The Frankish Reich

So who was the last President to give a memorable SOTU address? I suppose I'd have to go back to Reagan's "shining city on a hill" one. Well written, well delivered, albeit by a President otherwise in decline. Bush 41's "read my lips: no new taxes" is memorable but in a negative sense. I can't recall a single word spoken by Bill Clinton in his roughly 7 hours of SOTU speeches. Bush 43? Kind of a proto-Biden "will he screw up his words" thing. Obama? One of those "communication is 90% nonverbal" things - he had good command of the staging, but nothing inspirational that would compare to his earlier speeches. Trump? I remember the first one (technically an "address to a joint session of Congress") was surprisingly good because he managed to come off as sane and maybe even moderate, but of course he squandered that right away. Biden? Always about the flub watch; so far, he's passed, but there's always this year.

Thanks. I will continue to quote him until he explains what he meant. And meanwhile I will dial my time machine back to the Dark Ages so that I, a starving peasant, can delight in watching the Renaissance unfold in real time.

True. But isn't this every SOTU address? - Float a big policy proposal that is half-baked and/or has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding (think Trump's "repeal and replace" Obamacare with something much, much better) - Float a few small policy proposals that everyone can agree on (think Obama's long forgotten federal retirement savings account thing that he pitched when interest rates were under 1%) - Talk about how the other side is obstructing us from doing the things most Americans want done, and say you are all for compromise when compromise is called for - (since Reagan) try to personalize your supporters by putting a few "ordinary" or heroic Americans as plants in the seats of honor - (since Clinton) go on for way, way too long ... At least 20 years ago George Will started campaigning against a public SOTU address. Nothing in the constitution requires it. A simple letter to Congress is fine. That will never happen since the one prerequisite for the presidency is loving to hear yourself talk, even if you aren't very good at it.

So you tell me. WTF did he mean? That he wants to go back to the turn of the last century so that he'd have a legitimate cause to fight for? He said it. Fair to quote him. Context would matter if context made it sensible. It doesn't.

Imagine that: production ramps up, in part due to expectations of high crude prices. Increased production and continuing low crude prices causes drillers to pause on expensive new oil drilling offshore projects. It's almost like there's a market in crude oil.

This is pretty funny. It also explains why the "humor" of the Babylon Bee is so obvious. Anything remotely subtle or clever goes right over their heads.

I read the initial Red State "rebuttal." Yes, there was additional "context" but even that context leaves me wondering what the hell he was trying to say. A reporter asked, fairly, something like this: MAGA suggests, by its very name, that America was better/greater at some past time. When was that time? A little prodding and we get to the pre-19th Amendment suffrage days. And he says, "Yes!" I want to go back to those days (and then explains) because in those days Republicans fought for social change. What? You want to go back to a time when there was a horrible deprivation of freedom because that spurred a political party to take a stand against such horrible deprivation of freedom? If people are confused, it is because it is an incoherent thought. Do we want to go back to the days of slavery because, well, there would have been no Republican Party without an abolitionist movement? Stupid comment regardless of the point he thought he was making, and he's still got lots of explaining to do.

In which we pause for a few seconds to consider this: Moms For Liberty endorses a candidate nostalgic for the days when women were not allowed to vote. And still they say they play on natural turf, not astroturf ...

A little context, Tucker? Ireland's constitution was drafted in 1937. It includes all sorts of old socialist type language, including this clause meant to prevent the capitalist robber barons from forcing women into work instead of having a bunch of kids in the old Irish fashion. And if Ireland actually enforced this constitutional language it would create a big welfare program for mothers, including the types of "welfare queen" mothers that Reagan used to decry. I first went to Ireland 40 something years ago. It was fascinating because it was so ... backward. Horse drawn deliveries on the streets of all cities other than Dublin and (maybe) Cork. What I imagine were 1940s style accommodations. Kind of like how we'd think of, say, Bulgaria rather than (West) Germany. I went again a few years ago. It was kind of boring now because everything seemed so familiar, so "American." People are far, far wealthier on average, with nice modern American-style suburban homes everywhere, modern shopping centers, big well-maintained motorways, nice restaurants, etc. "Neoliberal" policies brought Ireland out of the 1800s and squarely into the lead in the 21st century economy. Good for the Irish people, good for a lot of the super intelligent tech people who flowed in, but kind of boring for tourists, but, hey, they're not trying to create an Irelandland for people like me. They're actually trying to make an open, prosperous society. And so far, so very, very good.

Is Trump going to testify in his own defense in the hush money trial? Imagine the fun: - Stormy testifies "i had sex with him, and he offered to pay me $120,000 to remain quiet about it." - Trump testifies and says ... what? Option A: I didn't have sex with her, but I offered to pay her money just so she'd stop with all her false claims." - Cross-examination: it become fair game to question him about whether he's had sex with other "adult" performers. It becomes relevant to talk about the shape of his pen!s (remember, she rather colorfully described it). It become Bill Clinton and Monica. Option B: He doesn't testify. Her testimony goes unrebutted. Option C: He testifes, admits he had sex with her, but says ... what else?

This is astounding. It is necessary, but still astounding that a Democratic Governor would use the National Guard for the general protection against crime rather than in response to violent protests, etc. The civil rights vs. law enforcement pendulum has officially swung back in the law enforcement direction. Congrats on finding the perfect Beaver Teeth shot.

You are Trying to Blame ME for pointing out an Incoherent Response in which I Subtly but STRONGLY stated that the WITCH HUNT focusing on what Trump did with his POWERFUL PEN!S and some skank with the ASSISTANCE OF GOOD DRUGS from Pfizer is an attempt to deflect from the TRUTH that Old Joe is IN FACT 4 years older then (sic) ME.

Your response would have been much STRONGER with Some Random Capitalization. Learn From the MASTER. You are an UNPRESIDENTED fail.

It is not a "smear" to quote someone accurately. If there is something inaccurate, point it out. The guy has clearly stated that he does not believe the Holocaust was a real thing, that he questions whether the moon landings actually happened, that he believes 9/11 was an inside job, and that America was better before women had the right to vote. And this is your candidate. Oh, and Trump's too.

What's with the random capitalization?

Israel is systematically enacting its own From the River to the Sea policy.

And if you listen to them, a lot of these kids really believe they’ll be an influencer or YouTube star, so finishing high school and going to college is just a thing you do until that becomes a reality. I know it’s an “ok boomer” comment, but there really is a culture of laziness.

Trump's overwhelmingly most important legislative achievement: signing off on Paul Ryan's tax cuts.

These are CIVIL matters. The 8th Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment for commission of crimes. Not to mention that the total amount of the fines/penalties would (taking Trump at his word) amount to something like 1/16 of his net worth, hardly "excessive." You are so far off base that you are somewhere outside the ballpark. I try not to comment on things I know absolutely nothing about; you should try it!

Good try. But no, it's not better. Because this story is about Iranian assets in the United States, hence "INTERNATIONAL" espionage or even terrorism.

Look at 0:16 as he mangles "Venezuela" and then just aborts rather than even trying again. And what the hell is that in the clip starting at 1:04? He just trails off into gibberish rather than even attempting to complete a thought. Not normal.

If only I could give you guys are real-time MCAT do-over ...

Or because someone doesn't understand what "domestic" means

There you go. Never an original thought. Cut and paste from some weirdo's twitter without attribution.