|
Post by lovetodigi on Mar 1, 2017 16:53:16 GMT
Question I've watched other addresses and can't remember does the opposition normally not clap or stand during the addresses and does the military usually look so serious and stoic. Well during one of President Obamas addresses, one of the Republican called out "liar". They (Republicans) also sit through most of his address. So yes on the opposition normally not clapping. Not sure about the military. They didn't seem impressed, did they?
|
|
|
Post by lucillebluth on Mar 1, 2017 16:54:07 GMT
From what I am seeing, there was a 2 minute SO. They clapped breifly at the beginning and then sat. Along with Pelosi. There was a standing ovation, then everyone sat down, then Trump talked about the raid being a success. That's apparently when some Dems didn't stand back up. But your original post, that they didn't stand at all, seems to be untrue, at least from what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 1, 2017 16:54:07 GMT
I was glad to see him exercise more discipline is his speech. As a fiscal conservative, my thought was - how the hell are you going to pay for all that?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 1, 2017 17:04:19 GMT
An as an aside - the Democratic response was downright horrific. I'm starting to think the opposing side should just ditch these as I can't recall one that has been anything other than a train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 1, 2017 17:06:23 GMT
If I was there, I would be hesitant to clap for Trump's using the widow and the other family members who have lost loved ones as propaganda for his own gain.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 17:27:45 GMT
lucillebluth - I am trying to find video, but the filters at work are blocking it. But benny johnson on twitter seems to have seen the same thing. in any event, the focus for those two minutes should have been on honoring the soldier. Not making a point. The rest of the auddience - dems and r's alike seem to get that. But the "leaders" of the dem party want to make a point. They did, but I am sure not the one they intended.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 17:34:53 GMT
I am PISSED as hell about the hypocrisy...like a heaping pile of garbage!!! How in the SAM HELL is ALL of this military, infrastructure, etc., going to be paid for? Oh and the wall? Not tax increase! Guess we add it to the deficit? Some Peas right on this thread railed against Obama increasing the deficit. Laid Benghazi at the feet of Obama and Hillary. But yet, those same Peas are falling all over themselves to clap for EXACTLY the same thing and give atta boy to Trump. SMDH!!!!
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,265
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Mar 1, 2017 17:49:15 GMT
If I was there, I would be hesitant to clap for Trump's using the widow and the other family members who have lost loved ones as propaganda for his own gain. No one forced her or anyone else to be there. They could have declined the invitation but instead chose to be there.
|
|
|
Post by lucillebluth on Mar 1, 2017 17:51:11 GMT
lucillebluth - I am trying to find video, but the filters at work are blocking it. But benny johnson on twitter seems to have seen the same thing. in any event, the focus for those two minutes should have been on honoring the soldier. Not making a point. The rest of the auddience - dems and r's alike seem to get that. But the "leaders" of the dem party want to make a point. They did, but I am sure not the one they intended. link
I can't find a video that shows Ellison and DWS. I don't agree at all that Trump should be able to silence criticism (silent criticism at that!) by invoking a soldier's death.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:10:40 GMT
I don't agree at all that Trump should be able to silence criticism (silent criticism at that!) by invoking a soldier's death. My point was that when a soldier is honored and there is a bipartisan standing ovation for the soldier, those three should have stood. For the full two minutes as their colleagues did. Republicans didn't sit it out when Obama invited Nate and Cleo Pendleton, parents of Hadiya, who was killed in Chicago by gun violence at age 15. link
|
|
|
Post by lucillebluth on Mar 1, 2017 18:22:24 GMT
I don't agree at all that Trump should be able to silence criticism (silent criticism at that!) by invoking a soldier's death. My point was that when a soldier is honored and there is a bipartisan standing ovation for the soldier, those three should have stood. For the full two minutes as their colleagues did. Republicans didn't sit it out when Obama invited Nate and Cleo Pendleton, parents of Hadiya, who was killed in Chicago by gun violence at age 15. linkThey apparently did stand, contrary to your first post, they just did not (apparently) stand up AGAIN when Trump made his point that the raid was a success.
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Mar 1, 2017 18:22:42 GMT
All I heard was a lot of talking about what he's going to do and not one word about how these things will be accomplished or funded. Then all the republicans stood to clap for every single talking point, which became comical. I swear I could hear the creaking of the knees of all those elderly white men and hoped they all took their osteo-biflex that morning, as they were compelled to stand up literally every two minutes.
