Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics

The State of The Union and the State Of American Politics Of Division

imagesPresident Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address covered a wide array of domestic and international issues. At eighty minutes, it was long of the longest such speeches.  Putting the policies aside, Trump’s delivery last night was one of his strongest. Indeed, while many have objected to the content, it was a much better delivery than his inauguration in my opinion.  CBS News is reporting that 75 percent of Americans watching approved of the speech.

However, most of us in the Beltway were watching the awkward tension between the members, including the absence of boycotting members and at least one incident of loud booing from the Democratic members.  Rep. Luis Gutierrez was shown walking out as members chanting “USA, USA.” (He later remarked  “Whoever translated it for him from Russian did a good job.”) Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led most Democrats out of the door immediately after the President finished and most Democrats did not applaud for most of the speech.  I have been previously critical of a Republican member protesting during the State of the Union\ and a serious breach of tradition by Associate Justice Sam Alito.

Here is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy.

 

One year after various Democratic politicians boycotted the presidential inauguration, there is a growing list of members now pledging to boycott President Trump’s State of the Union address. As with the boycott of the inauguration, this protest misses the point of the State of the Union and, more importantly, the role played by members of Congress. To put it simply, it is not about him or them. It is about us.

Besides the inauguration, the State of the Union is the only occasion in which members of all three branches gather together in a formal joint event. It is a demonstration of civility and comity between the branches. It has become a symbol of a unified government where a president speaks to the body of representatives for the American people. This was not always the case. Indeed, the State of the Union as we know it is a relatively recent tradition.

Article II of the Constitution states that the president “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” It does not require that such a statement be made in person or that members attend such a session.

Indeed, while George Washington gave the first in-person address on Jan. 8, 1790, many presidents simply sent a written account to Congress. Thomas Jefferson thought the gathering of Congress to listen to him was a bit too monarchical in appearance, a criticism that many have made with the increasing pomp and circumstance surrounding modern State of the Union speeches. It was Woodrow Wilson who returned to in-person reports, though Jimmy Carter in 1981 returned to the written option.

There are ample reasons to dislike the State of the Union addresses. They have become more showy and less substantive with every speech. Presidents now parade tragic or heroic cases in the gallery while both sides conduct ritualistic cheers or jeers. What follows is some of the lowest grade analysis as commentators pretend that the address was newsworthy for its content or omission. Fewer people are watching the addresses, which have declined from a 44.3 rating during the Clinton presidency to 19 or 20 for recent addresses. (Notably, Trump was responsible for a sharp increase to 28.7 in his Feb. 28 address.)

So if these addresses have been less substantive and less watched over time, why does any of this matter? The answer is that the modern address has one overriding redeeming quality: optics. When a president takes the dais, he stands before a body composed of all three branches, including the members of both houses of Congress. Despite deep divisions over the years, these gatherings have taken place as the legislative branch listens to the head of the executive branch on the state of our government.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has declared that she will boycott the address and asked, “Why would I take my time to go and sit and listen to a liar?” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) says that she will not attend because “President Trump’s address will be full of innuendo, empty promises, and lies.” It is tempting to dismiss this content with the observation that, if we removed “innuendo, empty promises, and lies” from the congressional record, we would be left on some days with little more than a transcript the length of a haiku poem.

Yet, these statements reveal a troubling and fundamental miscomprehension of the role of members. First and foremost, it is not about these members as individuals. They represent hundreds of thousands of citizens, including some who support and others who oppose the president. As representatives, they are expected to attend these events to represent those citizens. They do not have to rejoice, but they have to represent.

Second, the view of a given president is not the material question for a member. Members have gathered out of respect for the office, not the officeholder. They gathered to hear Richard Nixon despite his criminal allegations. Indeed, Waters appeared to listen to Clinton, who not only lied under oath, but was impeached for doing so. Members often have significant objections to the conduct or policies or even the character of a president, but they appear because our government is greater than its individual parts.

Third, if members begin to engage in protests or boycotts of the State of the Union, we will lose the little decorum that we have retained in these increasingly poisonous, petty political times. If attendance is treated as an endorsement of presidential policies, more and more seats will be left vacant as partisan voters demand boycotts. The result will be further calcification of our divisions, where even the ceremonial joint sessions are no longer tolerable.

