Your objections are getting more and more absurd.
Well, is there no better answer than this? I mean, it kind of undermines his ridiculous idea of declaring a national emergency. Why did it never come up in the prior two years when he had a Republican-controlled House? This is not the Dems withdrawing existing funding, it’s new funding right?
We can go even further than that. Law abiding groups create low crime areas. By, for example, calling the police when they see potential problems, speaking out against potentially criminal behavior, forming neighborhood watch programs, etc. People who don’t tolerate crime actually lower crime rates around them, not just through their own lack of crimes, but on the impact they have on potential criminals in the neighborhood.
Crime rates for immigrants are so low that they actually reduce rates of crime in cities they move to. Basically, immigrants reduced the total rate of crimes committed against Americans!
That’s right, crime rates would actually go up if we deported more immigrants.
People who bet that Individual 1 would tell more than 3.5 lies during his speech won $276,424 from BookMaker.eu after the bookmaking site, using the Washington Post’s fact checking, declared that he had told 6 lies.
https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/People-who-bet-on-how-many-lies-Trump-would-tell-13520681.php?
You are correct. I should have finished the statement with “… in the same manner as last night’s appearance, or Barack’s announcement of OBL’s death, were policy speeches.”
I assumed the references to the Constitutionally-mandated nature of the SOTU, as well as its historical role in promoting the President’s agenda, would have been enough to make it clear that there is quite a difference between the SOTU and the rare random policy speeches which garner three-network support.
Obviously, I overestimated somewhere. My apologies.
He didn’t even hit a lie a minute? Probably he was held back by only being able to speak as quickly as he could read. I bet if he’d been winging it he’d have hit his usual 1LPM.
Man “both sides” don’t even get their fucking partisan immigration addresses aired on major networks.
Seriously I am not trying to be snarky here. But yes, hitting the low for a 12 month period does mean that “he’s become less popular than he has been over the past year.” (Well 10 months since February '18 saw him at 39.)
To me the significance remains how flat that range has been relative to other presidents. By two months in he had settled into basically a six point range of approval ratings, peaking near 43 and bottoming out near 37. That is very narrow and 40 would be right in the middle of that range.
The flatness speaks to how entrenched opinions are about him. Big negative stories that would have caused huge swings for other presidents barely move the needle. For that matter something positive, like a good economic report, hardly moves him up. The small scale of his current drop given the shutdown and his stating ahead of time that he would own it is more notable to me than that he is back to his term’s mean.
And who makes that decision (of whether to televise the speech on major networks or not)?
You left out the best part:
What were those other 8% smocking?
The fake news networks that are biased toward liberals? Them? Funny that they didn’t preempt TV for Obama’s immigration speech but did for Trumps. Kinda blows up that whole narrative that they are in the tank for the Democrats doesn’t it?
It could mean lots of things, from Obama didn’t write a very good speech, to President Trump is better for their ratings than Obama was. I certainly don’t think televising one short speech “blows up that whole narrative”. YMMV.
Could you expand on this a little? Do you think Obama 1) wrote a speech, 2) provided an advance copy to the networks, 3) the networks reviewed the speech, thought “decent sentence structure but I don’t like the character arc” and 4) decided not to air it?
The narrative is that all news outlets aside from Fox News, Brightbart, and other right wing outlets are biased for and in the tank for the Democrats. Trump has been calling them the enemy of the people. You may have heard about that.
It’s total bullshit. And I think you know that.
OK. As others have already said, you’re conflating the annual presidential SOTU speech with the speech that Trump gave last night. I guess I should have specified that it was a speech like last night (maybe an Oval Office address?), and not the annual ‘look how good my party and I are doing’ SOTU speech.
I think you know that, but you will never admit to it.
Which suggests that the media is not in the bag for any side. They are in it for the ratings. Period. They care not if a liberal or conservative gets that for them.
The rapid vacillation on display between smugness and desperation is downright Trumpian.
Otherwise known as, “The State of the Wall” speech.
I’m pretty sure the answer you’re looking for is “both sides”.