Anyone who thought that was a great speech is simply comparing it to all his previous speeches.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 1, 2017 18:25:01 GMT
If I was there, I would be hesitant to clap for Trump's using the widow and the other family members who have lost loved ones as propaganda for his own gain. No one forced her or anyone else to be there. They could have declined the invitation but instead chose to be there. I'm not saying that he forced her to be there. But he had a very clear agenda in inviting her and the others. Nobody is saying that he and his wife don't deserve recognition. What some are not happy with is him using them and the comments that he made. @anmore what did you think of Trump's treatment of military families during the campaign?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:25:43 GMT
@fred - whoops ! I got a notification that you liked my post! I came back on because frankly I was shocked.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,070
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Mar 1, 2017 18:30:50 GMT
Perhaps they wanted to pay respects also to the sailor's father, who is calling for an investigation? Perhaps they wanted to also pay respects to the 8 year old American citizen killed? Or the other 9 children? Or the US backed ally that was killed and not the intended terrorist target? Or the number of wounded?
Perhaps they felt putting a widow's grief on display a month out just felt too exploitive?
Should everyone who stood and clapped for 2 minutes now unquestioningly get behind an increase to the military budget that is already the largest in the world, because to do otherwise is to dishonor Ryan Owens?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:51:37 GMT
@fred - whoops ! I got a notification that you liked my post! I came back on because frankly I was shocked. No that was a mistake. I was aiming for the "quote" button and kept hitting "like". I did a response and apparently I then deleted it. Snopes reviewed yours and others claim of Democrats sitting down during the standing ovation for Owen's widow. After reviewing several videos they made the determination that it was unproven that the Democrats in question sat during the standing ovation. Here is the Snopes link. link
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 11:20:51 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 19:11:35 GMT
It seems I'm not the only who had a problem with trump's tribute to Ryan Owens last night. Not that he didn't deserve it. He certainly did. No question. My problem is with the guy who gave it. Especially after what he had said prior to last night's tribute.
Paul Waldman in the Washington Post articulated what I was thinking.
From the article below sums it up for me. "Sorry--no. was that moment with Owens widow in attendance, moving and sad? Absolutely. It was also one of the most cynical things Donald trump has done as president"
The Plum Line Opinion The pundits are wrong. Trump’s handling of the Ryan Owens affair was contemptibly cynical. By Paul Waldman March 1 at 1:06 PM
After Donald Trump’s first address to Congress last night, journalists and pundits were effusive in their praise of one particular moment, when Trump talked about Ryan Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in the disastrous raid of an Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) compound in Yemen that Trump ordered in late January. “It was without a doubt one of the most kind of emotional moments we have seen in a political speech like this in quite some time,” said Anderson Cooper. “That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period,” said Van Jones. The Washington Times called it “the most riveting piece of political theater” and claimed that “The president’s critics and supporters alike admired it.”
Sorry — no. Was that moment, with Owens’ widow in attendance, moving and sad? Absolutely. It was also one of the most cynical things Donald Trump has done as president.
The problem isn’t that Trump honored Carryn Owens at a moment of terrible grief, or that he spoke movingly of her husband’s death. All that was altogether appropriate. Rather, the problem is that he did this after trying to evade any responsibility for what happened, and after the White House cast any criticism of his handling of it as an insult to Ryan’s legacy. In this sense, the entire story raises serious doubts about Trump’s decision-making on matters of national security, and it may be a grim preview of what’s to come.
Let’s review the facts. The Yemen raid on January 29 was the first military action of Trump’s presidency. The idea for raiding this compound, partly in pursuit of the leader of AQAP leader (who wasn’t there) was presented to Trump over dinner one night, and according to NBC News, military representatives “told Trump that they doubted that the Obama administration would have been bold enough to try it,” which was apparently good enough to get him to sign off.
Then almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The militants knew they were coming, possibly tipped off by the increased sound of drones in the area. The team encountered stronger resistance than it expected. A couple of dozen civilians were killed (we don’t know exactly how many, but it could be as many as 30), including children, among them an 8-year-old American girl. Owens was killed. A $75 million Osprey aircraft was damaged in a “hard landing” and had to be destroyed lest it fall into AQAP’s hands.j We all know that if it had been Hillary Clinton who ordered the Yemen raid, there would already be multiple congressional investigations underway and subpoenas would be falling like rain. That’s one thing the White House doesn’t have to worry about. But they decided that the way to handle questions about the botched raid was to use Ryan Owens as a shield. The raid was a terrific success, said spokesman Sean Spicer, and “anyone that would suggest it’s not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens.”
But the questions, and the criticisms, kept coming, most pointedly from Owens’ father, himself a veteran. “Don’t hide behind my son’s death,” Bill Owens told the Miami Herald, after refusing to meet with President Trump at Dover Air Force Base.
That brings us to the day of Trump’s speech to Congress. With Carryn Owens invited to the speech and the tribute to her husband being written, the President went on “Fox and Friends” that morning and passed the buck for the raid, blaming it on the Obama administration and the military. “This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do,” he said. “They came to see me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.”
