If the Democrats run Joe Kennedy III...

[Htown77]

... I will hold my nose and vote for Trump. That guy is way too far out there. I was actually looking forward to the democratic response and now understand why there were five different responses. If I was a democrat, I would give my own separate response as well.

Berine has always come off as pro western european socialism.

Joe Kennedy came off as a red, which sounded even stranger coming from someone who grew up with a silver spoon in the Kennedy compound.

Also he said something about “Mississippi should not get healthcare at the expense of healthcare in Massachusetts.” I was like “really? You, in of the richer states, after going on and on about being for the poor are going to beat up on one of the poorer states? Mississippi does not have anything Massachusetts does not have other than maybe more variety of fried catfish.” After a win in alabama, it seems weird for the democratic response to follow that up with “screw the poor states.”

On the non substantial things, there was his drooling and the fact he seemed to try and copy Barack Obama’s speech pattern which was all weird.

Anyway, I did not vote for Trump last time and voted “none of the above.” I regularly vote 30% GOP, 30% Dem and 40% libertarian (none of the above). I am open to a democratic challenger to Trump in 2020. However, if Joe Kennedy III is the direction the Democratic Party is going to go, it will turn me into a Trump voter.

 

[theiioftx]

I found it hilarious. The only way democrats win is mobilizing the minority vote. So what do they do?

Let’s have a rich white guy give the official democratic response. On behalf of Donald J Trump, thanks!

 

[Htown77]

Clinton, Kennedy... the Dems need to find someone new and play to the middle. Going further left with the same names is not the way to go. It amazes me how “the party of everyone/the 99%” seems to be run by the same few out of touch people.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Yeah I don't get them trotting out a rich guy, from one of the most privileged families in the history of the country, to lecture us on how the GOP is only for the rich.

 

[Crockett]

I have to admit as a person who votes in the Republican Primary only to have a say in local elections ... I'm scratching my head because my feelings are more in alignment with what Trump was saying than what Kennedy was saying. Of course, in the State of the Union Trump was delivering a centerist message.. Kennedy staked out ground well to the left.

 

[mchammer]

I have to admit as a person who votes in the Republican Primary only to have a say in local elections ... I'm scratching my head because my feelings are more in alignment with what Trump was saying than what Kennedy was saying. Of course, in the State of the Union Trump was delivering a centerist message.. Kennedy staked out ground well to the left.

A pragmatic liberal and/or Dem - how come there are not more of you?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Kennedy staked out ground well to the left.

I really don't understand that strategy at all, unless either the Dems are so sloppy that they didn't bother to ask Joe what he was going to say, they hate Trump so much that they wanted a message completely opposite of what he said regardless of what the message was, or they really have gone all-in on the progressive message. I do think they've managed (again) to convince themselves that because Trump's numbers are bad, that's an indication that the American people don't like his policies or his general philosophy. Which is weird because putting aside the bluster and tone-deaf twittering, he's pretty much governed like he said he would on the campaign. So are all those people suddenly turning progressive? Seems pretty unlikely, but I almost feel like that's what the Dems think. And they seem incapable of accepting that on any level - even when confronted with evidence.

Ben Shapiro was semi-mocking Trump for a tweet a while back where Trump explained why he offered up the farm on DACA, and his second point was essentially that he did it because he knew the Dems didn't want a deal and he wanted to expose them for not caring about the Dreamers at all. Shapiro thought it was stupid to tell the world your strategy, but I've seen no indication that knowing those things would change how the Dems approach the issues, because they (the party leaders, that is) seem completely driven by rage and ideological fervor at this point. They know that everything they're doing is going to anger all those people who voted against them, and they just don't care.

 

[mchammer]

I really don't understand that strategy at all, unless either the Dems are so sloppy that they didn't bother to ask Joe what he was going to say, they hate Trump so much that they wanted a message completely opposite of what he said regardless of what the message was, or they really have gone all-in on the progressive message. I do think they've managed (again) to convince themselves that because Trump's numbers are bad, that's an indication that the American people don't like his policies or his general philosophy. Which is weird because putting aside the bluster and tone-deaf twittering, he's pretty much governed like he said he would on the campaign. So are all those people suddenly turning progressive? Seems pretty unlikely, but I almost feel like that's what the Dems think. And they seem incapable of accepting that on any level - even when confronted with evidence.

Ben Shapiro was semi-mocking Trump for a tweet a while back where Trump explained why he offered up the farm on DACA, and his second point was essentially that he did it because he knew the Dems didn't want a deal and he wanted to expose them for not caring about the Dreamers at all. Shapiro thought it was stupid to tell the world your strategy, but I've seen no indication that knowing those things would change how the Dems approach the issues, because they (the party leaders, that is) seem completely driven by rage and ideological fervor at this point. They know that everything they're doing is going to anger all those people who voted against them, and they just don't care.

