Yeah, I predict a Twitterstorm tonight. The restraint is taking its toll and the pressure is building rapidly. Steve Beshear may be an early target (“Loser!”) but I expect this twitter storm to act like a tornado and attack seemingly random targets.
I also expect a backlash when he realizes that his speech didn’t unify everyone and make everyone fall in love with him and stop talking about Russia.
He stuck to the TelePrompTer well. I certainly hope he delivers on all his promises. Everybody will have cheaper and better health care, we will build up the military and infrastructure, everybody will have high paying jobs and pay less taxes, drugs will vanish from this country and the government will subsidize addiction treatment, companies will pay for parental leave yet still make higher profits, the lion will lie down with the lamb, swords will be beaten into plowshares and the national debt will decrease. How can anybody argue with such a great plan? I’m sure working out the pesky details will be easy.
No, that was the longest, greatest speech ever given, like…ever!!
This speech seems quite to similar to Tony Blair’s words on Brexit recently, in the sense that Blair presented a well-reasoned argument, but it was ad hominemed because Blair is hated in the UK.
About 70% of the things mentioned in Trump’s speech tonight were things that ought to in theory be bipartisan, but it was or will get ad-hominemed because Trump is Trump. I was actually surprisingly impressed by the speech.
Let’s pretend for a moment that it wasn’t Trump, but rather, President Evan McMullin or someone like that, saying the exact words. Wouldn’t it get pretty broad applause?
Trump condemned the shooting of 4,000 people in Chicago last year. What’s not for Democrats to support about that part of the speech?
Trump pointed out that for the $6 trillion spent in wars in the Middle East, the United States could have been rebuilt twice already. Isn’t that exactly what many Democrats have said?
Trump said that healthcare reform needed to cover people with preexisting conditions. What’s not for Democrats to support about that part of the speech?
Trump said the United States must strongly support NATO, isn’t that what Republicans and Democrats both wanted?
In fact, doesn’t it sound pretty much like a speech President Bill Clinton would have said when addressing Congress 20 years ago? The very definition of ad hominem is to oppose something on the basis of the speaker, not the message/content, and it seems that Trump tonight said many things a conservative Democrat would have said. If people want to object to Democratic conservatism, sure, that’s one thing, but to oppose it “because it’s Trump” is the very definition of ad hominem.
And?
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when it’s used to argue against a concept. But it’s perfectly appropriate when your point is that someone is an asshole.
Yes, he read a bunch of lines crafted to sound bipartisan. If someone with a shred of sincerity had said it, fine. If Trump says it, after appointing a bunch of people to cabinet positions who apparently were picked precisely because they are against everything he just pretended to be for, and who has himself repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t mean a word of it (e.g., his crocodile tears about the money we’ve spent on military adventures, while in the same speech asking for “one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history”), then why in the world would I stand and applaud? Can anyone be stupid enough to think he means it?
I’ll wait for the specifics. Is he really going to cut the deficit? Is he really going to propose spending on needed infrastructure, or will it just be tax breaks for private companies to build toll roads and run them for their own profit?
Details matter.
I didn’t agree with everything he said; he’s a bit too “big government” for me and my anarcho-capitalist leanings. But I did stand up and cheer at two things he said, which Obama would NEVER have uttered even if you put his dick in a bunsen burner:
Radical Islamic Terror
America First!!
Word. During the election I figured Trump was punking either the Republicans or the Democrats. And the crazy thing was that you really couldn’t tell which one it was. But every person he has nominated/appointed ihas been met with widespread enthusiastic approval on the right. So if I had to choose between Trump’s words and the evidence of his actions, I’d take the actions at this point.
In what sense was Trump’s speech a “well-reasoned argument”? It was certainly a well-imagined wish-list, in that it spoke approvingly of a lot of things that most people would agree are good things to have.
But it presented absolutely zilch in the way of persuasive argument that anything Trump intends to do is actually likely to produce any of those good things.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
About 70% of the things mentioned in Trump’s speech tonight were things that ought to in theory be bipartisan, but it was or will get ad-hominemed because Trump is Trump.
[/quote]
Nah, it’s not that people are going to disparage any genuinely good ideas merely because they don’t like Trump. It’s that people are well aware that using vague feel-good rhetoric to disguise a severe lack of actual genuinely good ideas is Trump’s standard operating procedure. So why should we believe that Trump’s vague feel-good rhetoric is a harbinger of any actual genuinely good ideas this time?