Once again, imagine if Hillary Clinton were president, had ordered an operation that went terribly wrong, and then tried to blame it on the military. Republicans would have absolutely lost their minds with rage, and they would have been right. When you’re president, you don’t get to send American servicemembers into harm’s way in an operation you obviously didn’t understand, and then when it all goes wrong and one of those servicemembers is killed, claim that it was somebody else’s fault.
Then that very night, Trump went before the country, looked Owens’ widow in the face, and presented a tribute to her husband’s undeniable service and courage. As the applause went on and Carryn Owens stood weeping, Trump offered what in the tiny, narcissistic world he exists in is the highest form of praise: “And Ryan is looking down, right now, you know that. And he’s very happy, because I think he just broke a record,” referring to the length of the ovation.
What exactly is that supposed to mean? Owens set the “Longest Applause for Dead Servicemember In Joint Speech to Congress” record? What kind of person could possibly think that would matter to anyone? Oh, right — Donald Trump would.
There are legitimate, outstanding questions about whether Trump’s inexperience, his ignorance, and his desire to seem “tough” — in particular, tougher than Barack Obama — led to Ryan Owens’ death. A president not as spectacularly unprepared and clueless as Trump might have asked a different set of questions, might not have been so easily manipulated — and certainly would have shown some desire to learn from the tragedy.
But Trump seems determined not to learn a thing. All we’ve heard from him and his aides in the month since the disastrous raid was what a great success it was (despite the fact that at least some reports say that the raid produced little if any useful intelligence). So what happens next time, and the time after that?
When a president makes the decision to send American troops into potentially deadly situations, he has to weigh the risks involved against the potential benefits, which requires knowledge, foresight, and some analytical capability, none of which Trump demonstrates possessing in the slightest. He also needs to consider how he’ll deal with failure if it occurs.
Nearly every recent president, Democrat and Republican, has faced that moment of going before the public and saying, “I ordered this operation, and it failed. It’s on me.” But Trump, as we well know, is incapable of taking responsibility. He had his first chance, and his answer was to blame it on the military, then use the sacrifice of a dead SEAL and his widow for his own benefit.
So maybe it’s not the time to gush about what good theater it all was.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 1, 2017 19:20:02 GMT
@fred, thank you for posting that article.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 1, 2017 19:23:27 GMT
@fred - whoops ! I got a notification that you liked my post! I came back on because frankly I was shocked. No that was a mistake. I was aiming for the "quote" button and kept hitting "like". I did a response and apparently I then deleted it. Snopes reviewed yours and others claim of Democrats sitting down during the standing ovation for Owen's widow. After reviewing several videos they made the determination that it was unproven that the Democrats in question sat during the standing ovation. Here is the Snopes link. link FALSE, not unproven. Snopes changed it based on additional evidence. There is photographic evidence that they were standing during the ovation, and the photograph that shows them seated was from about 30 minutes earlier in the speech.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Mar 1, 2017 19:24:19 GMT
An as an aside - the Democratic response was downright horrific. I'm starting to think the opposing side should just ditch these as I can't recall one that has been anything other than a train wreck. I've really been enjoying SNL this past election cycle and especially all the Trump and Hilary parody. I was watching a recorded episode last night that made me think of this board. During the Weekend Update one of the guys said when you really don't like someone, you don't want to see them make any decisions, even if it's in your favor. Trump could sign an order for free pizza tomorrow and protesters would be outside the white house demanding tacos. I really think that it doesn't matter what he does, it will never be right or enough. Both political parties are thinking of themselves and refuse to give an inch to the other. And people hate him so much that they can't see anything other than their hate.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Mar 1, 2017 20:03:12 GMT
~Lauren~ seems to have blocked me - unless she just deleted her post after someone quoted it. If she has blocked me, please let her know that this Canadian would be thrilled to have those immigrants the US rejects. The US is going to find that while it may seem like a good idea to throw these people out, it's very likely to have negative economic consequences. As has been stated by many in the past, these folks do jobs that most won't take.
