'Out of Many, One.' The Democrats Had 5 Very Different Rebuttals for Donald Trump's SOTU

[ehrnst]

Time magazine:

Rep. Kennedy gave a rousing, big-tent speech, folding in everything from education to transgender rights to Dreamer protections (he even addressed Dreamers in Spanish.) In a speech clearly inspired by Obama in substance and style, the 37-year old Congressman repeatedly circled back to the optimistic notion of an America united by common decency and shared values.

“Bullies may lend a punch, they may leave a mark, but they have never, not once, in the history of our United States, managed to match the strength and spirit of the people united in defense of their future,” he said. “That is the measure of our character. That is who we are. Out of many, one.” It was Clinton’s “Stronger Together” message wrapped in Obama’s lofty rhetoric.

Sanders, meanwhile, was down in the weeds, delivering a wonky, detail-oriented speech that quoted the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s job numbers and mentioned that the average American worker got a 0.17% raise last year. But for a speech meant to launch him as a Democratic frontrunner for 2020, it badly missed the mark. It had all the familiar policy points from his 2016 presidential bid, but none of the fiery indignation. And low production values made him look like an grandpa reading a white paper on C-Span.

.....................................

The chorus of liberal responses may also reflect an increasingly fractured media climate, in which more and more voices are competing for attention on different platforms. The response to the State of the Union originally started as a way for the opposition party to match the President’s uninterrupted television airtime on the major networks. Yet today there are so many separate channels and media platforms that the competitive advantage has waned. Major networks carried Kennedy’s speech, but Waters’s was only available on BET, and Sanders was just on a livestream.

http://time.com/5125856/democrat-rebuttal-trump-state-union/

[Blue_Adept]

1. Only ONE was the official party response

And as said elsewhere, this is how it typically goes with different groups. Tea Party ran their own, Republicans ran a spanish language one previously.

And you know that these things didn't really rise that high outside of Kennedy's. Hell, I kept hearing there were five but could only name BET without who was delivering it and Sanders via Facebook. It wasn't until this article that I saw Donna Edwards giving one and that Guzman was delivering a spanish language response.

A whole lotta hay out of nothing. It'll be forgotten as soon as Trump tweets today.

[Bradical79]

13. Is the Spanish language response official?

I know I've seen spanish language responses listed when looking up our party's rebuttals from previous SOTUs.

[oberliner]

2. Watch the Elizabeth Guzman speech

Highly recommended.

[mountain grammy]

7. +1

[CentralMass]

3. Your Bernie bashing serves no positive purpose.

I thought that both the Kennedy and Sander's rebuttals were good.

[ehrnst]

4. Please contact Time magazine if you feel that they were "bashing" Senator Sanders

It's their article, not mine.

[Me.]

29. Have To Admit

Their wording made me laugh

"grandpa reading a white paper on C-Span"

[trueblue2007]

44. LOL LOL

[melman]

61. You know why you posted it

Why pretend otherwise?

[ehrnst]

68. What am I "pretending," exactly?

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Sounds a like you're calling me a liar.

The long knives are already coming out against Joe, after this great speech, because he is now a being discussed for a POTUS 2020 run, and that irritates some who think the nomination belongs to to someone else.

Can't tell if they're coming from the right or the left, but they're clearly "pretending" to critique Kennedy while smearing him (He's "against" universal health care! He's wealthier than the average congressperson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

That's where the real pretending is going on.

[Demsrule86]

69. The article is a good one...and not all of us are fans of Sen. Sanders. I would vote for him if he

won the Democratic party nomination. But not in a primary and it is my opinion, we would lose the general if he was the nominee. I prefer new blood, fresh faces etc. I like Joe Kennedy III...I think he can win...got that elusive something. And since both the Right Wing and the Sanders folks are attacking him on social media, it looks like they view him as a threat.

[ehrnst]

71. The vicious memes flying around facebook

that include the horror that he "doesn't support Medicare for All" are very clear in their origin.

Talk about bashing Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

74. He does support single payer...just doesn't want to endorse something that has few details and no

implementation plan. Also, we need to run on the ACA...as people like it and trust it...the Pugs will demonize single payer. I was angry when single payer was rolled out with no shot at getting it...but leaving it in the field for attack after attack...very foolish. Our best chance unless we get a super majority is to start with a public option for some age group or for folks who can't get the ACA where they live. A big omnibus bill will get us tossed out of the majority and would most likely fail.

[ehrnst]

77. That's enough to damn him to hell with a certain crowd

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

and the memes are anything but nuanced.

A group called "Justice Democrats" is pushing them out on FB. Apparently they feel very, very threatened by that speech and all the positive buzz he got.

They show his net worth...OMG!!!

[mountain grammy]

114. I don't think we should ever abandon single payer or

at the very least, a public option. Had that been included in the ACA, I believe we wouldn't be where we are today, the minority party.
Yes, the ACA may be popular, but it's being gutted anyway. Even rigged elections have consequences. I believe a public option would have been wildly popular, but all that is lost now. We'll be lucky to hold on to Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance plans, like my daughter has.