What is most concerning is the view of boycotting members that there is no longer any value in listening to the president. Waters added, “I don’t appreciate him and I wouldn’t waste my time sitting in that house listening to what he has to say. He does not deserve my attention.” Rep. John Lewis(D-Ga.) has said, “I cannot, in all good conscious, be in a room with what he has said about so many Americans. I just cannot do it.”

When James Madison and others fashioned our constitutional system, they sought to create avenues in which factional interests could be converted into majoritarian compromises. For all of our divisions through the centuries, this system has survived because it forces disparate and divisive interests to communicate and negotiate. While we have many periods of “gridlock,” the modern State of the Union reaffirms the premise that all groups and parties remain committed to this process, and to each other.

While some refer to these speeches as an address to the nation, it was intended to be an address to Congress. It is the most visible manifestation of a system that seeks to create avenues for dialogue despite our differences. This is not some Tinder dating app where you swipe left to reject a president or some reality show where you can vote yourself off the island. Indeed, the Constitution is something of a forced date. It forces politicians to deal with each other. The State of the Union has become a symbol that our government remains unified, not on policy but process.

When we are deeply divided, the value of coming together for these events is more, not less, important. With our politicians unable to pass a budget to fund our government beyond the first week of February, this is the worse time for members to stomp off in a puerile fit. A president is coming to Congress on Jan. 30, and members should be there to greet him.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

193 thoughts on “The State of The Union and the State Of American Politics Of Division”

  1. One aspect of the Address last night which the artilcle glosses over or misses. This is our Presidient. He is not running for office this week. He has a duty to get Congress to move forward on issues. All of the media is focused on the political angles which are outside the real issues. Most of the media hates this President.

    It was a great address. To ridicule his condolences to persons in the audience who lost their sons and whatnot is beyond the Palin. The people who live “on the Hill” are a far distance from America.

    I am a Democrat and voted for the Hillary. I regret it. If the election was today I would have voted for the Trumpster. The Dems are in such disarray that the likes of Elizabeth Warren and all the rest of those itchBays will take the party down to the bottom of the outhouse. The party is halfway down the outhouse now. We need a new party of the people. Maybe the new Trumpster RepubliCons will get there. They are not the Party of Lincoln and nor was either Bush boy or Raygun. The times they are a changing.

    1. I used to identify as a Democrat. When they went down the Marxist identity politics path, I opted for independent status since I know the Republicans are just as anti-free speech. Remember the Bush “free speech” zones. I like Trump because he’s the underdog outsider and he’s totally unfiltered. Refreshing in the era of hacks and handlers. Plus I think he actually loves the country. When you have a rotten story or two but a solid foundation, you need a wrecking ball. Trump’s our wrecking ball.

  3. Here’s a great video for mental-midget Leftist Turley and his band of ultrasubcretins:

  4. While there are many incredibly stupid comments from the ultracretineque Left, this one ranks somewhere in the top 20:

    Bernie Sanders: I don’t understand how the President can give a State of the Union and not mention climate change.

    Translation into plain English: F-ck America! F-ck the low black unemployment rate! F-ck more jobs! F-ck a safer America. F-ck the flag! I want HIGHER taxes and MORE Big Govenment controlling everything! And I think I’m in love with Kim Jong-Un!

  6. Pingback: The State of The Union and the State Of American Politics Of Division — JONATHAN TURLEY – Jaywalker

      1. Does not look like a filthy filthy old fart that cheats on his wife and does threesomes with da porn stars and da Russian hookers and assaults women in their privates. His hair was real orange and as orange as T rump’s face. Give the young one time. He has a good heart. Fell asleep on both of their teleprompting speeches. I like da Bernie Sanders talk.

    1. That Joe Kennedy is no Jack Kennedy. No intelligence. No charm. No wit. No charisma. No vision. Nothingness.

  10. I’m appalled that Turley would write something that fails to account for the situation on the ground. The buffoon the gullible rubes elected is a paradigm shift from anything that’s happened before. While every previous president has had detractors, few actually believed they were fundamentally lacking in character, morality, knowledge, patriotism, cognitive ability and intellectual rigor, which is by far the main concern with this interloper. This type of unprecedented peril to the republic keeps real Americans worried about the imbecile in America’s house.