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Mar 1, 2017 20:06:14 GMT
~Lauren~ seems to have blocked me - unless she just deleted her post after someone quoted it. If she has blocked me, please let her know that this Canadian would be thrilled to have those immigrants the US rejects. The US is going to find that while it may seem like a good idea to throw these people out, it's very likely to have negative economic consequences. As has been stated by many in the past, these folks do jobs that most won't take. Why waste the time? She's not here to discuss the fine points with you, me, or anyone else. You should know that by now.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Mar 1, 2017 20:09:08 GMT
~Lauren~ seems to have blocked me - unless she just deleted her post after someone quoted it. If she has blocked me, please let her know that this Canadian would be thrilled to have those immigrants the US rejects. The US is going to find that while it may seem like a good idea to throw these people out, it's very likely to have negative economic consequences. As has been stated by many in the past, these folks do jobs that most won't take. Why waste the time? She's not here to discuss the fine points with you, me, or anyone else. You should know that by now. In spite of myself, I enjoy debating with Lauren. It gives me practice for debates with my father. They've very alike (though my father doesn't tend to hit as low as L has in the past). Also - the Golden Rule thing. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you... not how they actually do. ~Lauren~ - I see I can still tag you, so I would think that means you've not blocked me. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Mar 1, 2017 20:18:34 GMT
An as an aside - the Democratic response was downright horrific. I'm starting to think the opposing side should just ditch these as I can't recall one that has been anything other than a train wreck. It's obvious the "response" statements are prefab and don't always hit on every issue brought up in whatever address they're responding to, but the Democratic response from former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear addressed many of the issues I had (have) with statements Trump made last night, and with previous statements and actions made by Trump. Save
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,789
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 1, 2017 20:21:34 GMT
This,too, is the area of the speech that stuck out to me. The rest of the time I was just somewhat amazed that he kept on target, regardless of the content. At this point (speaking of Ryan "looking down right now") I thought, " no, no, this isn't your story to tell, you don't get to assume to know what someone you didn't know would think. Especially since he died under your watch." I'll just leave it here. Point? I wasn't assuming to know what DJT was thinking, just what I was thinking and uncomfortable with him speaking for Ryan, who can't speak for himself, at all. He can, and does, say what ever he wants, speaking for himself. I don't have to agree
|
|
|
Post by hollymolly on Mar 1, 2017 20:27:30 GMT
She's a lawyer. It's her job to defend the indefensible. She doesn't care if they're right or wrong, moral or immoral, cheats, liars or criminals.. She'll defend them no matter what. It's what she does. And arguing is her favorite pastime. She knows he's an asshole, but she'll argue til the cows come home that he's not rather than admit it.This,too, is the area of the speech that stuck out to me. The rest of the time I was just somewhat amazed that he kept on target, regardless of the content. At this point (speaking of Ryan "looking down right now") I thought, " no, no, this isn't your story to tell, you don't get to assume to know what someone you didn't know would think. Especially since he died under your watch." I'll just leave it here. FYI, these are two different posters. The two quotes can't be taken together to prove a point about either of them. You are not a hypocrite if your comment contradicts someone else's, even if you have some beliefs in common. Hypocrisy is when the same person says one thing and then makes a second comment that contradicts the first.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,789
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Mar 1, 2017 20:43:39 GMT
FYI, these are two different posters. The two quotes can't be taken together to prove a point about either of them. You are not a hypocrite if your comment contradicts someone else's, even if you have some beliefs in common. Hypocrisy is when the same person says one thing and then makes a second comment that contradicts the first. if that was her intention, wow. I didn't even catch that. When she quoted me, I was just trying to figure how what I said (on it's own) was debatable.
|
|
|
Post by beebee on Mar 1, 2017 20:47:45 GMT
I am PISSED as hell about the hypocrisy...like a heaping pile of garbage!!! How in the SAM HELL is ALL of this military, infrastructure, etc., going to be paid for? Oh and the wall? Not tax increase! Guess we add it to the deficit? Some Peas right on this thread railed against Obama increasing the deficit. Laid Benghazi at the feet of Obama and Hillary. But yet, those same Peas are falling all over themselves to clap for EXACTLY the same thing and give atta boy to Trump. SMDH!!!! I am one that is not happy about the deficit. All the spending talk is worrying me. Our leaders, no matter what side they are on, have to recognize that America is going to be in trouble if we don't get our fiscal issues under control.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 1, 2017 20:49:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Mar 1, 2017 20:50:01 GMT
All I heard was a lot of talking about what he's going to do and not one word about how these things will be accomplished or funded. Then all the republicans stood to clap for every single talking point, which became comical. I swear I could hear the creaking of the knees of all those elderly white men and hoped they all took their osteo-biflex that morning, as they were compelled to stand up literally every two minutes. Anyone who thought that was a great speech is simply comparing it to all his previous speeches. My husband and I had a discussion about this. Reading a speech and pausing when necessary is a skill I taught my fifth graders. It matters what he does. It matters what he says later on Twitter and who he offends. It matters what he does for the environment, women, etc. It matters what he does to our allies. How has the bar been lowered so far that just reading makes him successful? I will say it was nice to hear that he could act the way he should, but in my book, you don't get gold stars for doing what almost everyone can do.
|
|