SotU 2019

[D.W.]

So, no big surprises really, but I was a bit bummed out that "infrastructure" got like one little line and no plan forward. 

He pushed a bit harder on anti-abortion than I anticipated I guess, but other than that, went about how I expected.

[Crunch]

CNN poll: 59% had very positive view of speech.
CBS poll: 76% approve of speech. 72% said they approved of Pres. Trump's ideas for immigration.
The speech was so good that Van Jones lost his mind, talinjg about cookies and “dog poop”.

Politico led the way with fact checks:

SOTU fact check: Trump said “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the  long journey north.” That's partly true.

Yep, it’s actually only 31%. Great work politico.

Not to be outdone, Trump was awarded 4 pinochio’s for saying holocaust survivors saw their American liberators as angels. The 4 pinochios was due to the fact that all the liberators were, in fact, human.

Democrats went into throwback mode and wore all white, sending a message of support to Ralph Northam. At least they didn’t wear the hoods.

[TheDrake]

I don't know where to begin, is trump more misleading or are you Crunch?

The "polls" he is talking about are "instant polls" where the sample is people watching the SOTU. It doesn't take a lot of head scratching to realize that more Trump supporters are going to watch his speech than people who can't stand him and his policies.

And while 97 percent of Republicans approved of the speech, far fewer Democrats who tuned in did (30 percent).

Meanwhile, 43% of speech watchers were Republican and 24% Democrat.

Politico did a live fact check but I don't see any "partly true" judgment there. The full quote inline:

A 2017 report by Doctors Without Borders found 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been sexually abused while traveling through Mexico. For the report, the medical organization randomly surveyed 467 migrants in shelters that it supports in Mexico — what it called "a snapshot in time" based on the population available in the selected facilities.

Sorry, I dug deeper and found that Politico put a Partly True on their facebook feed, it just doesn't appear on the website. Politico didn't justify their partially true, but WaPo elaborates:

The White House attributes the 1-in-3 estimate to a 2017 report by Doctors Without Borders. But there’s less to that number than meets the eye.

Trump states as a fact that 1 out of 3 women traveling through Mexico are sexually assaulted. But the report did not conduct a random-sample survey that could be applied to all migrant women. Instead, the group interviewed nearly 500 people whom its doctors treated, of which 12 percent were women. So the statistic is derived from the experiences of 56 women and cannot necessarily be considered representative of all migrant women.

In the interviews, 31.4 percent of women said they were “sexually abused” on the journey, not “sexually assaulted” as Trump says. Considering only rape and other forms of direct sexual violence, 10.7 percent of the women who were interviewed said they were affected during their journey.

I wonder if women who are assaulted might be more likely to need medical attention and therefore be interviewed by Médecins Sans Frontières? I wonder what a margin for error might be when only 56 women are in the sample?

Another lame attempt at humor, and smearing Democrats as racists, ignores the real reason that the Democratic women wore white (not all the Democrats). Of course, this was a tribute to Susan B Anthony and other women who fought for the right to vote. And, highlighting the larger number of elected women on their side of the aisle.

[D.W.]

I’m about the furthest towards a detractor you can be to the president without secret service scrutiny (I think?) and Crunch’s trolling aside…  It was a decent speech. 

The man’s abrupt topic swings were a little jarring, BUT he tended to go from feel good fluff or safe bipartisan sentiment into his more highly contentious/partisan talking points.  So while it may have come off as poor speech flow, it did work to disrupt negative momentum from those who disagree with him.

Did he strike any “lets come together” moments?  No, not really.  There may be more common ground yet to come on health care which is a positive thing.  Again, infrastructure was a huge missed opportunity on his part as far as I’m concerned.  I get that there is a huge divide on how to pay for it still, but he could have focused more on this topic.

Trying to make the case that investigations are a threat to our prosperity was a… bold move? 

I typically do refuse to watch any speech by him and didn’t watch the previous SOTU and prefer to read the transcripts the next day.  His rambling speaking style tends to effect me like nails on a chalkboard.
 But, the man is not a total train wreck (of a public speaker) when working from a script.  Inspiring or unifying?  No, but I think a 59% grade is fair of someone who’s personal and party politics I reject.