      1. Focus; the person you referenced is immaterial as she’s not President.

        this is to “what about ism” squeekkk

        1. Marky Mark Mark – Squeeky gets her target of choice just as you get yours.

      2. Squeeky – wasn’t Maxine going to fact-check the SOTU? How did she do, have not seen the reviews yet? Saw Pelosi trying to explain why the memo should not be released and that was hysterical, in the worst female way possible. She set back feminism by 15 years.

        2. Nancy has a hard row to hold. The Left in this country has no intellectual foundation. They are simply a whim-based emotional bunch of idiots who say things like “There are no illegal people.” The Left is best represented on this website by Linda, who jumps from one unsupported assertion after another, and is unable or unwilling to ever explain or honestly discuss any position.

          That is the mix that Nancy has to jump into. What avenue is left her but to call Trump a racisssst! The more she talks, the more her lack of a supportable position becomes evident.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        3. Paul C. Schulte,..
          She probably couldn’t find the time for the fact check.
          -Mad Max and her staff are still occupied trying to prove that her statement that “700 Billion people will lose their health insurance under Trump”.

    3. TDS: And monkeys may fly out my b_tt. (props to Madonna)

      Trump scored 30 of 30 on the Military MD’s test, the same MD who examined Soetoro bin Bama, which MD says Trump is in excellent health, and has perfect cognitive skills. How did you perform your cognitive test?

      CIA Chief Pompeo says he has perfect cognitive skills. He meets with President Trump almost every morning face to face. I thought you and your DNC Progressive friends said we must trust the intelligence agencies? Did the CIA Chief lie?

      You are a sore loser, just like HRC. Maybe if you hold your breath long enough he won’t be president any more. Try it! You and the multi-millionaires Maxine Waters can plug your ears and scream, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” (She wasn’t rich when she entered congress.)

    4. The only “situation on the ground” is that you have a terminal case of TDS.

      I’d ask you to quote his words tonight with which you disagree, but It’s obvious you have nothing but ad hominem attacks.

    5. Marky Mark Mark – It is NOT your job to decide who is or is not a real American. The DNC is the party of the illegal aliens. Trump is the President of ALL of us. You may not like to recognize that, down in your basement, however, it is true none the less.

          1. Are you sure Late4Dinner is Diane? Because if so, then I will have nothing else to say to Late4. Because if it is the same entity and refuses to answer my direct questions on their comments when they post as Diane, then they are simply playing Inga games. And there are better people here for me to converse with.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. Well then, I will have nothing else to say to either Diane or Late4. If Late4 can engage in discussions, and Diane can not, then “it” is simply playing games in the comments, and not playing fairly. I am getting a strong stench of Inga, whose purpose here was not to engage in discussion, but to plop out piles of crap all over the website, in some sort of mentally ill poop flinging act of decathexis, or maybe just a de-evolution similar to that of serial killers who are in the final stages of their meltdowns.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

          1. Paul said, “The DNC is the party of the illegal aliens.”

            L4D said, “Obama deported two million illegal aliens during his administration.”

            Allan said, “What does that mean?”

            Poor Allan. Can’t follow a thread. Can’t follow an argument.

            2. “Poor Allan. Can’t follow a thread. Can’t follow an argument.”

              No, that means Diane intentionally uses data inappropriately. Diane said, “Obama deported two million illegal aliens during his administration.” I want to hear the truth about the deportations. When you say, 2 million, are we using the same type of criteria when we talk about the deportations of other presidents? That is why you were asked, “What does that mean?”

              Your rhetoric all over this blog is inaccurate and purposely meant to obfuscate. Your statements of fact that have a bit of truth are too frequently as close to a lie as one can get without calling it a complete lie.

  11. The various Blackamoors stayed away not as any matter of principal, but as a matter of political theatrics. Which is pretty much what the entire Democratic Party has devolved into – – – a group of retarded mimes. The Dems want a bunch of illegal Hispanics to overrun us so that they can steal future elections more easily. Both parties appreciate the cheap labor aspect of the invasion.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. From the Associate Press fact check of The State of the Union address:

      Trump: “The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration.”

      THE FACTS: Not so. The Obama administration pushed legal status for many more immigrants and was prevented by Congress and the courts from offering it. A 2013 bill that passed the Senate but died in the House would have bestowed legal status on about 8 million people, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.