[KPN]

107. +1! Yup.

Transparent -- and plastic. Time is a conservative Newsweek anyway though -- not surprising.

[brer cat]

11. Your bashing of the poster of the article serves no positive purpose.

I'm sure Time has a place for you to express your displeasure with them.

[Cha]

18. Please get the facts straight.. that

was Time's Mag's Review.. not the OP.

[Me.]

5. KR

Loved the Kennedy Speech, didn't get to see Maxine.

[ehrnst]

6. BET hasn't made a video available yet. I can't wait.

I thought it might be streamed, but it wasn't, and I don't have cable.

[lunasun]

83. It was live on you tube last night the panel after was very good

[Cha]

21. Cherry Bustos needs to

see this review from Time.

[Me.]

30. You Are So Right

Mahalo....

[Cha]

31. SMH

Me

[mountain grammy]

8. Bernie isn't running for president

he presented facts to dispute the constant lies from the White House. I'm happy when anyone does that. We need to hear ideals, but we also need facts. I'll take the wonky facts to back up our ideals any day of the week.. Go Bernie!

[ehrnst]

9. It's too bad that wonky intelligence and being very prepared with facts is sometimes "unlikeable"

in a presidential candidate.

Hillary was often criticized for that in her debates with DT.

[lagomorph777]

10. To some people, stupidity is very charming.

And by "some people" I mean the Despicable Disposable Deplorables.

[mountain grammy]

12. I know..

maybe because the male dominated media didn't like facts from the female, but enjoyed the "male bonding" with the misogynist. It was bullshit, like the entire campaign. Personally, I was proud everytime the facts were put up against the lying motherfucker.

America has become a fake country. too sad.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Yep, in fact she was criticized for just about every fucking thing. Including being sick for one

day and not just coming from cons.

[ehrnst]

82. Imagine if she had gotten a biopsy

and not revealed it, along the fact with it was cancerous, until after the election.

But we'll never know she would be treated, because she didn't.

But we can speculate that she would been excoriated if she had done that, considering how she was accused of lying about her health, and "frail old woman" and "unfit" after powering through walking pneumonia and getting woozy from dehydration in order not to miss the 9/11 ceremony, which she would have been called out for missing - and probably excoriated as weak for because "it's called WALKING pneumonia, old lady."

As Stephen Colbert put it, her real "problematic health condition" is congenital, and every woman in her family has it...

[Demsrule86]

70. He is running for president in my opinion and could cost us the election. We need to move

on from 16...neither Hillary nor Bernie should run.

[JCanete]

14. cool, some person's opinion posted as what...some person's opinion I guess, and to point out

low production values for a political speech...is that what this shit is about really? And according to who, was this a speech meant to launch him as a political front-runner. Sanders has been doing these streams like weekly already and he has a strong audience who must really really care about how glitzy those segments are now mustn't they.


As if we could have ever expected a main-stream mag to say anything other than this. When an outlet posts what is expected of them, because that's what they're selling, well, that's what it comes across as...propaganda for the establishment. Job well done, but lazily so.

[ehrnst]

17. Define "establishment" (nt)

[JCanete]

22. supporting the status quo, insider access, incestuous. Magazines like Time are owned by

interested parties, and typically support things as they are because things as they are is what made those interests millions and billions. Magazines such as time are not going to miss an opportunity to bash a popular figure who promotes a socialist agenda(whereas the preferred treatment is to ignore unknown or burgeoning figures in that ilk), because a socialist agenda is anathema to the status quo that has been so good to them. Even when they aren't big, there is a huge component that is about pleasing your advertisers, and your advertisers are multinational corporations. Tone and content reflects that.

I'm quite certain for the most part, they don't lean heavily on the people they hire to write a certain way and to promote a certain opinion...maybe that happens subtly when it comes to certain issues, but really, its about who they hire in the first place, and from there, people don't have the luxury to grow or change, or at least its very hard so there is no incentive, because their audience is built around a perspective that was also the circumstance of their employment in the first place.

[ehrnst]

23. So, who is "the status quo, insider access?"

Still haven't defined who.

[JCanete]

25. what? really? You are playing a game I could give a shit about. This is systemic. This is machinery.

The magazine hires people that it likes the sound of. what kind of people do you think a magazine like time would like the sound of? This isn't conspiracy shit, Its just the way of the world. It isn't a single person pulling strings from somewhere and it doesn't have to be.

[ehrnst]

34. Don't want to name names, I see.

[JCanete]

36. because I have no idea what it is you are asking for here...the question makes no sense. I'm

perfectly happy to go on record, and without even knowing this writer beyond this one article at that, that this writer doesn't ever have any written opinion that separates him from run-of-the-mill safe-to-publish for all interests that matter, pablum. Of course I could be wrong in this case, but what are the odds really?

[ehrnst]

80. You keep changing who "status quo, establishment" is

when asked.

Is that clearer?

[JCanete]

116. No, when did I do that. Show me where I'm contradicting myself. Point to two opposing

descriptions.