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Let’s pretend for a moment that it wasn’t Trump, but rather, President Evan McMullin or someone like that, saying the exact words. Wouldn’t it get pretty broad applause?
[/quote]
If McMullin didn’t already have a well-earned reputation as a cynical, unscrupulous, untruthful, ignorant con artist, then sure it would. It’s not about disliking the content of the vague feel-good rhetoric, it’s about the distrusting the integrity of the politician spouting it.
Why are you imagining that because Donald Trump can recite an optimistic speech off a TelePrompTer, he’s suddenly become a different person from the under-informed, spiteful dictatorial narcissist we see on his Twitter account and in his interviews?
[QUOTE=Velocity]
The very definition of ad hominem is to oppose something on the basis of the speaker, not the message/content […] but to oppose it “because it’s Trump” is the very definition of ad hominem.
[/quote]
Like many other people, you misunderstand “the very definition of ad hominem”. [ETA: as TonySinclair has already pointed out.] An ad hominem argument is logically invalid as a rebuttal of the substance of a claim being made. But it is not invalid as a critique of the competence or trustworthiness of the claimant.
E.g., if Trump says “The general Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture in algebraic number theory is true”, and I respond “It’s probably not, because Trump is a chuckleheaded dishonest shitgibbon”, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. Trump’s personal characteristics have no bearing on whether this mathematical statement is actually true.
But if what I respond instead is “Irrespective of the truth status of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Trump is incapable of understanding it and would have no scruples about lying about it”, that’s not an ad hominem fallacy. It’s a critique of Trump’s reliability as a claimant rather than an attack on the veracity of the claim.
I would not believe that Trump was a competent research-level mathematician just because he uttered some words about the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, and I do not believe that Trump is a competent or trustworthy politician just because he uttered some words about making Americans happy and prosperous. In both cases, there is far too much available evidence about the sort of person Trump really is to take his words at face value.
About five or six times, (I didn’t count), Trump said, “Republicans AND Democrats,” in calling for bipartisan support of his agenda. I kept wishing he would have appended every single one of those appeals with, “and you too, Bernie!” That would have been hilarious and awesome!!!
Not to detract from your extremely risible witticism there, but in fact Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, so issues of R/D bipartisanship apply to him already.
Moreover, Sanders isn’t the only member of Congress who’s officially neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Senator Angus King of Maine is an Independent who also caucuses with the Dems.
My understanding is that the $54 billion increase in defense spending is to replenish a military that’s been depleted by foreign adventurism, not $54 billion to engage in more adventurism.
Dog and pony show. But they always are. Watching Obama’s addresses to congress were more tolerable because he’s actually a good speaker, but these things always see me tuning out due to Standing Ovation Overload alone. And this one … jesus … like Shoeless said - standing O every two sentences. It’s like he was reading bullet points off a PowerPoint presentation and every third bullet was, “pause for ovation.”
I remember one of bush jr’s STOU speeches I was agreeing with him about nasa going to mars and a whole bunch of science stuff he was going to do
then the next day his staff spent most of their time taking it all back …
I haven’t read the text of the speech, but reading the leftover liveblogging in the middle of the night, I got the general impression that the speech was almost entirely free of substance or specifics, that he still hasn’t come up with any **policies **to push for. Was that how it was?
And before him, W. was scorned for using a teleprompter, and probably people were muttering all the way back to Eisenhower.
Jeb already attacked Trump for teleprompter use back in 2016, so join Jeb.
Largely so. Or when there were any actual policy involved it was mentioned very broadly. Most of it was along the lines of “We’ll MAGA, believe me, it’s a terrible disaster now, it’ll be the best” only more like an actual President than like his Twitter Troll character.
But really, this sort of “First Address” thing is always short on details. He could have though given it a bit *earlier *and held back on some of the executive orders until after it, and thus allowed the EOs to be better drafted, and it would have come together better. My take-home as mentioned before is that he signaled the Hard Right is likely going to get a lot of their fiscal agenda through and in return they will help him say he got his populist-protectionist projects going, but it all will be figured out over the next few months despite his bluster about doing more than anyone in his first days in office.
To insure an adequate supply of props for future speeches, all future raids will have the married guys take point.
Reminds me of a cartoon where one of Bush’s flacks is on a radio show declaring that the Mars proposal reflects “the president’s long-standing interest in science”. After a couple of beat panels, the host responds, “You told him Mars has oil, didn’t you?”
Unless you object, I’d like to use this as my signature.