To Watch or Not to Watch

CF4728FB-9BA6-49A6-9874-F3941702CBD3That is the question. I’m torn. Do I tune into Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech tonight, where he’s being handed a figurative megaphone to spew his lies and his divisiness? He claims he’s going to be talking about unity, but to him, unity means uniformity. It means supporting him unquestioningly, uniting behind him. The kind of unity Senator Lindsey Graham has called for, where he has threatened Republicans who don’t back President Trump on his proposed border wall, which Graham calls “the defining moment of his presidency.” Unity. Yeah, right.

I am tempted to skip the State of the Union because my bullshit meter is full and there’s just no room to overwrite it with more of Donald Trump’s nonsense. And when I think about all of the other possibilities for how I could spend that time: reading a book, reading and writing posts, watching a comedy or drama on TV, listening to upbeat music that I can hum along with, or whatever, why waste my time watching that moron?

I have to admit that I’m considering recording the SOTU on my DVR, just in case he says something truly important.

Yeah, right.

Written for these daily prompts: Fandango’s One-Word Challenge (megaphone), Your Daily Word Prompt (overwrite), Word of the Day Challenge (possibilities), and Ragtag Daily Prompt (hum).


27 thoughts on “To Watch or Not to Watch

  1. cagedunn February 5, 2019 / 2:05 pm

    Record it, and then when you see the fallout, you can have a ‘burn the message’ ritual … catharsis, with the emphasis on the mid-to-right of the word

    Liked by 1 person

  2. msjadeli February 5, 2019 / 4:03 pm

    I can see why you’re torn. It’s a big speech in the career of a US President, while at the same time you know it will be nothing but toxic propaganda. Good luck, whichever way you choose.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. JT Twissel February 5, 2019 / 4:07 pm

    I don’t think I can do it. Although I feel I owe it all the senators and congress people who do have to sit through it presumably without booing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango February 5, 2019 / 4:19 pm

      I’d probably boo.


  4. newepicauthor February 5, 2019 / 7:49 pm

    You did not miss anything worth watching, just a bunch of Republicans cheering after every sentence, enough to make me throw up.

    Liked by 2 people

      • newepicauthor February 6, 2019 / 5:51 am

        You should be thankful that you did miss the re-elect Trump chant, as the was the low point of the speech.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Marleen February 5, 2019 / 10:39 pm

    A lot of new congresswomen (Democrats) took a moment, when they realized they could see a different angle to words he was saying, to stand and cheer (for each other) when Trump said — I’m paraphrasing — that more women are working and have jobs because of him. He didn’t get what they were doing at first and just said they weren’t “supposed to do that” [cheer for things he says]. But he had in his speech, a couple or so lines later, to mention that there are more female congress people now. He said, “Don’t sit down yet, you’re going to like this.”

    The weirdest thing he did was jump from one topic to a different one without proper transition. Sometimes he even started a sentence on one topic and ended the same “sentence” — although this is not the actual definition of a proper sentence — on another topic.

    Of course, he also lied.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Fandango February 5, 2019 / 11:24 pm

      Of course he lied. That’s what he does.

      I didn’t watch it, but I did see some “highlights” afterwards, including the ovation he got from the Democratic women, all wearing white, for his remark about creating jobs for women.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen February 5, 2019 / 11:43 pm

        I noticed that Ivanka and Trump’s daughter-in-law [only one, now, as Donny Jr. has ditched his wife and taken up with a FoxNews gal] did not wear white, while Tiffany (his second daughter) did. Kamala Harris (a senator) also didn’t; nor did Milania. (They both wore black.) I suppose it was mainly a Congressional sign of solidarity. But it was in commemoration of women in the U.S. being allowed to vote (starting a hundred years ago).

        Liked by 2 people

        • Marleen February 6, 2019 / 8:30 am

          {I read somewhere, a few minutes ago, that Melania wore navy — not black. And… that she wore one glove. I saw a glove last night but assumed there were two.}

          Liked by 1 person

          • Fandango February 6, 2019 / 10:25 am

            What is the significance of wearing one glove?


            • Marleen February 6, 2019 / 11:20 am

              I wish I knew. I can only think of Michael Jackson, but that doesn’t seem like something relevant for her or the moment. It could also be a very quiet (and ineffective) call for help — if one hand is injured. Or she may have dropped or lost a glove. Then why not take the other off?

              Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango February 6, 2019 / 5:51 pm

          Not sure what you’re referring to. The women wearing white? That was in honor of the suffrage movement that won women the right to vote. And they weren’t wearing robes or hoods.


  6. MainelyButch February 6, 2019 / 2:05 am

    I am up at 4 am watching newsreels of the “speech” which looks more like a 10th grader’s attempt at public speaking for the first time. He speaks of “ridiculous partisan politics” while HE is the one being the MOST partisan of them all. He threatens no legislation while he’s under investigation…another threat to US citizens whom he is SUPPOSED to lead. SMH…this guy makes me sick daily. I cannot wait until his maker calls him home to hell. ~MB

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen February 6, 2019 / 6:15 am

      I am somewhat amazed I could listen to the whole thing. He usually makes me sick too. Your assessment is about right… he’s actually worse at cohesive sentences and thoughts than an average tenth grader. And his threat is another attempted obstruction of justice, not to mention affront to an equal branch as set forth in the Constitution.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Marleen February 6, 2019 / 6:32 am

        [He] warned that [investigations] could harm the economic “resurgence.”

        “An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations,” Trump said, per his prepared remarks. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way! We must be united at home to defeat our adversaries abroad.”

        I have to wonder if what he said after what the article calls “prepared remarks” was also prepared, and, if so, perhaps added in himself (over any speechwriter’s or advisor’s best effort). It got super weird (while calling economics under him a miracle is weird enough).

        Honestly, I see this as a threat toward chaotic war as well.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango February 6, 2019 / 7:24 am

          “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.” That sounds like something Jesse Jackson could have written. Who knew Trump could be so poetic?


    • Fandango February 6, 2019 / 6:27 am

      “I cannot wait until his maker calls him home to hell.” It can’t be soon enough.

      Liked by 1 person

      • myforever77 February 6, 2019 / 5:44 pm

        I thought you were an atheist? Hmm sorry that must have been another blogger said that to me!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango February 6, 2019 / 5:49 pm

          No, that was me. My response was metaphorical, just like the Bible.


Comments are closed.