I tried my level best to listen to last night’s State of the Union address. A transcript is here. I gave up at 9:40pm and went to bed. It unfolded much as I had predicted to my wife: a catalogue of superlatives, some true, some arguably false, many exaggerated.
I counted sixteen of them. Too many to make a good drinking game, even when the speech clocked in at 108 minutes. They included:
- “strongest and most secure border in American history”
- “single largest decline in recorded history” (in homicides)
- “lowest level in more than five years” (referring to the rate of inflation)
- “lowest in four years” (mortgage interest rates)
- “all-time record highs” (stock market)
- “More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country”
- “cut a record number of job-killing regulations”
- “largest tax cuts in American history”
I’m sure the president’s fans were delighted. Some have claimed it’s an effective way of communicating with ordinary people. I’m not so sure. To my ear when superlatives are overused they are “tuned out”, i.e. they lose impact. I consider understatement a better rhetorical device because it leaves the speaker with somewhere to go—hearers will notice the rare superlative more in that context. Carthago delenda est (Carthage must be destroyed) was rhetorically effective because Cato the Elder wasn’t saying everything should be destroyed in every speech. De gustibus… Is this persuasion, performance, or simply the language modern voters expect?
To his credit President Trump’s State of the Union message this year was not as much of a presidential “wish list” as prior SOTU’s have been. In some cases matters in that wish list are never heard of again. I counted three calls for Congressional action:
- ban sanctuary cities
- require voter ID
- prohibit medical “transition” treatment for minors without parental consent
Please construe neither support nor opposition from that list—they are merely the wish list actions I identified.
Did you listen to the speech? What were your reactions?
Not sure about “ordinary people” but seems to be effective with his cult of personality. He lies, or as you now call it exaggerates, and when people try to correct it with facts then his people claim you are just attacking Trump. It’s very difficult to have an evidence based discussion with many/most Trump supporters.
Steve
My definition of lie remains as it has always been: the knowing telling of an untruth with an intention to deceive. That’s why, for example, I say “exaggerate”.
I had not intended to listen to Trump’s entire SOTU speech, as it was previewed to be a “long” one. However, I found it far more engaging than I had anticipated. His list of accomplishments, accompanied by contrasting statistics, was prominently and effusively stated, mirroring the dry, back-slapping content of past president’s SOTU speeches. What was different, and more compelling, was how he folded in people’s stories, sitting in the gallery into his speech. Stark points were made of how our media and the democrats selectively advocate for (stand up for), sensationalize, or find newsworthy to publicly support, narratives suitable for their DEI, inclusive, equitable mindsets. Last night’s stories stood out because they highlighted ones usually ignored, encompassing grief, bravery, miracles, and recent Olympic wins by America. It was an uplifting experience to see what I considered old-fashioned Americanism at its best. As for the Democrat’s unruly, childish behavior – they may still win elections, but are far afield from being winners in my world!
Along with the Oscars and Grammies and New Year’s shows, I have not watched the SOTU for decades.
It seems to me the only important issue is how to prevent an attack on Iran. Russia and China likely will not engage us directly (Taiwan?), but they will keep Iran in the fight as long as possible, giving them everything they want. They are also using this seemingly inevitable war to work out system integration issues, getting ready for the big one.
Will North Korea send troops?
The apparent low-key mutiny on the Ford bodes ill for the US military.
Didn’t watch it. But I got a case of the vapors after learning that a politician engaged in a catalogue of superlatives. Or were the vapors initiated by learning that steve has reached retirement age and is just figuring that out?
For sure, most politicians claim superlatives that dont exist or exaggerate and most of them leave out the bad numbers. However, Trump then goes on to say stuff like average gas prices are below $2.30 in most states when the current lowest in any state per Chat-GPT is $2.34 in Oklahoma. I just dont get the need to lie about stuff which is so easy to check on. But, as I noted earlier folks like Drew will just claim that I am attacking Trump and ignore the actual numbers.
Steve
ChatGPT can be hit or miss when it comes to “live data”, where its dependent on what sources of data it is searching and referencing from the web.
GasBuddy has gas below $2 in Oklahoma.
I wonder how much of Trump’s campaign agenda both requires legislation and wasn’t included in the OBBB. Looking at tariffs, he can raise tariffs to the pre-Supreme Court decision levels via existing trade law. Ending the Ukraine war is on Ukraine and Russia, not Congress.
Does Trump even have a clear wishlist on legislation from Congress?
“Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” — George Costanza.
Dave Schuler: My definition of lie remains as it has always been: the knowing telling of an untruth with an intention to deceive. That’s why, for example, I say “exaggerate”.
Let’s take a simple example: Trump claims that other countries pay U.S. tariffs. He continues to repeat the claim, even though it is an obvious falsehood.
CO- Individual places are at below $2.00. I cant find a state average on Gasbuddy and the actual claim was average price below $2,30 for most states.
Steve