      In 2014, the Obama administration announced an expanded program that included parents of young immigrants who were shielded from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, the measure would have given legal status to up to 4 million people. The Supreme Court deadlocked on the plan, letting a lower court ruling stand that blocked it.”

      Squeeky said, “The Dems want a bunch of illegal Hispanics to overrun us so that they can steal future elections more easily.”

      But Trump bragged last night about a pathway to citizenship that covers almost three times more than the previous administration. Did Trump lie about that, Squeeky???

      2. Diane – be very careful about the fact checkers. Obama never got a policy through.

      3. You have drunk the Kool Aid again. What number was talked about recently? It wasn’t 4 million. AP had to go back to 2014 to get that number. It ain’t 2014 right now. Now, it is 2018, and the latest number that was talked about was around 800,000.

        Am I happy that a bunch of illegals are going to become citizens? No. But to cut a deal for this if you can then cut off the constant dribble coming in, then I would go for it. I don’t think Hispanics are as stupid as Blacks, and I suspect they will not be a reliable base for the Democrats in perpetuity like the ignorant Negroes who vote 90% for Dems.

        I could be wrong on that. In the long run, past 2020, I fully expect the stupidity and criminality of the Democratic Party to succeed in turning us into Venezuela,

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky said, “What number was talked about recently? It wasn’t 4 million. AP had to go back to 2014 to get that number. It ain’t 2014 right now. Now, it is 2018, and the latest number that was talked about was around 800,000.”

          Trump said, “The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration.”

          A court in Texas overruled DAPA. That lowered the number of people covered to those eligible for DACA. Trump is now claiming that he would expand DACA to cover 1.8 million. Maybe Trump is the one who “wants a bunch of illegal Hispanics to overrun us so that they [Democrats] can steal future elections more easily.”

      4. “bestowed legal status on about 8 million people”

        But Trump was talking about the “1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age” According to the way Diane places her snippets 8 million illegal immigrants were brought by their parents at a young age.

        Diane conflates and negates her thesis at the same time.

        1. Allan, if you want to refute something, anything, then at a minimum you have to assert something else other than the assertion you’re attempting to refute.

          1. You conflated bits of fact and did so wrongly. Diane, you have to try and understand what you are quoting.

            1. Either Trump’s path to citizenship is almost three times more generous than Obama’s path to citizenship, or Trump’s path to citizenship is NOT almost three times more generous than Obama’s path to citizenship. There is no “inclusive middle” between those two disjuncts, Allan. So pick one. And stick with it. Either Trump is more generous to illegal immigrants than Obama was, or Trump lied when he said he was more generous than Obama was toward illegal immigrants.

              P. S. Everybody already knows the true disjunct in that dilemma. But no Trump supporter will admit it. Why not?

              1. Diane, again you are trying to obfuscate the question. Trump made a comment that was close but not exact enough though the point he was making was correct. There are many different comparisons that can be made on this issue, but you seem to mix and match along with fictitious additions. That is why I said, “Diane conflates and negates her thesis at the same time.”

                Go ahead and post all the numbers with explanations of where the numbers come from. Then compare Trump’s numbers to Obama’s. That is how one proves their contentions. You don’t do that because you are lazy and not very good with numbers

  12. The only division is between idiot Leftists and Americans. The response of the idiot Leftists to the President’s speech says it all.

    President: We want to make America great for ALL Americans.
    Leftists: (Sitting down instead of applauding): We HATE that. We want to see America brought to her knees.

    President: Black unemployment is at its lowest level in history.
    Leftists: (Sitting and reacting angrily): We don’t want jobs, you a-hole! We want more government HANDOUTS so we Leftists can get votes from the people who only want freebees.

    And so on and so forth. However, it’s not the President’s job to educate idiot Leftists. They will always be idiots and enemies of America and all that it stands for. So the hell with ’em.

      1. Marky Mark Mark – Ralph Adamo is right. And you have not offered an alternative to his scenario. Even got one?

      2. “The only division is between idiot Leftists and Americans. ”

        Mark M. Sounds to me that Ralph is entirely correct. You prove that every time you open your mouth

    4. From the link to AP fact check just upstream from here:

      TRUMP: “After years and years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages.”

      THE FACTS: Actually, they are not rising any faster than they have before. Average hourly pay rose 2.5 percent in 2017, slightly slower than the 2.9 percent increase recorded in 2016.

