How would you rate Trump's first address to congress?

[Ronnie]

I think he did a great job at firing up his base, and even made some solid overtures to swing voters with things like his call for paid family leave.  I give him an A, and could easily see his approval rating (briefly) rising to >50%.

[Crumpets]

C. Pretty average. Better than usual for Trump, since he was reading a pre-prepared speech.

[Hindsight was 2020]

C. Good by Trump's horrible standards but between using the wife prop, the 94 million out of the workforce bs I guarantee he heard on Fox, and claiming the KS will create like 40,000 jobs when it is only 39 is just infuriating

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

C, better than his campaign speeches but still not a good speech.

[Xing]

Eh, C. More tame than a lot of his speeches, but not exactly one of "unity," and still quite a bit of falsehood mixed in.

[OSR stands with Israel]

B- , a pretty good speech but an A speech would have been Bush war on terror speech in 2001, Blll Clinton 1996 SOTU, Reagan inaugural address

[Maxwell]

D+, sounds like every other "serious" Trump speech. Same exact content.

[Roronoa D. Law]

C+ because I didn't hear anything about fake news or his electoral win.

[Maxwell]

C+ because I didn't hear anything about fake news or his electoral win.

this precisely is the problem. He shouldn't be held to his own crappy standard.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

F

When he kept talking after lying about condemning "hate and evil in all it's very ugly forms" I turned it off.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I for Irrelevant

[Higgs]

An A (obvious answer).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Obvious A. Didn't like the line about NATO, though. Should be eliminated.

[Blue3]

B-/C+


I'm glad no Democrats booed Trump. Just chuckles with "draining the swamp" and gasps over "VOICE" (easily the worst way to introduce that possible).

 But overall, Trump gave a polite, disciplined, scripted speech. Even MSNBC is praising (most) of it. No bragging over polls or crowd sizes or hand size.

 Someone else complained about lack of details on healthcare... but that was actually the most detailed part of the speech, with his numbered list of principles. I'm glad he seems to be taking Bernie's/Hillary's side on prescription drug prices, and paid family leave.


 But... that speech was so vague and fluffy... and disorganized. It was so disorganized, kept jumping all over the place. If I'm bored this week I'll probably dissect the transcript, organizing and numbering his priorities. And the talk of the great rebellion of 2015 in the beginning was cringeworthy.

 The applause and close-up of the widow crying and praying was uncomfortably long. Lots of focus on the year 2026. And vague platitudes, like telling Congress to "believe in yourself" and "chase your dreams." Saying clean air, clean water, military buildup, and infrastructure were all the same issue was a little weird.


 I really liked the Democratic response. Perhaps could have gone without other people in the diner, but the speech did all it was supposed to. It gave a unifying message for Democrats that would also appeal to nonpolitical or Republican-leaning working class people. Focus on the real lives, the kitchen table issues, common sense with the world, and appealing to basic decency. If he was 10 years younger I think fewer pundits would be criticizing it.

[ApatheticAustrian]

why would anyone criticize a nice-sounding classical-lefty speech with no connection to reality?

[Maxwell]

An A (obvious answer).

why is it obvious? The only thing that's obvious to me is that he gives only two speeches - his "rally" speech, where he rambles off of a sheet of paper his grievances, and his "speech" speech, where he trudges through a teleprompter and basically goes through his talking points in an incredibly uninspiring manner. This sounded exactly like his convention speech.

[Ebowed]

Let's not normalize this, folks - the man is a raving lunatic with a severely racist bent and a total inability to understand policy on any level.

[Dr. Arch]

Didn't watch it nor do I have the interest to at this point. Let me know when he gets his sh**t together.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Let's not normalize this, folks - the man is a raving lunatic with a severely racist bent and a total inability to understand policy on any level.

how do you "normalize" a teleprompter speech, written by someone else, which can't be fulfilled in congress?

[m4567]

The speech was the same old stuff.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Didn't watch. Voted B.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Very good actually.

A few things I found strange, but the USA has a strong leader now to get them out of debt.

I think the country will do very well economically as a result of this guy.

[Tender Branson]

Didn't watch (and probably won't in the next days), but the left-liberal Austrian newspaper "Standard" said it was Trump's "best" speech so far ...

Not that this means anything (his speeches so far were extreme sh*t).

[bilaps]

An A (obvious answer).

why is it obvious? The only thing that's obvious to me is that he gives only two speeches - his "rally" speech, where he rambles off of a sheet of paper his grievances, and his "speech" speech, where he trudges through a teleprompter and basically goes through his talking points in an incredibly uninspiring manner. This sounded exactly like his convention speech.

How could this be a D and a speech like his other speeches? Very very clear differences from his stump speech, you have to be blind not to see it. Politicaly blind at least.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I couldn't stand to watch it. With transcripts out today, I did read it.

Utter bottom-dwelling filthy morass of fascism, fear-mongering, lies and hypocrisy beneath a wash of patriotic platitudes. A few bits with which you or I might agree do not change the fact that it was deeply unworthy of of the office or our nation. That Trump is being normalized is a death-knell for America.

My grade of F stands unchanged. May Trump be removed from office before he delivers another such address.