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

[Chief Justice Keef]

D. Not only was it painfully boring and drained of life, it contained more of the same ghoulish demagoguery that's always present.

Also, congrats to every d--khead in media who are cheering on this speech for being "presidential". When Trump uses one soldier's death for political gain and the media acclaims him, we move closer to fascism than any mention of "fake news".

[ApatheticAustrian]

ah, whatever, trump can use a soldier's death, better than blaming the military all the time - and promoting mister khan was also a useful message, imho.

much more important....what does that mean in reality?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Damn, I'm surprised opinions are so polarized. I didn't watch the speech and don't intend to, but from the media/pundit reactions you'd think it was on par with the Gettysburg Address.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'll give him an A.......when CNN is going on and on about how good it was (overall), you know it wasn't horrible.

[Torie]

Yes, it was an A speech. The challenge for Trump will be to deliver on his pie in the sky promises.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I'll give him an A.......when CNN is going on and on about how good it was (overall), you know it wasn't horrible.

that would depend on your values....maybe they liked it cause it was a liberal speech or something like that.

[The_Doctor]

A+ event. It was good to watch. The chimpanzees were very nice to see in the zoo.

Oh you mean the Orange baboon? I didn't watch him. I suppose standards where he didn't fling refuse at people counts after all.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, it was an A speech. The challenge for Trump will be to deliver on his pie in the sky promises.

That's true with all Presidents but I got more than expected, speech wise.  Nice surprise.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I cannot believe Trump did not waiver during the moments he was talking to the soldiers wife.

That was both incredibly sad and liberating for that poor woman. You could see the loss on her face.

For anyone who has ever lost someone close to them, that was a very uplifting moment in what is otherwise a very lonely experience.

Trump was amazingly strong and resilient.

It showed a truer depth of character from our new President.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

The details that matter are how you're going to get there, not a list of goals with no apparent clue on how to achieve them.

A C as a policy speech, a B as a campaign speech, so a C+ overall.

[Devout Centrist]

On content? F, hands down.

Delivery for the "style over substance" crowd? A-.

[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.

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.

Sounds like you didn't read my post at all.

[Confused Democrat]

I cannot believe Trump did not waiver during the moments he was talking to the soldiers wife.

That was both incredibly sad and liberating for that poor woman. You could see the loss on her face.

For anyone who has ever lost someone close to them, that was a very uplifting moment in what is otherwise a very lonely experience.

Trump was amazingly strong and resilient.

It showed a truer depth of character from our new President.

I thought it was exploitative and disturbing.

[ApatheticAustrian]

call me strange, but i would have felt better if he would have "waivered" in some way...would have shown to me, he is not just reading someone else's words.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The media really are doorknobs, aren't they? It's like all they care about is whether Trump would be a convincing president on telly.

It's like when people make retrospectives on Reagan that gloss over Iran Contra but emphasise that he really made a moving speech on the space shuttle disaster.

[The_Doctor]

So, I read the speech and pretty much it was a Pat Buchanan speech mixed in with economic populism and basically Fortress America. He wants the wall, he wants the $1 trillion infrastructure package, and he laid out the basic replacement to ObamaCare (which will never happen).

Most of his rhetoric is aimed at the base that elected him and a lot of it is aimed at minority voters in which I mean they are targeting white Republicans in the suburbs to erase some of the racist label attached to Trump and his policies. Also, at this point, the GOP has to start winning a bigger share of the minority vote to start offsetting their growth. Trump is trying to get suburban whites and some minorities to vote for him in 2020 so he can win the popular vote by 2-3%.

He laid effectively the case against neoliberalism but ended up really advocating more neoliberalism (tax reform conducted along GOP lines, ObamaCare replaced by a more neoliberal approach, so on and so on). The only point he really fought against neoliberalism was trade, which makes sense: he's a neoliberal GOP president who knows that he doesn't have a political base in Congress for his ideas outside neoliberalism. The infrastructure package and trade were the only two points where he differed, and it's not clear that he actually dissents from the neoliberal line that much.

Watch the next Democratic President lay out the same case but with a drastic different set of solutions. Trump has ably identified the political revolution in this country but he's wrong that he'll be the President solving it. Most likely, we hear the same speech in 8 years, to the date, but said President will make a vastly different case for different solutions.

Trump defended his immigration and vetting and - there wasn't that much that was interesting to say. The emphasis on drugs is to keep Southwestern whites on his side. Wont' do much for the growing Latino population.

It was, as Richard Nixon said on Twitter, an effective speech. Not a good one, but an effective one. He came and did what he needed to do to keep his political coalition together.

Not covered or acknowledged was a honest discussion of what is keeping wages down. He didn't bother doing that; he did acknowledge his immigration platform was intended to raise wages and to give jobs to Americans and constituted an economic stimulus of sorts.

=======================

The long and short of it: instead of bold, Trump is aiming for a 51% majority to keep treading water over the next four to eight years. As we all know, the first year of a new Presidency (the first two years) usually sets the tone for the next four to eight years. This speech was his blueprint for year 1 and 2 and set the ideological parameters. This speech also lays out that we're going to tread water for eight years, and leave it to the next President with a real mandate to start solving problems.

If you compare it to Reagan's economic message in 1981 - the one where he delivered after he was shot - and the Reagan inaugural, you get a sense this is treading water, keeping things going instead of fundamental reform.

[The_Doctor]

I don't know where this babbling about him sounding like an old Democrat comes from. He gave a 75% convention Republican address mixed with 25% Bannon.

[Chief Justice Keef]

The media really are doorknobs, aren't they? It's like all they care about is whether Trump would be a convincing president on telly.

It's like when people make retrospectives on Reagan that gloss over Iran Contra but emphasise that he really made a moving speech on the space shuttle disaster.

That's about it. Media doesn't actually care about what Trump does, because their lives are better off no matter what happens. So it all boils down to sheer aesthetics about how "presidential" he looks.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Damn, I'm surprised opinions are so polarized. I didn't watch the speech and don't intend to, but from the media/pundit reactions you'd think it was on par with the Gettysburg Address.

I watched the speech. Trump remains an awful public speaker. Even if he practices and prepares for the occasion, he has middling abilities. I suppose it's terrifying that he's learning how to integrate his natural speech patterns with a prepared speech but this might take a few years.

I give him a C-/D+. I don't grade on a curve though.

[tallguy23]

He stuck to his script and didn't say anything crazy. That may be an accomplishment for him, but not for the office of POTUS.

Let's not lower our standards.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Damn, I'm surprised opinions are so polarized. I didn't watch the speech and don't intend to, but from the media/pundit reactions you'd think it was on par with the Gettysburg Address.

Well, he reportedly was studying it in the car on his ride over.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html

That counts, right?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Damn, I'm surprised opinions are so polarized. I didn't watch the speech and don't intend to, but from the media/pundit reactions you'd think it was on par with the Gettysburg Address.

Well, he reportedly was studying it in the car on his ride over.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html

That counts, right?

The liberal media mentioned Clinton would be editing and practicing all the way into the waiting area where the President cools his heels until it's time.  No news (fake or otherwise) here.

[Beet]

He stuck to his script and didn't say anything crazy. That may be an accomplishment for him, but not for the office of POTUS.

Let's not lower our standards.

Trump has always been fine when it comes to big speeches. His convention speech was fine, his election night speech was fine, his inauguration speech was fine. When it's carefully scripted there's less room for his usual antics. Still, substance is what matters, not dog and pony show.