Yes, I watched President Trump’s speech last night. I thought that as a piece of rhetoric is was better than most of the breed. I thought that the organizational device he used throughout the speech, first saying what his administration had done with respect to some topic, then outlining the principles guiding the actions, was effective. I also noticed a variety of rhetorical devices including anaphora, hyperphora, juxtaposition, and appeal to emotion that were used effectively. Whoever wrote the speech knew what he or she was doing or at least had some exposure to the genre.
As I generally do I also watched part of the speech on Youtube with the sound off. President Trump has a much flatter affect than I anticipated. That probably serves him well in negotiations.
That’s all I have to say.
“That probably serves him well in negotiations.”
Heh. And poker.
I didn’t watch it and haven’t heard any excerpts, so it’s been interesting to see the variety of reactions and the different things different people focus on. The main theme I’ve heard about it from the newsies and “analysts” is that it was a “normal” speech which, coming from Trump, isn’t normal.
Personally, I don’t think these speeches are very important except maybe in terms of signaling and broad priorities. Prediction: No one is going to remember much of anything about this speech in a month.
“I don’t think these speeches are very important except maybe in terms of signaling and broad priorities.”
For example, whether your priorities are jobs and illegal immigration, or the deep psychological scarring resultant from single gender bathrooms. People will remember that.
Guarneri:
Okay, enough you ignorant clod. Transgender bathroom issues are not about psychological scars, but physical ones. A trans female – formerly male, now female – going into a men’s bathroom is at significant physical risk from men. A trans male – formerly female, now male – going into a women’s bathroom may upset the women there and engender physical attack by males. Do you want these people pissing on the sidewalk? Or do you prefer to exterminate them so as not to challenge your evidently insecure masculinity?
That’s the issue. But as usual you are devoid of imagination or empathy, as shallow a creature as your idiot president. It was never transgender people pushing the issue, it was brain-dead old men like you in the GOP who made it an issue for political advantage. Moron.
Lots of platitudes and promises. Short on detail. Had a good beat. I would give it a 7.
Steve
I think Steve’s succinct analysis was fair.
However, what seemed to stand out more than the substance of the president’s first address to congress was the left side of the aisle’s conduct. It was historical snobbery, at it’s best. The negative hand signals and mode of dress that many congresswoman wore was juvenile, generating more rueful remarks than ones giving them credit for their supposed demonstration of female solidarity. Instead, comments varied from the white outfits symbolizing a white flag surrender, to comparing their white smocks as similar to the ones worn by the KKK.
Generally, the dems, IMO, have crossed the line of appropriate/constructive opposition to inappropriate/destructive opposition. Their continuous snipping and petty display of admonishment over baseless innuendos and carping about meaningless topics has turned me off to them as a serious party. Rather, they have evolved into politically spoiled brats, more interested in salvaging power for themselves than bringing the country together on a similar page of improvement for all.
The latest allegations lodged against the AG, suspiciously erupting after a better-than-expected speech by Trump, is how the new left responds and retaliates to any ground gained by their opponents. Much like Clinton’s general election tactics, where the slimy Access Hollywood tapes, the Miss America tainted comments were cleverly injected into the campaign to diminish Trump’s rising poll numbers, so are the latest insinuations of any contact with Russian counterparts inspiring a dem drum beat of collusion between them and the new Administration. Today Claire McCaskill joined the fray by stridently asserting her experiences on the same committee with Sessions as never leading to meetings with Russian diplomats. However, that was immediately debunked by uncovering this one innocent tweet sent out by her in 2013. Does this mean she should resign too?
It’s simply crazy-making and distracting, to some of the real issues and challenges facing the U.S. today, in what is being contentiously regurgitated by the party currently out of power!