In its commentary of Trump's State of the Union address to Congress, The Wall Street Journal noted how conciliatory the language was and how little Trump dwelt on some of the thornier sticking-points between him and the House Democrats. What seems astonishing to me is how irrelevant such dissecting of Trump's speeches is.
First this was clearly carefully scripted by someone in the White House other than him, and therefore doesn't really reflect his thinking. Second, he has fairly consistently said things in prepared speeches which he later contradicts in unscripted remarks or tweets. And finally, consistency really isn't Trump's thing, at least when it comes to policy; he will turn on a dime if his media boosters (Coulter, Hannity, Carlson, Ingrham, Limbaugh etc) tell him something isn't what he "base" wants to hear. He appears neither to remember nor care what he has said in the past, and if contradicting himself serves the purpose of the moment he will without a second's though.
All of which makes scrutiny of his prepared (and even his unscripted) utterances a complete waste of time. We need only know that he is seldom honest, has no regard for facts, data, or experts, and is motivated by instantaneous gratification and self-interest: And take whatever he says with a very large pinch of salt.
