2019 State of the Union |OT| I'll allow it - Nancy (2/5 at 9pm ET)
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
This is why I'm playing more Kingdom Hearts 2 instead tbh.
I'd be genuinely interested in how he might frame his ideas about the border, if he were to bring it up. If it would be primarily economic, or also humanitarian.
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that talking about the same thing since 2016 can be considered a "response" to current events, but to be fair I'm not listening now. He is a talented speaker, more in line with what some people in the thread seemed to want to hear.
I'd be genuinely interested in how he might frame his ideas about the border, if he were to bring it up. If it would be primarily economic, or also humanitarian.
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that talking about the same thing since 2016 can be considered a "response" to current events, but to be fair I'm not listening now. He is a talented speaker, more in line with what some people in the thread seemed to want to hear.
Oooh, he's talking about investigations and putting his support behind them and railing against what Trump said earlier. And now he's going into immigration stuff. He started with his usual fare, but he's actually hitting him on his crimes and... he just called demonizing Latinos racist. Oh dang, he's going into the Las Vegas shooting and how Trump didn't mention it.
Maybe he wouldn't have to keep repeating himself if the US hadn't been actively going in the wrong direction since the 1980's. He even made a point to address racial, social, and environmental justice on top of wealth inequality, with everything he said being 100% relevant to what's going on right now. I feel like it literally doesn't matter what he says or does, some people will just forever have an irrational bias against him.
Bernie actually addressed things Trump raised, and things he didn't talk about during the SOTU.
I know he started with talking about how Abrams would have been a great governor, but he should have talked about the massive voter fraud and conflict of interest. Abrams didn't bring it up either. It was bullshit and still bullshit.
I know he started with talking about how Abrams would have been a great governor, but he should have talked about the massive voter fraud and conflict of interest. Abrams didn't bring it up either. It was bullshit and still bullshit.
I hate to say this, but Bernie really looks his age.
It really sucks that there's an entire generation missing for leftist politicians.
AOC all the way when she's ready to run for President.
I guess it was the missing "anger" that's really justified. She didn't go in on Kemp and explain the extreme conflicts of interest that the average DEM wouldn't know. People who follow politics know about it but the SOTU rebuttal is the perfect time to explain that the GOP is not acting in anything remotely similar to 'good faith'.
It really sucks that there's an entire generation missing for leftist politicians.
AOC all the way when she's ready to run for President.
I guess it was the missing "anger" that's really justified. She didn't go in on Kemp and explain the extreme conflicts of interest that the average DEM wouldn't know. People who follow politics know about it but the SOTU rebuttal is the perfect time to explain that the GOP is not acting in anything remotely similar to 'good faith'.
And yet here are others and myself criticizing her over the fact that she seemed devoid of general fire here and had the reserved confidence of the class valedictorian.
Yeah the deck is stacked against her because people could view her as the "uppity black woman." I'm not blind to that. On the other hand we have a politician like AOC who's leaning into the perceived notions of what a passionate Latina is and dropping facts and truth on people. I'm not asking her to go to Cory Booker levels of theatrics, or become a Twitter warrior like AOC. I am saying she could have placed more emphasis to underline the points she was making while making a better call to action which I think would have made for a better response and helped galvanize Dems and undecided voters who just had to sit through 90 minutes of racist fearmongering. To me, this was tame and safe, which I think is directly in contrast to the point of asking Stacey Abrams to deliver the response.
Because this felt like the typical establishment Dem response to everything with the added wrinkle of Abrams plugging her own ventures and starting off the response with a prolonged personal story that felt more like she was announcing her candidacy for President as opposed to directly answering the assertions of the President. This President has been a blight on the country for two years. That frustration didn't really show through here, especially when she herself was done dirty by bullshit perpetuated by the GOP. The "take it on the chin" approach here I don't think appeals to anyone who's been hurt or disenfranchised by this President and his supporters.
Easy for me to say I know because I'm not in her position. But frankly as the person giving the Dem response, she's going to receive criticism anyway. Being deterred because of racists viewing her in a certain light for showing emotion or fire here seems self-defeating not just for her but for Dems as a whole.
EDIT: Not a 100% fair comparison here because he's speaking off the cuff as opposed to reading a prepared response, but watching Andrew Gillum's response to the SOTU and what he showed there I think was much more of what I was looking for. Directly calling this for what it is. Emphasizing that this is a President attempting to legislate on fear and misdirection. That this is a new Congress that must have oversight over the unfettered destructive policies of this administration in order to keep this country from further descending into the abyss.
Yeah the deck is stacked against her because people could view her as the "uppity black woman." I'm not blind to that. On the other hand we have a politician like AOC who's leaning into the perceived notions of what a passionate Latina is and dropping facts and truth on people. I'm not asking her to go to Cory Booker levels of theatrics, or become a Twitter warrior like AOC. I am saying she could have placed more emphasis to underline the points she was making while making a better call to action which I think would have made for a better response and helped galvanize Dems and undecided voters who just had to sit through 90 minutes of racist fearmongering. To me, this was tame and safe, which I think is directly in contrast to the point of asking Stacey Abrams to deliver the response.
Because this felt like the typical establishment Dem response to everything with the added wrinkle of Abrams plugging her own ventures and starting off the response with a prolonged personal story that felt more like she was announcing her candidacy for President as opposed to directly answering the assertions of the President. This President has been a blight on the country for two years. That frustration didn't really show through here, especially when she herself was done dirty by bullshit perpetuated by the GOP. The "take it on the chin" approach here I don't think appeals to anyone who's been hurt or disenfranchised by this President and his supporters.
