observation, I thought that Melania didn't look very happy at all, especially early, when on camera.  She did break into smiles when the guests seated near her were introduced.

[TBoneTX 46,895]

Addenda to my above:

 

1.  Many of the Democrats didn't just look obstinate or morose; they looked comatose.  And how could so few of them applaud news that was good for everyone in the country and even for their special interests?

 

2.  The President made a crucial distinction when he specified that "This April, you'll file taxes under the old system for the last time..." or similar.  The news media have made a big deal about "changes coming for 2018 taxes."  Many Americans might assume that their 2017 taxes filed in 2018 are their 2018 taxes.

[bcking 3,157]

24 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Just for the record Religious liberty is very much important and a bed rock of our country, as is freedom to be non religious if one so chooses. 

I agree, and I completely support continuing that freedom.

 

The problem comes when someone's "Religious Expression" potential creates opportunities to discriminate. That is where a lot of the conflict and differences of opinion lie, in my opinion. Can you discriminate against someone because providing them a service somehow violates your "Freedom of Religion"? I know my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I know yours.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, bcking said:

I agree, and I completely support continuing that freedom.

 

The problem comes when someone's "Religious Expression" potential creates opportunities to discriminate. That is where a lot of the conflict and differences of opinion lie, in my opinion. Can you discriminate against someone because providing them a service somehow violates your "Freedom of Religion"? I know my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I know yours.

My opinion is that, that is a very hard subject and even going case by case, there is not always a bright and shinning path to the truth or best outcome.

 

Not going into case study, because ti would drive this thread widely off topic

[bcking 3,157]

30 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I was listening and watching very closely for something.  Despite the natural (no pun intended) trumpeting of accomplishments  that occurs at SOTU speeches, I never once got the impression that any of the address was about "him"; rather, he geared everything toward what it meant for others.

 

I was also actively looking for signs of insincerity.  I perceived none that registered even a remote personal alert.  In fact, I thought that he was most sincere of all when he was talking about elected officials' roles as servants of the people.

 

Seeing the grieving parents really ripped me up, carrying over into today.

 

Overall, the speech was targeted to a broad audience.  He wasn't going to lose his base no matter what he said.  I think that it was meant to reach independents, the I-voted-against-Hillary faction, and similar segments.

 

Finally, as a sidebar observation, I thought that Melania didn't look very happy at all, especially early, when on camera.  She did break into smiles when the guests seated near her were introduced.

Overall I honestly agree, now that I've watched some of it.

 

He could have focused a lot more on himself, which is his typical "persona" when on twitter or on campaigns. I think here he was surprisingly less so and I found that refreshing. As I've said before though I'd love to see him keep this behavior and demeanor and apply it more consistently outside of large political speeches. For me a person's actions and duplicitousness are very strong factors in my approval of the person, so it still remains a large reason why I have a generally negative view of him. He can be great in a moment like this, and then tomorrow he can go back to attacking people on twitter and creating conflict.

 

I also agree that I think politicians need to give credit where it's due. Applauding for low unemployment numbers would NOT automatically mean that you approve of everything Trump is doing. You can claim that you are happy about those objective figures, while still opposing certain agenda items. I think we've pushed too far into extreme sides. It makes you question what they truly care about, political points or actual benefits to people and constituents?

Edited January 31, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

My opinion is that, that is a very hard subject and even going case by case, there is not always a bright and shinning path to the truth or best outcome.

 

Not going into case study, because ti would drive this thread widely off topic

Agreed. That's why I left specific examples out.

 

We are on a roll today, you and me