[ehrnst]

117. OK

Here you say: When an outlet posts what is expected of them, because that's what they're selling, well, that's what it comes across as...propaganda for the establishment.

You are asked:
".. propaganda for the establishment"..
"who are you labeling with that so called tiresome, overused insult?

You avoid answering who you label establishment is by pretending like they asked you who you were calling propaganda...

"The rag itself"

You either didn't answer the question, or you are saying that by "establishment" you mean the magazine....which is also the propaganda....

I ask you directly to define "establishment"

You answer with another evasion by defining what propaganda is...

"supporting the status quo, insider access, incestuous."

I ask you to name who the "status quo" is in the insider access...

You become very defensive and reply

"what? really? You are playing a game I could give a shit about. This is systemic. This is machinery.

The magazine hires people that it likes the sound of. what kind of people do you think a magazine like time would like the sound of?"

So now you are apparently saying that the propaganda is not only the magazine, but the status quo it's supporting is "the people the magazine hires"


You talk in circles to avoid answering the very direct question of "who is the "establishment" that the "propaganda" serves, and wind up portraying the magazine as both the propaganda, and the "establishment" it serves.

Is that clearer?

[JCanete]

118. I thought I explained it. The Propaganda is systemic. The system itself necessitates

a certain narrative. Of course I'm saying that the magazine(and what I mean by that is all the personalities involved in hiring and shaping that magazine) employs editors and writers that support that narrative. My definition of propaganda may be too loose, and I'm willing to reign it in if it makes you happy, because I'm talking about it in the sense of the narrative that people buy into mostly freely, just without very much examination, but I'm talking also about why that narrative is so intractable as well, and that's because those who benefit from the status quo have a vested interest in, if not perpetuating it nefariously, actually believing it. Less cognitive dissonance that way. The issue here is that it effects which voices get heard and which voices do not, and of course it would, but it should come as no surprise to you what those voices tend sound like at a major institution like Time, and what they never sound like.

So yes, the magazine serves as both an example of the status-quo and one way in which that status quo is perpetuated through narrative. How is this a contradiction exactly?

[ehrnst]

119. Yeah, keep on avoiding the question...

Who is this "establishment" that you have railed against.

And yer not going to answer, and I understand why.

[JCanete]

125. I still don't know what you're looking for. It isn't a "who" per-say. You are trying to undermine

my point by playing some sort of semantic game. Why not take something I said and tell me why its wrong.

[ehrnst]

130. And we have the double down....

[JCanete]

132. at least you're having fun. Maybe you're playing 4-dimensional chess and my poor 3-dimensional

context simply can't follow you in that other dimension. If you want to continue to converse from there, then the purpose is not to communicate. Hopefully others on your wavelength get a kick out of your efforts.

[ehrnst]

133. I am.

Thank you.

Your responses are gravy.

[sheshe2]

120. So, JC?

Magazines such as time are not going to miss an opportunity to bash a popular figure who promotes a socialist agenda(whereas the preferred treatment is to ignore unknown or burgeoning figures in that ilk), because a socialist agenda is anathema to the status quo that has been so good to them. Even when they aren't big, there is a huge component that is about pleasing your advertisers, and your advertisers are multinational corporations. Tone and content reflects that.

How do you account for this article about Bernie in Time magazine? I must say it is very positive and up lifting. Did you miss this because you believe that their advertisers are just multinational corporations. And look...he is on the cover as well and and and they mention he has a Socialist agenda...Everything you say Time does not do and only ignores "burgeoning figures".



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/9/17/1422132/-The-Gospel-of-Bernie-Bernie-Sanders-on-Cover-of-Time-Magazine

[George II]

123. Apparently other than accusing her for working for a Koch "rag" you know little about Ms. Alter

[JCanete]

127. I didn't actually say this is a Koch rag, although their new stake in it IS absolutely problematic,

but it is more interesting to me just as a statement of "of course there is influence in having stake in a paper or magazine. Of course money and corporate interests impact reporting."

I said I didn't know much about Ms. Alter beyond this story. I said that, so you would be correct. I also said I'd be willing to eat my words if something contradicted my gut. Sadly, its gotten to a point where I am very rarely surprised, which is why I was willing to use this very scant evidence to gamble on her writing and perspective. If you had an example of how wrong I was, that's cool. I'll read it. Otherwise, I'll try to follow up on my own when I have time.

[George II]

135. Ms. Alter has been with Time for a few years, the Koch Brothers have owned a stake in Time....

...for about nine weeks.

Perhaps she was a Koch plant surveilling Time to see if it was worth buying?

By the way, the Time sale was to Meredith (a publicly traded corporation) for about $2.6B, Koch's share is only $650M, about 25%.

Not sticking up for either, but some are railing against Time as a Koch entity when it really is not.

By the way, we have a television station in CT, one of the biggest, owned by Meredith, but it is pretty independent and leans a little left.

[Cha]

20. ".. propaganda for the establishment"..

who are you labeling with that so called tiresome, overused insult?

