There should be NO SOTU address

[maxrandb]

We should do nothing to give even a hint of legitimacy to this hateful, racist POS.

What? Is Speaker Pelosi supposed to stand up and say; I'm happy to present the President of the United States", as if this fuckstick is normal or legitimate?

I'll tell you what. Let's make a deal. Donnie Short Fingers can give his SOTU address

- After he sits down for an interview with the Special Council.

- After he publicly directs his associates, cabinet members and children to fully cooperate with congressional and Special Council investigations.

- After he legally waives the power for any future pardons for those indicted by the Special Council or States Attorneys General.

- After he releases the past 10 years of his tax returns as he promised.

- After he divests himself of his holdings and stops profiting off of his office.

- After he removes Stephen Miller from the White House... and preferably from this planet.

-After he sends Ivanka and Jerrod back to NY, never to darken the halls of government...EVER

Do that and then we can talk about a SOTU.

[mainstreetonce]

1. If he signs a temporary three week deal

Nancy should not schedule a date till the solution is permanent.

[Brawndo]

5. +1!

[Hortensis]

2. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3: The president "shall from time to time

give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The wording does not say just when, but congress does not have the right to refuse to be informed, and that would also be an abrogation of duty. Yes, it's somewhat obsolete and redundant in the Information Age, but it is still the law.

And we are the party, the ONLY party, currently protecting the constitution, the principles on which our nation was founded, and the rule of law. Imo, "Chuck and Nancy's" are doing more than okay. They are both upholding the principles and laws of our democracy because they believe in them and know what they're doing.

[maxrandb]

3. He can give it in writing like they did 100 years ago

[Hortensis]

4. Would being small and punitive over an important,

symbolic tradition like the SOTU be in our nation's interest? Wouldn't denying the nation the opportunity to witness this tradition as we always have would be just plain wrong and counterproductive. Would we "celebrate" the Fourth of July on paper if the tradition rituals somehow benefited Trump?

Leave wrong to the Republicans so enough people can see it clearly.

[maxrandb]

6. This is an existential threat

So yes, go back to delivering it in writing. We would go back to what the purpose of the SOTU was, not some bread and circuses caricature that it has become.

[politicaljunkie41910]

7. All he's going to do is lie in his SOTU speech. Particularly about the actual State of the Union.

With him as our president; a liar and Putin ass kisser, and a threat over our heads of another possible Shutdown in three weeks, the State of our Union is F*cked up.

[politicaljunkie41910]

9. If Congress is relying on the A*hole in the WH who doesn't read to be informed, than we are doomed.

Let's not kid ourselves. No one watching a SOTU speech given by this president is seriously expecting to walk away more 'informed' than they were when they sat down. My guess is that the other congressional members are more likely than not to be concentrating on their 'pool' numbers to see if their prediction comes more closely to how many lies he tells, than the guy next to them predicted.

[ProudLib72]

8. Completely agree

No SOTU from unindicted co-conspirator Individual 1. Not broadcast. Not delivered from the floor of the House.

[Raine]

10. After he gave in it would look bad

for Nancy to deny him the speech IMO.

[MiniMe]

11. He should submit it in writing

There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a televised address. There wasn't even radio when the Constitution was written