The State of the Union is less written than it is designed, structured and organized around applause prompts and camera cues.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The problem with State of the Union speeches is that they are, by their nature and design, alphabet soup. It's hard to know what a president really cares about when they run down a laundry list and check every issue box under the sun for fear they will offend some constituency if they don't.
To denigrate the union movement in this way is to denigrate the right and the ability of people who are not rich to organize and to accomplish things together.
To me, the real 'state of the union' is found in how Americans react to current events.
I actually think that 'States of Union' will be a lifelong endeavor for me. It won't take up all my energy as it has in recent years, but I imagine that I will always continue to add to the body of work - the project of documentation will never be entirely complete.
What can't be said can be written. Because writing is a silent act, a labor from the head to the hand.
If not met promptly and decidedly, the two portions of the Union will gradually become thoroughly alienated, when no alternative will be left to us, as the weaker of the two, but to sever all political ties or sink down into abject submission.
I sometimes think that unions don't understand that we live in a free society, and people have the right to not select union representation if they don't want it.
What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
The union is much more than me, and when you think the union is you and it's not about who you represent, I think you've sort of lost your morals and focus and the purpose of your leadership.
The Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible union disposed of indestructible States.