[JCanete]

24. The rag itself. Not saying the writer doesn't believe every word...thats why the writer works at

Time. They're so eclectic over there...

[ehrnst]

35. Propaganda for itself? Really?

That's the best you could do to avoid just coming out and saying what you meant?

[JCanete]

37. what? not following. I've already explained, and if you want to take issue with my explanation,

then do us both a favor and say something. Point to what you actually disagree with. Don't just post coy questions .

[George II]

45. Time Magazine is a "rag"?

[JCanete]

46. To put it more clearly, when it comes to reporting facts, I generally put stock in papers, Time,

etc. They have a reputation to uphold that is built on credibility, so I don't expect them to outright lie, and for that matter, I don't assume that the editorial staff and the writers themselves are liars either, but when it comes to opinion and challenging the standard narrative, and when it comes to the focus of the reporting and opinion, stories which are ignored, downplayed or entirely mischaracterized in the service of protecting our current status-quo in the supposed name of ratings/readership etc.(I call bs...the news loves to make non-stories bleed), yeah, not a fan, and I don't put that much stock in them. Do you have a differing opinion or just a rolling on the floor laughing emogie?

[George II]

47. Time is one of the most respected journalistic publications in the US, if not the world.

[JCanete]

55. I appreciate that it isn't a Newscorp

asset and I appreciate that in its history it has done some important reporting. In fact, fine, I'll happily rescind my rag comment because that does denigrate the good work(in the absence of many institutions with proper resources at all) that has been done there. I mostly intended that for the typical editorializing one would get out of a magazine like time, but also, my frustration in the gaps in reporting that are so prevalent at main-stream institutions like Time and NYT etc. Way too often, BIG things don't get the coverage or the outrage they deserve. Sometimes, they are only acknowledged begrudgingly when these institutions can no longer look legitimate without addressing them. This is the result of all kinds of things that influence reporting that have nothing to do with the actual importance of the stories themselves.

But I will repeat, I put little stock in the editorializing in Mainstream journalism. There are certain voices and perspectives that just don't get paid, with very very rare exception, like say Robert Reich, and you can't say its because those people with those perspectives lack the discipline of good reporters or any of that crap, because we see all kinds of people just get handed assignments that their lack of credibility should bar them from, but hey, they are selling something some publisher or producer likes. Socialist perspectives? Not so much.

[ehrnst]

81. Well, it's no RT or Intercept

but very few are.

For good reason.

[JCanete]

115. well....I don't read the intercept or watch RT. I still like Hartmann, but I haven't listened to

him in years either. That doesn't mean Time and NYT, etc. don't have their serious flaws in coverage and editorial perspective.

[sheshe2]

121. That rag...as you so call it...,.

Read my other post to you where Time ( in your own words is nothing more than a rag)...posted a cover shot of Bernie and a very positive article about the newbie and relatively unknown Senator from VT. Was it a rag then too JC? I would be interested to know what you have to say to either of my posts.

Time has also had Obama on that cover dozens of times, was it a rag then as well?

[JCanete]

126. I don't remember it, but let me clarify that I've already rescinded the term "rag," in

my discussion with George, but no, an
article talking about a figure who just achieved something historic(in that he raised a crap load of money) does not in and of itself mean anything, especially once you hit a point where not talking about him starts to look like intentional omission. I can't speak to the specific article until I've read it, but the filter is the more important part. I'm willing to bet the filter of that article, same as just about every other article of Time is not through the lens of any left-wing liberal, because that's not exactly the perspective that lands a job at Time or elsewhere. Also, if the article spent time ensuring to the audience that Sanders was basically a non-threat to Clinton and that she was far ahead, well that's doing everything that your standard political editorial wants to do...it keeps the drama of a race but it manages excitement for Sanders, because people aren't likely to jump on a ship that isn't going to get out of the harbor. They like a winner.

Now, of course this is a fine line. I don't advocate that numbers not be reported on. Adding in supers pre vote on the other hand, has only one purpose.

[sheshe2]

128. Perhaps before you comment you should read it.

I can't speak to the specific article until I've read it, but the filter is the more important part. I'm willing to bet the filter of that article, same as just about every other article of Time is not through the lens of any left-wing liberal, because that's not exactly the perspective that lands a job at Time or elsewhere.

The article was from 2015. Yet despite what you said...here you are with comments on the article judging what you never read. Thjis is what gets us in to trouble and stories snowball with out a shred of fact.

Also:

Also, if the article spent time ensuring to the audience that Sanders was basically a non-threat to Clinton and that she was far ahead, well that's doing everything that your standard political editorial wants to do...it keeps the drama of a race but it manages excitement for Sanders, because people aren't likely to jump on a ship that isn't going to get out of the harbor.

Again commenting on what you have not read. Just Stop! The article actually says how Sanders cut into HER LEAD! Will you please just read before you comment and indeed sporead untruths oabout the article that you said above that you "can't comment on" then launch into a negative comment about a positive article that you have not bothered to read.

