tries to grab the spotlight whenever possible, doesn't he?

This is the time to unite for the elections later this year. And having so many liberal/progressive/Democratic responses to the Trump blather will be great.

I love them all.

Especially, go Maxine Waters. Tell it like it is as we used to say.

Thanks to all who are responding to Trump tonight. The more the merrier I say!

That's the beauty of our democracy. Our freedom to choose, that is now under such serious threat.

Pity more didn't put that emphasis on it when they had the chance to save it.

Enjoy your show

I will be watching all of the rebuttals.

Should be an evening in which liberals and Democrats shine.

Good for us!

By David Weigel January 29 at 3:02 PM

Excerpt:

As Democrats announced last week, third-term Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) will give their official response to the president’s Tuesday night speech, delivering it from his home state and skipping the pomp in Congress. Virginia Del. Elizabeth Guzman, a member of the Democrats’ 2017 landslide class in the state legislature, will give a Spanish-language response — also official.

There’ll be a response from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), too, differing from the official speeches in that the senator, for the second year, will give a retort to the speech itself. (Typically, respondents write their speeches ahead of time with only vague ideas of what’s in the presidential address.)

And there will be at least two more progressive responses. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) will respond to Trump at the top of a BET news special, and former Maryland congresswoman Donna F. Edwards, who’s running for Prince George’s County executive, will deliver an address on behalf of the Working Families Party. All of them are to Kennedy’s left on a few issues, such as marijuana legalization.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/01/29/sanders-and-progressives-plan-three-responses-to-the-state-of-the-union/

side have so many well qualified, talented people responding to Trump's trash talk.

Thanks for posting this. Looking forward to the speeches.

is not a Democratic Party friend, fair to say? Or they wouldn't interfere with the Party's response.

No one is going to interfere with the response of anyone else.

I want to hear them all!

When I marched in the Los Angeles Women's March along with many, many other women, I did not feel that I was interfering with their marches or that they were interfering with mine. We were marching together.

The Democratic speakers will be speaking in support of the Resistance, and that is what matters.

We either unite and accept one another or we all fail.

watching various responses.

It's important that people watch the Democratic Party's response, which is the one by Joe Kennedy. If someone else plans a speech at THAT time, the purpose, in my view, is to take viewership away from the Democratic Party's response. They're free to do that. But those people wouldn't of course be Democrats.

the one most people will see. Other speeches that are not on TV can't possibly interfere.

I will watch all of them, every single one, on YouTube because I don't have cable TV.

Just joking. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so I don't mean any of this personally. I hope I did not hurt your feelings.

ANY of these speeches, much less castigate people for not lining up behind one speech.

The Democratic Party is a huge tent filled with a tremendous diversity of groups from across the nation. That's something to celebrate, and the only lines that matter are the ones at our polling places on November 6, 2018.

"The differences between them & us are"....
Already driving that wedge & dividing that line.

Broadbrushing points early on.

Its all there & we have a right to question why the tactics when our nation is in the hands of those who embrace Putin & fascism.

Never too early to get those digs in.
Unity, hmm.


We all see it.

flood the airways. Get our message out. They are liars and thieves and I want to see as much opposition as possible.

The Democratic Party message is the Joe Kennedy message.

No other Democratic voices allowed or welcomed?

liberals than just Kennedy will listen to Trump?

I am not sure I will listen to Trump --- except maybe I will because he is bound to say something outrageously narcissistic. He always does, and it would be fun to play some sort of game where we all do something like sip your favorite drink (mine is herb tea) every time Trump slips into an egotistical, bragging rant and/or every time he talks about something that hints that he is under the influence of control of Russia.

That would be fun. But I may just skip Trump's speech. He always says the same self-soothing things anyway.

In what way?

How is name calling unifying?

Please stop that. It helps no one.
Thanks

on maybe just "strident"? A bit of an understatement, but... I confess I was a little startled at the claim that Maxine Waters and that person from what, Maryland?, who's also giving a response are not Democrats.

But maybe we'd better get used to it. Sanders fans, a couple of enthusiastic threads suggest that Joe 3's name may just be inspiring some of the romantics and people who need a leader they can passionately (not fanatically!) follow.

Toxic Nuke dumping, Amber Alert, Magnitsky..this list grows.

In light of what is staring us in the face with Russian influence rapidly destroying our US Govt, this was a shamrful vote.

Those 2 votes against Magntsky were 2 votes for Vlad.
Pity 2 people couldn't have seen the urgency of such a vote.

Wonder why. Ya know, what the REAL reason was.

Lets ask Tad. He's got a background in Russia/Ukraine influence & he knows bernie's heart from the 2015/16 campaign.
Perhaps he could shed some light on Why.

Where is he btw?

The Magnitsky vote was a telling moment, indeed

No clue why someone would not wish more sanctions to be placed on Russia. For pete's sake they meddled in OUR ELECTIONS!

