The predictable Democrats at the SOTU
Trump knew they wouldn’t be standing or applauding for things that the vast majority of Americans favor, and he used that fact to castigate them. Some Democrats also yelled at him; John Fetterman had warned his fellow Democrats against that sort of thing, but they couldn’t resist:
“I mean, there’s just no dignity if you have paddles, if you are yelling and saying those kinds of things,” Fetterman said. “I mean, you can agree or disagree on things, but if you’re going to show up, just do it with dignity because, you know, really need to respect the office.”
So far, I haven’t been able to find out whether Fetterman actually stood for things like the following. If so, he would have been lonely:
There was more where that came from. As they say: the campaign ads write themselves.
Will it matter, though? Does that sort of thing change any minds?
[ADDENDUM: Here are four picks from the SOTU for campaign ads.]
“Does it matter”? It should, and at a very basic level. Media plays a role in how the Democrat performative art plays out, I think. I also noticed, and thought it was dumb, that nearly the first words out of Spanberger’s mouth were “everything Trump just said is a lie”. To me, she had zero charisma. But I didn’t stick around for her entire rebuttal, maybe she warmed up at some point.
I looked into my window on the left, Reddit, and someone asked the question about standing for the president’s statement. Here is one answer.
“He may have made a statement that should be agreed upon, but the actions and to put it mildly, overly aggressive approach to locate and capture illegal aliens is the issue. These are not ‘State of the Union’ speeches. It’s solely a political speech and more propaganda, especially since there is no ability to debate or correct wrong statements live so everyone hears both sides of the view.”
It won’t matter to the Communist/Islam faction of the Democrats and that’s 100% of them these days because not one national Democrat has left the party in years. Not one Jewsish Democrat has switced sides since October 7th when it became clear that The Democrat Party is now solidly anti-Israel and pro Muslim. They are in on all this or realize they have to go along or they will be primaried. AOC has been quoted as saying “there too many white men in Congress.”
AOC suggests Congress has too many white men: ‘What are we doing here?’
by JACKSON WALKER | The National DeskThu, June 27, 2024 at 11:48 AM
Updated Thu, June 27, 2024 at 11:49 AM
90% of Republicans are proud to be Americans but only 38% of Democrats according to Gallup. The Democrats are now a totally anti-America party. The only question is: Will the Democrats prefer a Communist country or a Caliphate?
James Sisco: “maybe she [Spanberger] warmed up at some point.”
You’d have better luck with Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard of Oz.
It defies reason that any continent person would vote for those clowns. Clowns being a charitable description.
Sadly, a massive swath of the electorate would only view the speech and the performance through the lens of the media; and even the legitimate (again charitable) media will distort, The fringe where many, my own daughter sadly included, hang out will be worse.
I trust, however, that he will continue to hammer the themes and perhaps a few Democrats will panic and defect. Maybe.
I believe that Neo has informed us that she started her change when she realized that the Democrats were persistently distorting truth. Spanberger’s ridiculous opening remarks should provide a ‘Neo moment’. That was a silly lie, with ‘knee jerk’ written all over it. I would not want to be identified with the knee jerk party.
I look at her and I see a trans clone/ twin sister of Reinhard Heydrich. Its scary to see their photos side by side.
It was a little bit of a con game — President Trump framed the statements in a way that the Democrats couldn’t have stood up for them, even if they agreed with at least part of what he was saying.
For example — “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”
Of course Democrats believe that the American government should protect American citizens (well, most of them do, anyway). But they would mostly disagree with the second part, we shouldn’t protect non-citizens — and they would definitely disagree with Trump’s framing of the argument, that you can only protect citizens or non-citizens, but not both. (In any case, there’s no way they would be caught standing for the phrase “illegal aliens,” no matter what the context.)
I don’t know that it proved anything, but it was a good piece of theater — the sort of rhetoric we’ve seen in a lot of other political speeches, but Trump did it especially well.
Keep saying
Democrat/ Marxists wantvto live or die on that No Borders hill that Karl Marx used
On my recent Cruise, I found myself with a group of White, Upper Middle Class, Older, with spending money. Except for 2 Black Women, who had spending money. They were all Dems, and near as I could tell had TDS badly. One Black Woman from LA spent her working life in the LA City Council. She was shocked to find out that this “relatively” nice White Guy was a Trump Supporter. To her anyone that supported Trump was MAGA – meaning maybe KKK. Those women would rather crawl across a football field of broken glass before voting for a Republican.
Democrats are enemies of this country. Period.
“First duty” isn’t to negate a second duty, TR, but merely to set an orderly course. It’s not a proper reading to attribute non-protection to back of the line “illegal aliens”, who, in some circumstances are also afforded due protection. So who is conducting sophistical sleight of hand there? Looks like the Democrats are, to me.
TR,
Maybe. But that would assume the Ds were all thoughtfully and tediously parsing every sentence from Trump before deciding how to react. I don’t think they did that.
“The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens
A reasonable interpretation is to apply the descriptor “first” to American citizens and illegal aliens in that sentence. That sounds different right?
I suspect most heard it as the ‘duty to protect American citizens first (ahead of non citizens) vs your interpretation of a ‘duty to protect American citizens first and leave illegally aliens completely unprotected and laying in the streets’
(I mean protected from a humanitarian sense not a categorical sense of granting American citizenship rights)