As to your trolling Crunch, I didn’t see the actual “4 pinochio’s” citation, but the live fact check I watched took issue with that line because of the religious implication being applied to Jewish believers.  That it is uncharacteristic for a Jew to have said such a thing, and Trump did phrase it as if he was told this by one of the men there that evening.  Maybe it is close to a direct quote though, I sure as hell wasn’t in the room with them.  Also, it IS a stupid thing to fact check.  I’ll leave the rest of your frothing alone.

[Seriati]

Politico's "fact checking" leaves a lot to be desired.  I went last to check on some bold faced lies of Ms. Abrams and discovered they didn't bother to fact check them.  Check out this passage:

The Republican tax bill rigged the system against working people. Rather than bringing back jobs, plants are closing, layoffs are looming, and wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living.

In this statement, they chose to "fact check" wages, notwithstanding that a claim "plants are closing" under an administration that has brought back manufacturing jobs, which the media deemed impossible, should have gotten a massive smack down. 

So what did they need "fact check" on wages?

Wage growth has been sluggish since the Great Recession but gained steam in recent months, with average hourly private-sector earnings up by 3.2 percent in January.

Is that the way to tell the truth about wage growth hitting a 9 year high?  That makes it sound like Trump is lagging.

Here's how the comparatively neutral BBC covered the same concepts:

[qoute]https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46072979[/quote]

So Abrams gets away with a lie, which the fact checker doesn't bother with (if they thought it was true they could have "fact checked" and shown it true) and the fact checker doubles down on underselling on another point, and you get a truly and deliberately misleading impression if you are someone who wants to believe the worst about the President.

[D.W.]

What did you all make of the applause line when he spoke about pulling out of the Russian nuclear arms treaty?

I'm not even sure he was wrong to do so, but it struck me as just an awkward thing to applaud; and an odd thing to highlight.

[Seriati]

Trump's speech was one of his better ones.  He does a great job with his guests, and he did a good job with grabbing the reasonable part of the ground on most issues (not that he'll get to keep it as the media will repackage and repackage and repackage until they can twist it into something he never said).  He does ramble, less in this speech than normal, but he did forget where he was a couple of times and have bizarre transitions.

The funniest parts were the images of the Democrats sitting on their hands for things that everyone should support and Pelosi sucking her teeth (what was up with that).  You miss that in the transcripts my friend.  Seeing AOC not knowing when to stand, and sitting when she shouldn't have should open a view eyes about her - for example.

[TheDrake]

I'm not a fan of Politico either. I generally dismiss what they have to say, and I never cite them without looking elsewhere.

[TheDrake]

The sitting/standing/murmuring commentary has been the worst part of the SOTU for a long time before Trump. It's one of the reasons I can't stand watching these speeches by any President.

[Seriati]

What did you all make of the applause line when he spoke about pulling out of the Russian nuclear arms treaty?

I think unlike the populace, the politicians already know that the treaty hasn't been honored and are super concerned about the people who are not bound (like China) that are aggressively developing new technology.  The treaties needed to adapt for the changing "Super" power world and just didn't.

[D.W.]

You are right that you miss out on body language and the cameras focusing on others to get reactions.  Granted I didn’t read into things the same way or find disagreeable or revealing sitting/standing/clapping outside of my expectations.  AOC seemed to react how I would have expected.  I did miss the Pelosi facial expressions though, so maybe you caught something I didn’t.

The only one that stood out to me was the man recovering from gunshots brushing off the person who tried to help him stand when he didn’t need/want that assistance. 

What do you mean by forgetting where he was?  I only noticed one stutter of that sort when it seemed he was going to (or scripted to) ask one of his guests to stand and they already were.  Over all though, he did do a good job with all his guests I thought. 

[D.W.]

What did you all make of the applause line when he spoke about pulling out of the Russian nuclear arms treaty?

I think unlike the populace, the politicians already know that the treaty hasn't been honored and are super concerned about the people who are not bound (like China) that are aggressively developing new technology.  The treaties needed to adapt for the changing "Super" power world and just didn't.

I agree.  But he didn't go on to suggest that we should make any efforts to forge a new treaty (including China) or stress the importance of international coalitions against such provocations.  Or maybe an opportunity to take a harder position against Russia?  IDK, it just seemed like this statement needed to dovetail into a policy goal/position/change.  Yet people clapped.  So maybe I'm missing something?

[Seriati]

I just meant he seemed to forget where he was in the speech a couple times.  Really slow sentence and then taking off on a new issue without a "conclusion" on the prior or any kind of transition.

