Generally, when "stand" is used to mean "is in a standing position", it is accompanied by a location:
He stood in the corner, sipping a whiskey.
They stood around the table, arguing.
She stood by the window, looking forlornly down the empty driveway.
Often this meaning will be expressed in the past continuous, using "was standing" instead of "stood" to unambiguously refer to the condition of standing, as opposed to the act of standing:
He was standing in the corner, sipping a whiskey.
When "stand" is used to mean "get to one's feet", it is either unaccompanied, or accompanied by an event:
He stood when she entered the room.
They stood as the speaker finished his speech.
"Now that you're here, I can finally leave," she said as she stood.
In my experience, stand up is rarely used for "be in a standing position" when it refers to a person; you are much more likely to hear it used for an inanimate object (especially one which is normally horizontal), and again it will most likely be accompanied by a location:
The bedframe stood up against the wall.
Most often, stand up is used for the action of getting to one's feet:
He stood up and stretched
As I approached, he stood up and reached to shake my hand.
Everyone stood up when the orchestra finished its song.
In your first two examples, people changed from sitting to standing when the president came in, and people changed from sitting to standing for the opening of the speech (they did not remain standing for the entire speech, but sat down again after only a moment or two).
Your given alternatives, "get to one's feet" and "rise", both unambiguously refer to the action of changing from a non-standing position into a standing position.
The meanings can overlap.
To "quote" is to repeat someone else's words, in a way that indicates that you are repeating someone else's words, as opposed to incorporating them into your own work without any explicit identification that they are copied. (This could be plagiarism or it could be an allusion, but that's a different issue.)
To "cite" is to reference some other work. You may be quoting it word-for-word or you may simply be referring to it. "Cite" can be used to mean "quote", but it would rarely be used if you gave a quote without a reference, and it can be used when you give a reference without a quote.
Examples: "As Winston Churchill said, 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.'" This is unquestionably a quote. It might be called a citation.
"According to Barclay's Famous Quotations, Winston Churchill once said, 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat." This is both a quote and a citation.
"In his History of Britain, Charles Stover says that Churchill called on the British people to be willing to make sacrifices." This is a citation but not a quote. It is not a quote because we are not repeating any exact words.
And to be complete: If I wrote a novel, and at some point in the novel I write, "General Framnitz urged his soldiers to fight on. 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and the billions of dollars of loot that we will get when we take the city'", that would be an allusion and not a quote, because I am not making any clear reference to Mr Churchill, and because I'm adapting the quote for my own purposes.
A citation can be informal like my examples here, "As he said in ...", or it could be a more formal reference, like "See Stover, Charles. History of Britain. Fwacbar Publishing, 1964, pp 85-86" (The exact formatting varying depending on what style guide you're using, if any.)
Best Answer
Short answer: a confusing something and a confused something are similar, and closely related, but not necessarily the same.
Let's try a simpler verb: interesting--interested. There are 3 people in this example, A, B, and C. Suppose that,
A interests B. -- Let's say that A successfully gets B's attention by making himself or herself look interesting. We can say that, B finds A interesting.
C may observe that,
C may or may not think that B is interesting. However, if C thinks that the fact that B is interested in A makes B interesting, C may think that B is interesting, too, which in turn makes C think that,
In this case (to C), B is both interesting and interested.
The same applies to confusing and confused in your question.
When we say or write confusing ideas, we mean that to us, the ideas are confusing, and we look at it from our point of view. We feel that they are "confusing". To us, it's difficult to understand.
When we say or write confused ideas, we mean that the ideas are confused. They are not well organized or explained. We may say that the person who states the ideas "confuse" them, and as a result, the ideas are not clear or not easy to understand.
Thus, a confusing something may not be confused.
And a confused something may not be confusing, either.
In short, they're similar, and closely related, but not necessarily the same.