It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today’s speech, Trump has mostly ditched the “American Carnage” rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. “We have people in Congress right now who hate our country,” he said. “We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad.”
At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. “We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare,” he averred at one point. “Now you have a president who finally standing up for America.” The future, he said “does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I’ve said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country.” That’s a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.
Considering how sensitive Trump is...that's right, only a sensitive person would still be smarting at media misreporting of the attendance at his 2016 rallies...considering his sensitivity it is astounding that he has been able to hold up under non-stop "incoming," as he puts it, since the first Republican presidential debate
rhhardin, I did the same thing with Obama's speeches. I avoided listening to them because I didn't like the way Obama delivered them and I objected to their content. He was clearly speaking to people who are not me.
But then I'd read all about his speeches from Obama antagonists who characterized his speeches the way that I heard them. So I got all my information about Obama from Obama antagonists.
The Hot Air writing that Lem cites sounds terribly familiar. I'm having that déjà vu thing happening all over the place like a dead serious flashback to yesterday. A link on Drudge to Reason, an article by Nick Gillespie, a Trump-skeptic if not outright Anti-Trumper. I think Nick Gillespie is the dark-haired black leather jacket wearing emo sometimes linked on Instapundit with demi-intellectual videos that I never bother to watch anymore. Key words stick out, "American Carnage," "Pigpen," "workshopping his themes," and, "a line that may not work forever."
But the sample leaves out portions that quite nearly made me drop the whole effort. I was on edge of dropping it the whole time. Because I don't give a flat flying fuck about anyone's opinion about Trump and his very strange unfathomable ways.
* "deftly flinging juvenile taunts" (One too many adjectives there, Sport) * "72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star " Yes, that. Gillespie could have written 72-year-old Manhattan real estate developer. But this shows how Gillespie regards Trump. And I understand that because at each mention of Reagan I think, "ex-Hollywood actor with costarring monkey." * "At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams', Howard Stern or Don Rickles." Yes, he was very entertaining * "the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence." with a link no doubt to photos taken previous to the actual event and minus all the people amassed in protest. They did, after all, show up for the inauguration if only to be little pricks and to riot. Are they to be discounted? *"speech not as fact-challenged as all the others Trump has given (go to [some other place] for a running count of misstatements of fact). No, Gillespie, you can go fuck yourself instead. I'm not interested in some retard's collection of picayune misstatements by Trump coming away from Obama and avoiding Hillary Clinton. Not without a comparison spreadsheet that charts severity of lies to show how ridiculous you are.
* "Trade deficits -- he doesn't know what he is talking about." Quite the contrary, Gillespie, you don't know what you're talking about. My undergrad economics classes taught that trade deficits don't matter. And Gillespie hasn't a point to make there besides ad hominem. Mr. Black Leather Emo assumes all readers agree with this or assumes there is something there they don't know. But we don't know what that is because Gillespie doesn't say what's on his mind. *" He misrepresented NAFTA and new Trade Bill." How so? Gillespie doesn't mention the bit that sticks in his craw. * "He claimed people never left their seat just as they were leaving." No, Gillespie, he said people left to go to the bathroom.
You know what, Gillespie? Just fuck you. I have no reason anymore to read you acknowledging Trump will be reelected. Your opinions about Trump mean shit to me.
That's what I recall from yesterday. Gosh, it was like being right there all over again, then I realized, no, all that was just something I read somewhere.
I like the left for its idiocy and wild misreadings of people.
There's no market for hard news, which is why the MSM is all soap opera; but it produces a market for hearing of the latest idiocy of the left, which is right wing news.
My own political preference is leave people alone. The left at the moment are the enemy but an amusing and mockable enemy.
The social conservative right tends, when it's an enemy, to be more frightening.
7 comments:
I'm the audience for Media Matters' reaction, not the Trump rally stuff itself. Right wing mobs are mindless but not amusing like the left.
Not amusing - if our side is this dumb what hope do we have.