      Most economists say wages should increase at a faster rate as the unemployment rate drops. The unemployment rate stands at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent, but that has done little so far to spark rising wages.

      The last time unemployment was this low, in the late 1990s, average hourly pay was rising at a 4 percent pace.”

      Ralph Adamo said:

      “President: We want to make America great for ALL Americans.
      Leftists: (Sitting down instead of applauding): We HATE that. We want to see America brought to her knees.”

      Either Ralph Adamo didn’t listen to Trump’s SOTU address, or Ralph Adamo forgot to take the tampons out of his ears while The POTUS was speaking last night.

      1. Diane – where is your counter-argument to Ralph’s. And btw, just because you no longer have a use for tampons does not mean Ralph would use them as ear-plugs. Even I have a box of ear-plugs.

        1. Ralph said The President said “We want to make America great for ALL Americans.”

          Paul said, “where is your counter-argument to Ralph’s.”

          Wages are not rising at the 4% rate at which they rose the last time unemployment was 4% in the late 1990s. Wages are rose at 2.5 % in 2017 and rose at 2.9 % in 2016. Wage stagnation does not make America great for all Americans.

          1. It is all a matter of how one calculates the rise in wages. The American people as a whole are better off now and will be even better off in February when their taxes fall and those that cannot afford Obamacare no longer have to pay the fines.

            Without question, the economy and America is much better off today with a president that looks towards growth than the former president that was satisfied to tread water as the country gradually sank.

          2. Diane – he has only been President for a year and accomplished more than any other President in the same time, short of getting us into a war.

            1. Let me see if I’ve got this right. When wages are stagnant, Trump is blameless because he’s only been President for a year. But when Black unemployment is at an all-time low, Trump has accomplished more in just one year as President than any other President before Trump. Is that your thesis, Schulteacher?

              P. S. If Adamo is right, then how does low Black unemployment make America great for all Americans? Because wages are stagnant for both White and Black Americans?

  13. I do wish our congress would approach the State of the Union address with more of the attitude and vocal reactions as found in Questions to the Prime Minister in Great Britain.

  14. It is a bit obnoxious to me that the Professor would compare President Trump’s lies to Bill Clinton’s lie. But of course that is the reason we read the blog.

    1. I am pretty sure your words do not represent Turley’s words. Turley pointed out only Water’s hypocrisy, saying she boycott’s Trump’s speech because he is a “liar,” while she had no problem with Clinton’s actual criminal perjury. JT did not necessarily confirm nor deny Trump lied, only Water’s hypocrisy.

      1. When they realized what a colossal mistake it was to stage the young Kennedy in front of an old car, they panicked and smeared a ton of lip gloss all over his mouth hoping viewers would be too distracted debating whether it was spittle or drool or lip gloss that they wouldn’t notice the car behind him.

      1. It was an important reminder of the good old days, the Chappaquiddick triathlon; drink, drive, swim.

        1. Its more a quadrathalon: drink, drive, swim and then call around for a good story on a phone apparently not equipped to call the authorities. Hey, its easier than shooting from skis.

        2. Allan:

          Saddest words ever transcribed about the scandal and the most damning:

          “It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position…. She didn’t drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die. I could have had her out of that car twenty-five minutes after I got the call. But he [Ted Kennedy] didn’t call.”

          — Town Diver John Farrar, Inquest into the Death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Edgartown District Court. New York: EVR Productions, 1970.

          1. It proves how those in position can get away with murder. Ted Kennedy known as The Lion of the Senate provides further proof that the Democratic Party failed its mission.

  16. Unfortunately for me and the State of Texas our so-called Representatives to Congress are right wing religious wacko teabagging repugthuglicans. As my Representatives I wish them to boycott the liar fascist in chief. It is the repugthuglicans that have purposely divided and dumbed down our nation. They are responsible for the slide into a 3 world banana republic that is a police state plutocracy.

    Yes, blue dawg corporate elite in the demoRat party have caused their share of grief for the American people, but none compare to the divide and conquer plans of the repugthuglicans.

    I hope ever Democrat, the real ones, either don’t show up or turn their backs and walk out on the draft dodging lying scum bag wanna’ be Mussolini.

    NOT MY PRESIDENT! NEVER MY PRESIDENT!