Easy for me to say I know because I'm not in her position. But frankly as the person giving the Dem response, she's going to receive criticism anyway. Being deterred because of racists viewing her in a certain light for showing emotion or fire here seems self-defeating not just for her but for Dems as a whole.
EDIT: Not a 100% fair comparison here because he's speaking off the cuff as opposed to reading a prepared response, but watching Andrew Gillum's response to the SOTU and what he showed there I think was much more of what I was looking for. Directly calling this for what it is. Emphasizing that this is a President attempting to legislate on fear and misdirection. That this is a new Congress that must have oversight over the unfettered destructive policies of this administration in order to keep this country from further descending into the abyss.
Last edited:
Wait you're saying that a black professional woman is criticized no matter what she does or how she composes herself? Shocking news.
And can people stop trying to compare her to AOC? It's totally disingenuous. The way you are allowed to behave when you plan to run for an election in Georgia is not how you are allowed to behave when your constituents are New Yorkers. It's insane to keep pretending otherwise, frankly, and the comparisons to a long standing Senator from Vermont of all places are equally insincere. If she wants to get elected and be in a position to make actual changes, she can't piss people off just for the sake of theatrics and making people on a message board feel good about themselves for the night.
It's on his youtube channel.
And can people stop trying to compare her to AOC? It's totally disingenuous. The way you are allowed to behave when you plan to run for an election in Georgia is not how you are allowed to behave when your constituents are New Yorkers. It's insane to keep pretending otherwise, frankly, and the comparisons to a long standing Senator from Vermont of all places are equally insincere. If she wants to get elected and be in a position to make actual changes, she can't piss people off just for the sake of theatrics and making people on a message board feel good about themselves for the night.
It's on his youtube channel.
She's not currently running a campaign in Georgia. Her response does not need to take that into consideration. She doesn't hold any current government office. She's making a response, speaking for Democrats across the country, not just her former constituency in Georgia. It's asinine to pretend like she needed to be protective of how she spoke here as if she was running an important reelection campaign today, though as I said it almost seemed like she was going to announce something for the first two and a half minutes of her response.
It's also clear she didn't lose the election in Georgia because of the perceptions of her as a black woman, but very likely was due to voter suppression, an issue I applaud her bringing back up, despite the appearance it would clearly give that she's salty about the outcome. That's why, to me, it's frustrating she chooses to bring that up in her response but for everything else tows the safe Dem line of talking points here in response to Trump in the safest, vanilla way possible.
It's also clear she didn't lose the election in Georgia because of the perceptions of her as a black woman, but very likely was due to voter suppression, an issue I applaud her bringing back up, despite the appearance it would clearly give that she's salty about the outcome. That's why, to me, it's frustrating she chooses to bring that up in her response but for everything else tows the safe Dem line of talking points here in response to Trump in the safest, vanilla way possible.
She behaved during her campaign exactly as she did tonight, so using the fact that she was so popular as an example for why she could act like the imaginary person some of you wish she was doesn't make any sense. Stacey Abrams was asked to speak tonight and this is who she is. The fact that she does not currently hold an office makes her position even more precarious, I would think. Her only influence comes from how she is perceived on this most public stage.
I don't at all think it's asinine to acknowledge that black women have to be careful of their behavior at all times, especially black women seeking positions of power and authority in Georgia. I can't believe you'd actually suggest that potentially bombing tonight isn't a risk for someone still up and coming.
And frankly I don't even know what you people are talking about when you say she was vanilla. She went in on the shutdown at length. She said Trump was responsible, called his behavior un-American, said it was disgraceful, talked about how it exploited working class people. When talking about the topic of the shutdown she explicitly said the words "cannot be negotiable," though she framed it in a very specific and positive context that keeps away from the "negative Democrats won't come to the table" spin people would look for.
She brought up school shootings and blamed the White House explicitly for a lack of response. She said "family's hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership that ignores real life or just doesn't understand it" and brought up the importance of unions and directly blamed the Republican tax break and the trade wars for economic issues. That's just in the first half.
Did you guys actually listen to what she said or were you so turned off by her tone of voice not matching your own anger that you couldn't process it? Because if that's vanilla, I'm not sure what political discourse is expected to be anymore.
I don't at all think it's asinine to acknowledge that black women have to be careful of their behavior at all times, especially black women seeking positions of power and authority in Georgia. I can't believe you'd actually suggest that potentially bombing tonight isn't a risk for someone still up and coming.
And frankly I don't even know what you people are talking about when you say she was vanilla. She went in on the shutdown at length. She said Trump was responsible, called his behavior un-American, said it was disgraceful, talked about how it exploited working class people. When talking about the topic of the shutdown she explicitly said the words "cannot be negotiable," though she framed it in a very specific and positive context that keeps away from the "negative Democrats won't come to the table" spin people would look for.
She brought up school shootings and blamed the White House explicitly for a lack of response. She said "family's hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership that ignores real life or just doesn't understand it" and brought up the importance of unions and directly blamed the Republican tax break and the trade wars for economic issues. That's just in the first half.
Did you guys actually listen to what she said or were you so turned off by her tone of voice not matching your own anger that you couldn't process it? Because if that's vanilla, I'm not sure what political discourse is expected to be anymore.