CPAC is not what it once was, but he did bring down the house.
It was a great speech. Democrats, socialists, communists and law profs (BIRM) are out to destroy this nation. Gun up, people.
from hot air...
It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today’s speech, Trump has mostly ditched the “American Carnage” rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. “We have people in Congress right now who hate our country,” he said. “We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad.”
At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. “We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare,” he averred at one point. “Now you have a president who finally standing up for America.” The future, he said “does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I’ve said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country.” That’s a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.
Considering how sensitive Trump is...that's right, only a sensitive person would still be smarting at media misreporting of the attendance at his 2016 rallies...considering his sensitivity it is astounding that he has been able to hold up under non-stop "incoming," as he puts it, since the first Republican presidential debate
rhhardin, I did the same thing with Obama's speeches. I avoided listening to them because I didn't like the way Obama delivered them and I objected to their content. He was clearly speaking to people who are not me.
But then I'd read all about his speeches from Obama antagonists who characterized his speeches the way that I heard them. So I got all my information about Obama from Obama antagonists.
But, Media Matters? Seriously?
The Hot Air writing that Lem cites sounds terribly familiar. I'm having that déjà vu thing happening all over the place like a dead serious flashback to yesterday. A link on Drudge to Reason, an article by Nick Gillespie, a Trump-skeptic if not outright Anti-Trumper. I think Nick Gillespie is the dark-haired black leather jacket wearing emo sometimes linked on Instapundit with demi-intellectual videos that I never bother to watch anymore. Key words stick out, "American Carnage," "Pigpen," "workshopping his themes," and, "a line that may not work forever."
But the sample leaves out portions that quite nearly made me drop the whole effort. I was on edge of dropping it the whole time. Because I don't give a flat flying fuck about anyone's opinion about Trump and his very strange unfathomable ways.
* "deftly flinging juvenile taunts" (One too many adjectives there, Sport)
* "72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star " Yes, that. Gillespie could have written 72-year-old Manhattan real estate developer. But this shows how Gillespie regards Trump. And I understand that because at each mention of Reagan I think, "ex-Hollywood actor with costarring monkey."
* "At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams', Howard Stern or Don Rickles." Yes, he was very entertaining
* "the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence." with a link no doubt to photos taken previous to the actual event and minus all the people amassed in protest. They did, after all, show up for the inauguration if only to be little pricks and to riot. Are they to be discounted?
*"speech not as fact-challenged as all the others Trump has given (go to [some other place] for a running count of misstatements of fact). No, Gillespie, you can go fuck yourself instead. I'm not interested in some retard's collection of picayune misstatements by Trump coming away from Obama and avoiding Hillary Clinton. Not without a comparison spreadsheet that charts severity of lies to show how ridiculous you are.
* "Trade deficits -- he doesn't know what he is talking about." Quite the contrary, Gillespie, you don't know what you're talking about. My undergrad economics classes taught that trade deficits don't matter. And Gillespie hasn't a point to make there besides ad hominem. Mr. Black Leather Emo assumes all readers agree with this or assumes there is something there they don't know. But we don't know what that is because Gillespie doesn't say what's on his mind.
*" He misrepresented NAFTA and new Trade Bill." How so? Gillespie doesn't mention the bit that sticks in his craw.
* "He claimed people never left their seat just as they were leaving." No, Gillespie, he said people left to go to the bathroom.
You know what, Gillespie? Just fuck you. I have no reason anymore to read you acknowledging Trump will be reelected. Your opinions about Trump mean shit to me.
That's what I recall from yesterday. Gosh, it was like being right there all over again, then I realized, no, all that was just something I read somewhere.
I like the left for its idiocy and wild misreadings of people.
There's no market for hard news, which is why the MSM is all soap opera; but it produces a market for hearing of the latest idiocy of the left, which is right wing news.
My own political preference is leave people alone. The left at the moment are the enemy but an amusing and mockable enemy.
The social conservative right tends, when it's an enemy, to be more frightening.
Post a Comment