[Fenring]

but the live fact check I watched took issue with that line because of the religious implication being applied to Jewish believers.  That it is uncharacteristic for a Jew to have said such a thing, and Trump did phrase it as if he was told this by one of the men there that evening.  Maybe it is close to a direct quote though, I sure as hell wasn’t in the room with them.  Also, it IS a stupid thing to fact check.  I’ll leave the rest of your frothing alone.

Not only is it a stupid thing to fact check, but whoever said that is either ignorant or lying. Jews make reference to angels all the time, and specifically in context of "X did this great thing for the Jews, and they an angle for doing so." It's actually a completely standard turn of phrase. In fact, compared to a Catholic, you'll find both secular and religious Jews using 'angel' in this non-literal sense, whereas I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a practicing Catholic refer to any human as an angel (perhaps unless referring to a cute baby). The theological error of referring to a human as an angel would likely bother a Christian, perhaps depending on denomination, but such language seems to be commonplace for Jewish people, as I've heard it umpteen times in regular conversation. And for much smaller stuff than liberating an entire continent of people!

[TheDrake]

The theological error of referring to a human as an angel would likely bother a Christian, perhaps depending on denomination

You're telling me its rare for a Christian woman to look at a baby or child and call them a little angel?

[Fenring]

The theological error of referring to a human as an angel would likely bother a Christian, perhaps depending on denomination

You're telling me its rare for a Christian woman to look at a baby or child and call them a little angel?

Didn't I already put in the baby disclaimer? I'm talking about referring to adult human actions as angelic, or referring to people who do good deeds as angels.

[TheDeamon]

For another press distortion of the SotU in the name of "fact checking" the Local ABC News station ran a national feed from Washington talking about the SotU address. It included this gem:

"President Trump said in his address he wanted to see 'more legal immigration than has ever happened before' but his administration has set a much lower limit on the number of refugees the United States will accept."

...Uh, not every immigrant is a refugee. In fact most immigrants typically should NOT be classified as being such.

But then I guess in this new era of "economic refugee" status being a thing according to activist groups, anybody immigrating "in pursuit of economic opportunity" is now a refugee.

[TheDrake]

Didn't I already put in the baby disclaimer? I'm talking about referring to adult human actions as angelic, or referring to people who do good deeds as angels.

oops.

[D.W.]

anybody immigrating "in pursuit of economic opportunity" is now a refugee.

That's not true?  Now if it's just "better economic opportunity" then it's not.  But if you have zero...  Unless there is some sort of safety net that provides for all their needs without any opportunity. 

[D.W.]

Democrats went into throwback mode and wore all white, sending a message of support to Ralph Northam. At least they didn’t wear the hoods.

Interestingly I'm seeing this pop up in other places.  I assumed it was just Crunch's special brand of humor, but seeing Dem's in white = KKK jokes to more people than I would have guessed. 

https://wokesloth.com/campaign-adviser-democrats-all-white/emily/?utm_content=buffer54f82&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy&fbclid=IwAR2UZ0HWqnh2LeixTqtutlBCH3hkHZaBZqEkPuMwAP0E_t4MQcY9xG7UcG8

Hilarious?

[TheDeamon]

Considering the Democratic Party and the KKK have far more of a history together than anything that can be pointed at on the Republican side, it is a reasonable connection to make.

[D.W.]

Set up and knocked down.
 

I mean, it's not blackface funny, but, roll with it. 

[Seriati]

anybody immigrating "in pursuit of economic opportunity" is now a refugee.

That's not true?  Now if it's just "better economic opportunity" then it's not.  But if you have zero...  Unless there is some sort of safety net that provides for all their needs without any opportunity. 

It's not true. 

Lack of economic opportunity does not make one a refugee.

Refugees - historically - are only those fleeing governmental persecution or general wars.

Here's the qualification standards from the EU, less you think this is a "Trump thing."

‘refugee’    means    a    third-country    national    who,    owing    to    a   
well-founded  fear  of  being  persecuted  for  reasons  of  race, 
religion,  nationality,  political  opinion  or  membership  of  a 
particular  social  group,  is  outside  the  country  of  nationality 
and  is  unable  or,  owing  to  such  fear,  is  unwilling  to  avail 
himself  or  herself  of  the  protection  of  that  country,  or  a 
stateless   person,   who,   being   outside   of   the   country   of   
former    habitual    residence    for    the    same    reasons    as   
mentioned    above,    is    unable    or,    owing    to    such    fear,   
unwilling   to   return   to   it,   and   to   whom   Article   12   does   
not  apply;

Economic opportunity isn't on there.