We'll never be given the real answer.
At this point we don't need one anymore.
We know why

my dad used to do the same thing every year.

https://politics.theonion.com/dad-delivers-state-of-the-union-rebuttal-directly-into-1819576042

I don't suppose the Working Family Party response will pull many eyes, but 3 Democrats in 2 languages, an independent and a 3rd party spokesperson?

At the same time?

Seems muddy

I don't subscribe to cable. I can't afford it. So I watch everything on YouTube.

We can all watch all of the speakers.

Anyone who interferes with the Democratic Party representative chosen to represent the Party's position re SOTU, is interfering with our chances in the mid-terms and 2020.

On the Trump Party.

ONE MESSAGE ONE VOICE

Period

ein volk ein führer

We are getting closer.

I like Kennedy. I just want to know who chose him and how he was chosen.

Was a committee in the Congress? Or the leaders of the Democratic Party? Who???

Regimentation, authoritarianism, everybody walk in lock-step.

That's not the way to win elections in the US.

It will incite only rebellion especially among those under 45.

We Democrats run on tolerance and win when we practice it.

Democrats have many different opinions. One thing we agree on is that we agree to disagree. It's a beautiful thing -- democracy. Lots of new ideas popping up all over. The more we try to destroy them, the more we lose.

Let it be. Just let go. May the best ideas and candidates win.

Didn't mean any personal offense.

"One People, One Empire, One Leader".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer

"One of the Nazis' most-repeated political slogans was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – "One People, One Empire, One Leader.....the slogan "left an indelible mark on the minds of most Germans who lived through the Nazi years...."

It is a highly offensive term, and using it in conjunction with Democrats is way out of line.

If you said, "Well, we need to work a little harder."

And someone who disagreed with you replied

That is reprehensible.

I do not mean to offend, but let's be accepting and not rigid. We will unite and win if we accept from the get-go that we will all have our own opinions and not agree on everything. The future of our country is at stake. We have to unite and accept those who don't always agree with us. That goes for all sides.

The division among Democrats right now will only lead to failure and lost votes.

So being tolerant of those who think and vote differently than we do is the first step toward unity.

The alternative is Trump.

It's up to those who win, who are in charge, to reach out to those who are not. That is part of the job of winners. That's part of what you win when you win a primary or an election or just a game.

Trump is horrible at reaching out to those who lost. Democrats should be good at it.

So let's reach out to all who want to respond to the Trump speech.

Move-On sent me an e-mail that they are organizing something also with Mark Ruffalo and Michael Moore, if I read it correctly.

Let's be inclusive. That's how Democrats can win in November and in 2020.

and/or being tolerant to refer to Democrats as "lazy bums" if they don't live in California?

When Democrats get out an talk to voters, they win votes for Democrats.

I've done that for many years. People who don't are lazy bums unless they have a good excuse.

You can't complain about losing elections unless you really worked hard to win them.

And I wouldn't use the term "lazy bums" for anyone who is working in harmony, united to try to win elections for Democrats. It would not apply.

But if someone doesn't work, then they are either a lazy bum or not a Democrat in my humble opinion.

and Republicans. The difference between electing Democrats and Republicans is the amount of hard work and working together that Democrats do.

If a state is not Democratic, it is because Democrats have not worked hard enough to unite, inform voters and get out the vote on election day.

are the result of naivety or obtuseness remains to be seen.

worked hard this year. The results are obvious. Those Democrats are doing, not just writing and talking. We can win back the Congress if we all work.

Or calling people "corporate shills" if they have the nerve to express any dissent whatsoever?

Again, you are pointing in the wrong direction with your implications of fascism and exclusivity- it's not the Democrats who refuse to reach out. Or require purity tests.

"ein volk ein führer" - you may have deleted that, but not before so many here read it.

You keep saying that word "inclusive," but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Too bad you got here after RidersoftheStorm "left." You two would have had a lot to talk about.

Until then, it is beyond a simple Godwin's law slip up, and is an insult that you have been informed of, and refuse to remedy or even acknowledge as such.

This is a group of progressives here. You claim to be new here, but you have been here long enough to know when you are being called on your language and intentions, and the expectations of respect for Democrats in this community.

Apologize, like any decent, polite human being would do when told the negative, hurtful effect their words have had on others, edit or delete and your goodwill will be confirmed.

On health care reform, any and all amendments, etc.

I think you are pointing to the wrong place for your Nazi comparisons.

This is Democratic Underground, in case you forgot.

and vote their ideals like "best ideas and candidates." This all looks very familiar. Many people who never voted for Hillary post at that JPR website and these are the exact notions they promote.

Electing Democrats is the idea. Shunning Democrats because they are not pure enough is what got us Trump. Let's not promote that disaster again.

If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you allowed Trump.

Himself? The leaders of the Independents in Congress? Who????

their votes?

Maybe we can win without their votes?

Just forget them?

or did someone nominate him and then an impromptu vote was held?