I can't comment. I am willing to bet.

Then you go on a long comment. Oy.

[JCanete]

129. I tried to read it and its behind a paywall. I think the excerpt is interesting and certainly an

exception to what most of my exposure in mainstream media has been, but I don't have the whole article. You do know there's a difference between me declaring I know all about this article and taking an educated gamble on what I might expect right? The latter is me acknowledging that I've gone out on a limb and could be proved wrong in this instance.

[sheshe2]

136. Well it most certainly was not flowery praise for Clinton...

no more that the one for Bernie. Yet I posted it to you to show it happens to both sides. What makes me angry is to see posters call a reputable magazine a rag and the Op a Koch lover. This not the direction Democrats should be going. This is wrong on so many levels. We are all Democrats, correct? Then we should be voting for Democrats as if our life depended upon it.. because it does. Just let that sink in for a minute, our lives, our childrens lives depend at getting the GOP out of office forever.

[JCanete]

137. If you are familiar with my posts, I try not to delve into the most divisive rhetoric of assigning

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

agendas or attacking the character of the beloved public figures by people on this board, such as Clinton. I came on too strong with my criticism of Time and have tried to temper it without pretending I don't have justified misgivings. I did not myself call the OP a Koch lover, nor the magazine itself a Koch mouthpiece, although I'm certainly not going to pretend that that new association and all others relationships our media companies have with huge interests isn't a problem. It is a huge problem.

But acknowledging mistakes I've made at times(which I try to do when I come to realize them), can you really say that the vitriol we see on these boards that go directly to Sanders character is unifying?

yes, we both want Trump out for good. I both want him out and I don't want him to be replaced by a worse one in 4 to 8 years. Strategy when it comes to this can be debated. Philosophy can be debated. I don't think the democratic party's approach has worked for America, not because of democrats directly, but because it has continued to be a losing strategy overall which has empowered the GOP over and over. Keeping our Joe Manchins at the expense of watering down our message and making us easier pickings in the false equivocation wars and making it harder for us to put up a united front around certain significant causes has not done us any long term favors. That said, sure, if I'm in Manchins state and my primary choice is eliminated, I take him over a republican. But he doesn't need protection from the left...he needs pressure from it.


As to equity, Sanders has been in Washington for a long time. He's railed against a lot of things. Often times he's been the lone voice or one of few. Please understand that a Time article does not equity make. There are certain perspectives that no matter how important they may be, get entirely starved of oxygen. And no this isn't about any hero worship of Sanders. I could care less whether or not he himself were the one that was getting the attention. Its the consequences of legislation, the issues and the philosophies that have been underserved. Of course, its a valid rebuttal to say that they are simply losing in the court of public opinion and that's why they are underrepresented at newspapers and magazines, but how could they not lose when being so underrepresented?

[Demsrule86]

72. Sounds like a 1968 movie.

Times up! We either take back the country as a big tent or the GOP wins. There are no other choices...so tired of the establishment stuff...

[JCanete]

124. great, which is why that's what we continue to have. That's why we're screwed.

I'm all for taking the best choice when that's what's left, but trying to shoe-horn us into a mediocre or less than best choice pre or during primaries, for bs pragmatism that has proven time and time again to be a failed approach, is not the right direction.

[jalan48]

38. Didn't the Koch Brother's buy Time Magazine?

[JCanete]

39. oh no no no no....just a stake in it apparently...so its up and up..

[jalan48]

40. LOL-the Koch Brother's are now cool on DU?

[ehrnst]

65. Yeah, straight line right there...

Like buying a Prince CD means you support opioid addiction....

But keep on trying.

[ehrnst]

85. Yeah, like Prince fans are "Opioid addiction fans"

And anyone who bought Thriller was a supporter of pedophilia...



Yeah, I shared a review that you didn't like, and Koch bros have some stock or something in the media org, so that makes me a Koch bros fan.

Is that the best you got?

Oh wait - are you going to say that anyone who admired Joe Kennedy's speech "hates" universal health care, affordable college and voting rights? Is that next?

Because you won't be the first.

[jalan48]

87. I'm sure you'll be more careful next time when posting hit pieces from the Koch Brothers.

[ehrnst]

89. Oh, so now it's a "hit piece from the Koch Brothers"

Panties in a bunch, are they? I hear that's a common wardrobe malfunction over at JPR.

Amazing that such an "obvious Koch Bros hit piece" remains on DU, isn't it?

[jalan48]

90. Those panties of yours are getting pretty twisted trying to defend two of the worst Americans.

[ehrnst]

91. Batting 1000 there...

take another swing...



Then you go tell 'em you got me goooood!

[ehrnst]

113. BTW - if your twisted knickers have any spandex in them...

You are a Koch brothers fan, so I'm told.

I would be careful about wearing or purchasing any item of clothing that stretches that was made prior to November 2017.

Just a heads up.

[George II]

93. How is that article from Time Magazine a "hit piece"?

[George II]

92. The Koch Brothers (actually Meredith) bought Time barely a month or two ago. So....

....by your logic someone who has been reading Time Magazine for decades (as I have, first subscribed when I was in High School) is now automatically a "Koch Brothers fan"?