    USMC Sgt-Vietnam 1966/67

    4. sgtsabai, thank you for your service to our country. My neighbor across the street served in Da Nang in 1968. He doesn’t like to talk about it. I hope you pulled through well enough.

    5. Funny, I never met a Marine who would call the Commander-in-Chief a “fascist in chief.” I have met a few folks who claimed to be Marines who made similar disrespectful claims about the chain of command but they were usually wackos spewing some nonsense about conspiracies. I’ve also met some Vietnam vets who got as close to the fighting as a German Air Force base and then used that status to lecture other folks on the evils of American foreign policy. Life is full of frauds, wannabes and haters.

      1. Mespo727272 said, ” Life is full of frauds, wannabes and haters.”

        I can explain that. You see, Mespo decides whether someone was or was not a Marine in Vietnam in 1966 through 1967 solely on the basis of whether that Marine agrees with Mespo about Trump or disagrees with Mespo about Trump. That procedure is aptly decribed by Mespo himself as, “the identity politics path.”

        1. Diane – we are learning Identity Politics from the DNC. It is early days.

          1. Are you suggesting that White nationalism is something other than identity politics?

            1. Diane – white Nationalism does not exist except as the hobgoblin of the DNC and liberals.

        2. No L4D it’s not identity politics. IP subverts the individual’s characteristic in favor of some group characteristic which is then elevated into some kind of mass victimhood. Deducing an individual’s veracity by comparing it to a norm is called “critical thinking.” Maybe you’re one of those “believe the victim regardless” types. Most folks aren’t that obtuse as surprising as that might seem to you. I can get you a coloring book or flash cards to help explain. Please advise.

          1. Sergeant Sabai said something about Trump that Mespo727272 didn’t like. Therefore, Mespo727272 accused Sergeant Sabai of fraudulently claiming a military service record. And now Mespo727272 claims that his accusation against Sergeant Sabai stems from “critical thinking” skills rather than identity politics. Next thing you know Mespo727272 will claim that Trump has never appealed to the identity politics of White nationalism. O! What was that word Mespo used . . . ? Veracity. That’s the word Mespo used.

            1. Trump never appealed to white nationalism. He appealed to patriotism. I know the distinction is lost upon the right-brained crowd but we still hope those “dreamers” go home, too.

            2. I do note with interest that Sgt. Leatherneck here has disappeared into the ether following the challenge to his credentials leaving only L4D as his ernest if inept defender. Maybe he was referring to his status as a marine sgt. in the NVA? Makes sense.

              1. At last count people with the surname Sabai live in fifteen different countries of the world. The United States has the most people with the surname Sabai. And a fair number of our fellow Americans with the surname Sabai just so happened to be Hmong from Laos. Perhaps Mespo should look up the battle record of Hmong who served on our side during The Vietnam War before Mespo provokes Sergeant Sabai any further. Of course, it’s just a guess. There are people in France named Sabais.

  17. Stupid mess… I thought the kinte cloth esp silly. I also wondered if Nancy was trying to chew her lips off her face

    Trump just keeps backing the Democrats into awkward corners

    1. Yeah. He offers citizenship to 2M illegals and the apparently dope-smoking Fancy Nancy Pelosi calls him Hitler? WTH?

      1. Joseph Jones:

        “Yeah. He offers citizenship to 2M illegals and the apparently dope-smoking Fancy Nancy Pelosi calls him Hitler? WTH?”
        ********************************************************
        ̶Yeah. He offers citizenship to 2M illegals and the apparently dope -̶s̶m̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶F̶a̶n̶c̶y̶ Nancy Pelosi calls him Hitler? WTH?

        Hope you don’t mind the edit; tighter prose, you know.

  18. After 1 full year of having President Trump, its becoming clear that Trump Derangement Syndrome could be a permanent disability. Doesn’t look like there’s any hope for behavioral norms to return.

    1. Tell da old coot to shape up and quit havin affairs and wash that orange goo off his face.

  20. While I think most of the Blue Team was about as childish as can be during the speech – not applauding for putting America first? Communists! – it’s good Wilson wasn’t there as no one behind her would have been able to see over or around her obnoxious hats.

    And with the absence of this feckless triumvirate, we’re able to see exactly what the Congress would look like were it not for inner city voters who follow these shills like lemmings to a cliff.

    1. Wilson….Woodrow? He was he founder of progressively regressive socialism in the USA.

Comments are closed.