But then why question the choice of Congressman Kennedy and use Nazi slogans to describe the Democratic party and it's decision?

at least the official Democratic spokesperson...

You seem to have very pointed ideas.

What do you think?

a way for him to keep the focus on himself and compete with the DEm message, otherwise he would've scheduled it at a different and time.

Since you have shown a great interest in how they are chosen.

asking about who selected Kennedy, so it must be a very important issue for you. It should also ease your mind to know who chose Bernie. I don't know why you are asking about throwing people out. That seems kind of rude to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Nothing in between?

Because you say so?

Sounds pretty rigid.

Last edited Tue Jan 30, 2018, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

To that asshole?

This seems reasonable to you, why?

Words fail me - No scratch that. Polite words fail me.

In your mind DU is full of "fanatics" and main line Dems are close being to Nazi's because they didn't get sufficient approval for their spokesman - and who exactly should have veto power over the DNC's choice may I ask?

I mean I can guess...

Go ahead and watch who you want - and put my fat ass on ignore as well.

EIN VOLK EIN FUHER my mother fucking ass. Who the fuck do you think you are to speak like that to the people who you supposedly claim as allies?

Offensive strawman much?

I like Kennedy. He's a good choice, but I wondered who chose him because a lot of people here seem to think that we should only listen to his speech.

I don't limit myself that way although I will definitely listen to his speech.

I went to hear his grandfather give a speech when I was in my 20s. So this should be interesting.

And who decided he would speak concurrently with the official Democratic responded?

But for me, since I don't watch TV, there will be no concurrently. I will watch ALL of the speeches on the internet. I think a lot of people will.

But don't seem to care who chose Bernie.

Why?

This is not a critical opportunity to enlist Democrats for 3 years in an electoral army marching behind Joe 3, so relax.

Do you know a very large portion of the populace watches maybe 10 minutes of news each day and another portion none at all? Less than 1% watch cable political shows. They're certainly not watching 2 speeches tonight.

Like our kids. They and their spouses are all Democrats. and they always vote. But tonight they will be at events their children are participating in, and when they finally get home after a very long day they're certainly not going to watch political speeches. They know what they want and will vote for it when the time comes.

Having multiple speakers from different perspectives within our coalition will attract multiple audiences as opposed to forcing a single audience to view multiple speakers?

Multiple audiences, more anti-Trump viewers, how is that a bad thing?

Seems to think selecting one king bee is vital, or the electoral hive will fall apart.

But favorites don't make for a Democratic Party win, necessarily.

Let's keep our eye on the ball: Wins for Democrats.

See response below.. We're way past everything "running concurrently." I for one am thrilled and plan to listen to all opposition speakers, though not at the same time.

who chose him, to give the speech.

And it amazes me when everyone here rushes to approve whoever it is that is chosen by this mysterious person or group as "the only spokesperson" for the Democrats.

I just tend to think for myself.

I have absolutely no criticism of Kennedy. His grandfather was wonderful. I remember him well. But the fanatics here about only listening to or watching the one speech is just amazing to me. I don't get it. Why shouldn't other people speak also. I am especially looking forward to Maxine Waters from my state of California and Bernie. Maxine because she will deal with Trump's speech from her point of view in California, and Bernie because he understands the history of the Senate and the economic issues.

I'm sure Kennedy will also give a wonderful speech, and I am curious about the others who will be speaking.

What's wrong with that? I don't just like one flavor of ice cream, and I like salads with a mix of vegetables. I don't understand the rigid view of politics.

Amazing to me that we don't want to hear opposition from everyone. We have all out fascism going on here yet we're worried about who gives the Democratic response and it better be who we say and don't be listening to anyone else.. Who are we?

How about who's giving the American response? I'll listen to anyone who is against this administration and it's stinking racist policies.

This will be a SOTU filled with lies. All opposition should be heard.

Sophia4

I want to listen to all of them. I hope to see them all posted on DU.

i don't subscribe to cable and don't really have access to non-cable TV so I will watch on the internet. We have so many good people in the Democratic Party. I think it is fanatical to limit oneself to only one response. Each speaker will have a slightly different point of view. I love to hear both Bernie and Maxine Waters as well as Kennedy and the others. The more the merrier is my point of view.

It's as if people read only one author or even only one book. How limiting. I just don't think or feel that way.

Maxine Waters is from California. I wouldn't miss her speech for the world. She always tells it like it is. Her voters love her and accept her and she doesn't have to censor every word to please the mob. So I will listen to all the speeches.

with you on this board you call them names and put labels on them?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=477624

Fanatic
NOUN
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
synonyms: zealot · extremist · militant · dogmatist · devotee · adherent · sectarian · bigot · partisan · radical · diehard · maniac

listen to the speeches of different Democrats.
I love Democrats (most of them anyway).

I don't want to discourage any of them.

However it does not address your name calling of other Democrats on this board.

Who knows, Eliot.

It's extensive and highly progressive.

UNLESS certain folks know that but have an agenda.