You know, in that deal they also bought People, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, among others, and already owned Better Homes and Gardens.

So anyone who reads any of those magazines is a "Koch Brothers fan"?

[jalan48]

94. Glad to see you point out the change in ownership. The Koch Brothers are two

extremely fanatic (their father made his millions helping Stalin) oligarchs who support unbridled use of fossil fuels. They have bankrolled not just Republicans, but extreme right wing Republicans for decades. Yes, I would be very careful posting something from a magazine they own.

[George II]

95. I guess I'd better stop reading Sports Illustrated, too. I don't want to be exposed to subliminal..

....messages in their report on the Super Bowl next week.

Sorry, despite your warnings, I'll continue to read those magazines and take the risk of being indoctrinated. Thanks for your concern though.

[jalan48]

96. Here's a short piece about the Kochs. It will give you an idea who they really are.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/19/463565987/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-their-childhood-and-political-rise

[George II]

97. So now, from an upbeat article in Time Magazine about Joseph Kennedy III.....

.....we've wandered off to a "hidden history of Koch brothers"?

Do you REALLY think the Koch brothers reviewed and edited that article posted in the OP?

[jalan48]

98. It's your choice to trust whatever media source you like I don't trust the Kochs.

[ehrnst]

99. OMG - are they on staff at Time magazine, now or just contracting?

This is interesting!

[George II]

104. I found this excerpt from Kennedy's speech (from the article) extremely disturbing:

" “Bullies may lend a punch, they may leave a mark, but they have never, not once, in the history of our United States, managed to match the strength and spirit of the people united in defense of their future,” he said. “That is the measure of our character. That is who we are. Out of many, one.” It was Clinton’s “Stronger Together” message wrapped in Obama’s lofty rhetoric."

[ehrnst]

144. OMG - there's ANOTHER Koch truster/supporter/lover...

Go sic 'em!!!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210182801

[ehrnst]

110. I think it's frustration that the bait isn't being taken.

And an inability to learn when one has become laughable while continuing to shovel more in...

[George II]

111. I would have responded sooner, but I had to run out to Staples to return a few reams....

....of Georgia Pacific copy paper that I bought recently. And I've given my wife strict instructions (she likes to do the shopping) never to buy Brawny paper towels of Quilted Norther toilet paper ever again.

[ehrnst]

112. But did you also burn any and all clothing with spandex?

If not, you are a Koch brothers FAN, OMG...

I would be careful about wearing any item of clothing that stretches...

[ehrnst]

100. What does this have to do with the OP?

Other than a vain, desperated attempt to discredit an article in a MSM source that says something that hurt your feelings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

In any case, learning when it's just not working will spare you some embarassment.

[ehrnst]

102. Here is a short piece on Association fallacy

But you seem to be an expert already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Really, you are tracking it all over the rug now.

[ehrnst]

106. You really have a thing for association fallacy...

Just can't stop once you've started down that road... double down when confronted on it.

I guess it's an acceptable substitute for being right.

Nice try. Fish aren't biting today....no matter how big a bucket of bait you dump in.

[ehrnst]

101. And stop listening to Prince, because you are listening to opioid addictive music!

OMG - evil lurks EVERYWHERE!!!!

[ehrnst]

105. And Tom Petty was a heroin addict, so if you bought his music, you supported a heroin addiction

Last edited Thu Feb 1, 2018, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

How do you think Tom Petty fans would feel knowing that they were supporting a Drug dealer?

I hope that you understand the implications of purchasing or sharing or even listening to music by Tom Petty.

Here is a piece on drug dealers, so you will have an idea what they are like:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549559/Drug-dealer-44-spent-millions-luxury-cars-designer-clothes-lavish-getaways-sentenced-25-years-trafficking-TON-cocaine.html

I hope you decide to stop supporting the opioid epidemic, now that you've been shown that you do.

[ehrnst]

109. It's not like Time magazine developed and profits from a nuclear waste dump.

[Cha]

122. Only in your mind

[ehrnst]

131. ....

[sheshe2]

138. Cha

[Cha]

141. Aloha, she

Good Morning

[ehrnst]

66. It's not like Time magazine profits from a nuclear waste dump.

[George II]

15. The DEMOCRATS only had four rebuttals.

[Iliyah]

28. Rep. Guzman from VA

Senator Kennedy, III from Mass

Rep. Waters from California (nice person)

Senator Sanders from Vermont

[George II]

32. Four Democrats...

Representative Joseph Kennedy
Representative Maxine Waters
Virginia Delegate Elizabeth Guzman
Donna Edwards, a Democrat speaking on behalf of the Working Families Party

[Iliyah]

33. Oh, Kennedy is a Rep.

my bad - LOL

[Hortensis]

16. I STRONGLY disagree these responses indicate splintering

of the party. Enemies WISH, and the MSM's habitual groupthink denigraters of the Democratic Party assume.