[TheDrake]

Seriati is right. Under UN refugee definitions, even mass starvation does not qualify.

It is important to realize that the persecution need not be perpetrated by the state itself. A lot of people have suggested that fleeing gang violence is not a good reason for asylum, but the UN handbook make it clear:

There is scope within the refugee definition to recognize both State and non-State
agents of persecution. While persecution is often perpetrated by the authorities of a
country, it can also be perpetrated by individuals if the persecutory acts are “knowingly
tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable to offer effective
protection”. In most situations involving victims or potential victims of trafficking, the
persecutory acts emanate from individuals, that is, traffickers or criminal enterprises or,
in some situations, family or community members. Under these circumstances, it is also
necessary to examine whether the authorities of the country of origin are able and willing
to protect the victim or potential victim upon return.

I imagine a whole lot of people in Venezuela fit this bill. Since Trump cares so much about Venezuelans lately, I assume he'll volunteer to take on some of the one million refugees currently residing in Colombia.

[Seriati]

He might, the truth is that refugees have not been historically interested in permanent relocation.  They are interested in temporary safety that their own government can't provide and ultimately in going back when things stablize  They are displaced people.

Treating migrants as refugees is a ridiculous attempt at redefinition and dangerously complicates things for real refugees.

[D.W.]

Thanks for the guideline/definition.  Hadn't realized it was as narrow as that.

[Wayward Son]

"President Trump said in his address he wanted to see 'more legal immigration than has ever happened before' but his administration has set a much lower limit on the number of refugees the United States will accept."

...Uh, not every immigrant is a refugee. In fact most immigrants typically should NOT be classified as being such.

I see your point that not every immigrant is a refugee.  But out of curiosity, how much has the Trump Administration increased legal immigration?  Is there a category of legal immigration that has increased, or has been proposed to be increased, since he wants to see "more legal immigration than has ever happened before?"  If not refugees or H1B or such, exactly what type of immigration is he referring to? 

[TheDeamon]

"President Trump said in his address he wanted to see 'more legal immigration than has ever happened before' but his administration has set a much lower limit on the number of refugees the United States will accept."

...Uh, not every immigrant is a refugee. In fact most immigrants typically should NOT be classified as being such.

I see your point that not every immigrant is a refugee.  But out of curiosity, how much has the Trump Administration increased legal immigration?  Is there a category of legal immigration that has increased, or has been proposed to be increased, since he wants to see "more legal immigration than has ever happened before?"  If not refugees or H1B or such, exactly what type of immigration is he referring to? 

That's a valid question, but not one the "Fact Checkers" bothered to look into, they fixated on Refugees and called it a day.

[TheDrake]

Trump's usual statement is that he wants to see skilled people coming into the country. I've seen the administration cracking down on H1B applications and making visas harder to get. I have colleagues that have been H1B for multiple years and they have concerns that they won't be able to return if they visit their families in India. In at least two cases, they were proven right - they experienced delays that forced them to resubmit and work as best they could remotely.

When asked about Trump’s tweet, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Michael Bars provided a statement about a formal proposal in December for changes to the H-1B process, which are likely to become final later this year.

The proposal is designed to increase by 5,340, or 16 percent, the number of H-1B beneficiaries who hold advanced degrees from American universities. It would also streamline the application process with a new electronic registration system.

“These proposed regulatory changes would help ensure more of the best and brightest workers from around the world come to America under the H-1B program,” Bars said.

“I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally,” Mr. Trump said in his State of the Union address Tuesday, adding the unscripted phrase “in the largest numbers ever.” He repeated the sentiments Wednesday in an interview with regional reporters.

five thousand != largest numbers ever

And in fact, this isn't adding anything, it just shifts who wins the H1B lottery.

[Seriati]

I think he'd be happy with a grand bargain, fully secured border for a reformed immigration system that works.  Getting agreement on what works though is tough.  But no one's seriously proposing a massive increase in legal immigration without the ability to control illegal immigration.

[Wayward Son]

And since no one has a plan that would control illegal immigration (even The Wall would, at best, control only 40 percent of it, and even that's disputable), I take it that this is one of those "wish upon a star" kind of wants.