I did hear the speech---twice and read it twice. Each time I listened and read, I liked the speech more. The tone is certainly different than other recent inaugural addresses. The President did not sugarcoat the reality of where we are nationally and internationally. He ripped away the blinders worn by the oligarchy. I suspect they're still hurting and heads are spinning. Remember this when listening to the entrenched media and talking heads.
As I was saying about blinders.... You heard what you wanted to hear -- not surprising, as he was playing to you.
We're already in a trade war @r9etb and we are losing. The simplest and surest way to end any war is to win it quickly and decisively. That victory is the President's goal.
Indeed. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the type of protectionism he seems to be recommending has never turned out well. All it does is invite tit-for-tat responses that help no one, least of all the people he says he's trying to help.
Note what Trump did
not say. He did not say anything about making it easier for American companies to employ Americans or to manufacture things here. His only prescription seems to be government action against other countries. Are you sure that's the sort of war you want to get into?
Seriously? You envision Putin or Juan Peron saying this:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another -- but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People."
Well, I can imagine somebody like Robespierre saying something like that. It's a great line, and if I trusted Trump to act in a way that was true to Lincoln's idea of a government "of, by, and for the people," then great.
The problem is that Trump didn't stop there; the whole "America First" theme of his speech sounded to me like a lot of Strongman talk, which is why I pointed to the likes of Putin and Peron. He quite frankly spoke of a policy of isolationism and protectionism, and in that context the whole "America First" thing sounded an awful lot like Messrs. Charles Lindbergh or Patrick J. Buchanan, with all of the unpleasant implications of the phrase.
President Trump spoke of a government of, by, and for the people. He spoke of reigniting and channeling the talent and spirit of the American people--joining together to make America safe again, wealthy again, strong again and greater than ever before.
Actually, he did not say "of, by, and for the people" at all. It does not appear in his speech.
What he did say, was this:
"At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction, that a nation exists to serve its citizens." That's rather different from the ideal expressed by the Declaration of Independence, is that government exists to secure "certain unalienable rights." In essence he's saying: if there's something that needs to be done, the government is here to help you do it. And he even proposed a great big, taxpayer-funded (by debt) public works program to prove it.
I pray he meant every word.
Indeed. Let's hope you don't get what you pray for.