Personalized responses are made possible by modern communications and are very appropriate given the many interest groups who are our big-tent coalition. But most of all, they suggest an aroused Democratic electorate.

But how positive of Rothenberg to say "but divisions don’t necessarily spell doom." No, schmuck, they really don't.

[Mc Mike]

67. Agreed, 100%. Key point, right wing spin in establishment media.

Helped put dRump in, and would have been used against our candidate if she'd won. Will be used in the future, against our candidates, before and after they win.

Every different group is saying they can't stand the same big fat orange nazi, and his party of flunky enablers. Pretty simple message, no matter how it gets put across, or by whom.

[Hortensis]

78. And all saying they want Democratic goals and progress.

Speaking of if Hillary had won, summer 2016 Judicial Watch boasted in public that they had 5 new scandals all designed and ready to launch. One after another.

In the technique long developed, of course, they would have fed daily increments of poison to the MSM to fill their need to provide drama and controversy 24/7/365. When nothing is proven, each would be relabeled Hillary's "baggage" and attached to her name.

[Mc Mike]

79. Yep, all key Dem core constituencies.

And they represent 99% of the US population. If each group just respects the aims and values of the others, we have an unstoppable juggernaut. I can't think of one rainbow coalition group whose aims I oppose. I see all these lightly organized or uncoordinated groups of people and causes around here and think 'that's everyone in the whole country'.

Judicial watch got our address from some political or charitable org, just in the last 9 months they've been sending thick nazi mailers to us, with ridiculous donation requests. I always tear off identifying info, and mail it back not-postage-paid with observations included about their disloyalty and fascist bent, and sometimes about their questionable paternity.

I had a running argument with a young dumb well-connected right winger who was my co-worker at a union jobsite before the '08 election. After we won, he told me, with a big smile on his face, that 'Obama wasn't even born in the US, so it was illegal for him to be president'. Like he knew what he was saying was stupid b.s. I never imagined that they would run with that for the next 10 years, and it would get covered in the national main stream media.

And of course we would have to listen to the 5 'scandals' trotted out one at a time by nazi media, and then mass media afterwards. Because where would we be if we didn't have to listen to the repugs' latest whiny screaming and crying jag about how some new atrocity has offended their values so deeply?

They know they're lying, when they scream and cry hysterically about the latest 'scandal' from their enemies.

[Cha]

19. Glad they gave Joe Kennedy a

a great review.

Mahalo, ehrnst!

[Iliyah]

26. From what I witnessed and heard all responses from the left

were in sync.

[Honeycombe8]

48. There was only one Democratic Party response. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. Will Rogers

I am not a member of any organized party -- I am a Democrat.

-- Will Rogers

We are not a hive mind. We should not be either single-issue or single-candidate voters. It's a very big tent and anyone willing to put people before greed (money or power) should be welcome.

[Honeycombe8]

50. There are times of "official" statements of a political party. Such was last night's response.

The Democratic Party spoke with one voice with one official response.

I view all the others as a "Hey, it's all about ME! I want some attention, too! To heck with the Democratic Party or what's needed to win in future elections! It's ME, ME, ME!"

The others get plenty of time to appear on tv and address the issues. But it's apparently never enough. The fact that they felt the need to do that probably means they don't have the support needed to make it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

58. Kennedy plus unofficial responses by others

I'm aware of the official response by the Democratic Party. It was the only speech I watched last night.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in what other, prominent, elected opponents of the Trump/Putin/GOP axis had to say. An official response has to be constrained more than unofficial responses, yet the latter may reach (and recruit) voters that the former does not.

This is not a zero-sum game. The lock-step GOPers push that false dichotomy.

[Honeycombe8]

59. The others have had many chances on tv and many speeches...

before now.

To do their own response simultaneously to the official response is disruptive and smacks of ego, rather than getting behind their party.

I thought we'd learned a lesson in this last election.

[lunamagica]

41. Great for Rep Kennedy! As for Sanders...ouch

[LexVegas]

42. " meant to launch him as a Democratic frontrunner for 2020"

[Gothmog]

43. I ignored the Sanders response but really liked the response from Joe Kennedy

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Same here. eom

[marlakay]

49. I like Joe but wish he wasnt so against pot

And universal healthcare.

I campaigned for Bernie but want someone younger next time, same for Biden and others.

[ehrnst]

52. When has he come out against Universal Health Care?

It's part of the Democratic platform - I haven't heard that he was opposing a major platform plank.

I'm not seeing it on his website:

https://kennedy.house.gov/on-the-issues/health-care

Can you share a link?

[marlakay]

53. Sorry I read that somewhere else

This morning and was disappointed will try to find out. Yes wouldn’t want to start untrue rumor.

[ehrnst]

54. I would be surprised that anyone would think a Kennedy would oppose

universal health care, with Ted Kennedy being such a legend in his support.

[marlakay]

56. I found a bunch of articles

None from the mainstream media. Found this article written interviewing him. Sounds like he might change schedule for pot down a little but thats it.

Healthcare from all the things i read he supports Obamacare and Chip and other programs.


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-joe-kennedy-democrat-taking-on-trump-w516139

[ehrnst]

57. Not seeing where this indicates he is "against universal health care."

Can you specify where that is stated?

Supporting Obamacare is supporting Universal Health Care, as it's the closest the US has ever come.

What are the sources of "that bunch of articles?"

[marlakay]

60. I googled what he was on issues

Feel free to do so i give up. I said I didn’t link to others as not sure if they were ok sites, his main gov page says Obamacare and doesn’t mention pot probably because his state voted to legalize it.

[ehrnst]

64. Yes, Obamacare is the path to Universal Health Care. It's the closest we've come.

And when you google, you need to check the sources, because not all are reliable.

His webpage is the best source for his policies and positions, and it shows he's very pro-universal health care.

That's what being pro-Obamacare means.

[Demsrule86]

76. This is an OK site...he as an intelligent approach...nuanced.

"We’ve seen, over the course of the past several months, that details on policy actually matter,” Kennedy said during an interview with Boston Public Radio Thursday. “Universal healthcare is the critical component … I think single-payer is a way that we can get there, and … that’s great, but I think that the critical piece of this is ensuring that everybody gets access to quality, affordable, accessible healthcare.”

The Extended And Improved Medicare For All Act, proposed by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), would establish a privately delivered, publicly financed universal health care system that would expand Medicare and provide universal access care. On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced a companion bill, “Medicare For All” in the Senate, also pushing for a single-payer system.

Kennedy said he agrees with the fundamental concept of single-payer, though details of the Coyners bill give him pause. “I think they are 100 percent right on the value that they are trying to enshrine in the federal law, that health care is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by few,” Kennedy said. “There are some details, however, in that Conyers bill that I do have some struggles with, and [I’m] trying to work through a bit. If we can get there, then great, but regardless, healthcare is critically important to me, and I believe fundamentally in that principle, and we’ll keep pushing forward.”

https://news.wgbh.org/2017/09/14/boston-public-radio-podcast/joe-kennedy-supports-single-payer-only-theory

[ehrnst]

134. Memes aren't about nuance.

And those are the most popular attacks on him today.

He must really threaten someone.

[sheshe2]

139. Also supporting Obamacare/ACA

is a step toward single payer. Obama and Dems took us that much closer and they had to fight and claw every step of the way. After all, least anyone forgets, the GOP swore on day one of Obama's inauguration to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct to make Obama a one term President. We do not get what we want in a day, it takes years of TEAMWORK to get us there.

[Demsrule86]

75. He didn't come out against single payer...liars got to lie. He said the bills in Congress were not

detailed enough and there was no way to implement ...I single payer I agree with that...and we were at the time fighting to save the ACA-bad timing for putting a single payer bill out...so I think it was a reasonable explanation.

[radius777]

63. being against pot would hurt him

with what would be his natural base (young people) and the Obama coalition overall... he has time to evolve.

[Demsrule86]

73. He can evolve. And I have always believed the states will lead the way on this.

We will never get everything ...also, he is against excessive prosecution of drug crimes which we have now.

[SidDithers]

86. "like an grandpa reading a white paper on C-Span"...

Sid

[bdamomma]

88. you notice how

the filthy repigs are circling the wagons around the emperor with no clothes, they band together don't they? no matter how wrong they are they will support this POS squatting in the WH.

[KPN]

108. Not surprising that this was in Time.

The rag has always been the conservative Newsweek anyway-- at least since the mid-70s when I first subscribed to both.

Not surprising that it was posted.

[sheshe2]

140. So that "Conservative Rag" posted this...

Bernie is on the cover of Time Magazine this week!

Without a single TV ad–or a single congressional endorsement–Sanders has exposed the weakness of the party’s Clintonian establishment while at the same time spotlighting its hunger for an ideological savior. Polls now indicate that if the nominating contests were held tomorrow, Sanders would edge out Clinton in Iowa and beat her in New Hampshire by 10 points. Nationally, he has cut Clinton’s lead from an impregnable 46 points to a crumbling 21 points in just two months.

But even those metrics don’t convey the extent of the Sanders phenomenon. At Clinton events, campaign staffers section off floor space before her speeches to make her crowds look densely packed. Sanders needs no barriers. His audiences are authentically huge–28,000 in Oregon, 11,000 in Arizona, 7,500 in Maine. His volunteer army, meanwhile, though mostly self-organized online, numbers more than 182,000 people spread out from rural Alaska to the Florida Keys, people who have asked the campaign how to improvise events, knock on doors and spread the gospel from campus quad to living room to farmer’s market.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/9/17/1422132/-The-Gospel-of-Bernie-Bernie-Sanders-on-Cover-of-Time-Magazine

How does posting Bernie on the cover make them a Conservative Rag? Or are they only sometimes a CR?

[ucrdem]

142. white paper

[sheshe2]

143. Morning, ucrdem.

That was a funny line...

[ucrdem]

145. Heya sheshe!