A football team calling the plays in front of the defense (who can’t stop them) is a sign of winning.

 

[Phil Elliott]

they hate Trump so much that they wanted a message completely opposite of what he said regardless of what the message was

It's this IMO. What I got from the SOTU speech, overall, is here is a guy who really loves his country. This is what the Dems are positioning themselves *against*. Good luck with that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think Kennedy was that bad, and I think he was far too light on policy or substance to really judge it as hard Left. For the most part, it was reasonably well-delivered liberal platitudes that a friendly, fawning media will never demand that he explain or provide specifics on. (In other words, he gave a speech comparable to what his granddad and great uncles usually gave.) I thought it was childish to judge Rubio's speech several years ago by the water bottle, and I think it's childish to judge his speech by the drool, or lip balm, or whatever was on his mouth.

To me, the real **** show was in the House chamber. Democrats need to learn when to stand and applaud and when not to. As the opposition party, nobody expects them to roar on every applause line like the Republicans do. However, there are "must clap" moments. When the President offers what is, by any reasonable standard, good news, you need to applaud. When he talks about manufacturing plants opening, you have to applaud. When he talks about the black and Hispanic unemployment rates being at record lows, you have to applaud, especially when you hold yourself out as the guardians and protectors of blacks and Hispanics.

When the President calls for patriotism and unity, you applaud. That means that when he calls for people to salute the anthem, you clap, even if it pisses off Collin Käpernick. The people who "take a knee" aren't going to deliver Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin back to the Democrats. And having Luis Gutierrez storm out of the chamber during the USA chant also didn't look good. (As a side note, I'm not a fan of the USA chant during a SOTU address, but that's not the point. You don't walk out during that.) And somewhat related, when he says "In God We Trust," and you sit on your hands, it looks terrible. Does it please atheists and agnostics in Silicon Valley and San Francisco who were voting for you anyway? Absolutely. Does it please Catholics in swing states who got sick of Democratic hostility to their faith? No, it pisses them off and reinforces their decision to back Trump in 2016. The slogan is on our currency. Just clap your friggin' hands.

When the President condemns a foreign enemy or clear bad apples, you applaud. They couldn't bring themselves to applaud sanctions on North Korea and Venezuela. Seriously? And they AUDIBLY GROANED when he talked about deporting M-13 gang members. Indefensible.

When the President sets forth policy initiatives in which you should be able to find common ground, you should applaud at least those portions. It isn't as though that's a commitment to vote for the bills. When he called for legalizing Dreamers, they sat on their hands. They could have applauded that part and then sat for the rest of his immigration proposals. They could have applauded his call for infrastructural improvements. After all, they claim to support infrastructural improvements. Hell, Kennedy mentioned the issue in his response and didn't really take issue with Trump on it.

It's the crappiest decorum I've ever seen an opposition party show during a SOTU address - on a level with Joe Wilson's "You Lie" moment. And it looks worse, because Wilson was just one guy acting like a douche. This was the overwhelming majority of the Democratic caucus. My only guess is that they're amping up and throwing red meat to their base for the 2018 elections. It wouldn't surprise me if they tone it down after the mid term election when not looking like tasteless, unpatriotic pricks will matter more.

 

[Statalyzer]

Also he said something about “Mississippi should not get healthcare at the expense of healthcare in Massachusetts.” I was like “really? You, in of the richer states, after going on and on about being for the poor are going to beat up on one of the poorer states? Mississippi does not have anything Massachusetts does not have other than maybe more variety of fried catfish.” After a win in alabama, it seems weird for the democratic response to follow that up with “screw the poor states.”

Why would they care about the poor voters in Mississippi who vote Republican?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why would they care about the poor voters in Mississippi who vote Republican?

Of course those voters used to vote Democratic. However, if you ridicule people's culture and religion, eventually they'll stop voting for you even if you support policies that are arguably good for them. And of course, the Left ridicules them more for this, and the problem snowballs.

What's silly about the ridicule is that most liberal voters have the same priorities but in reverse. Suppose an outwardly religious and socially conservative candidate (Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, for example) was also a big supporter of technology - favored tons of government investment, strong protections for the industry, lots of high-skilled immigration so they can have lots of cheap engineers, etc. Would Silicon Valley back those guys? No chance in hell and for the exact same reason that poor people in Mississippi vote Republican - they would view Santorum and Huckabee as culturally hostile to them.

 

[Clean]

I seldom watch the minority party response, but I sat through a few minutes of that one. It was odd that they picked Kennedy. A symbol of white privilege if there ever was one.

The choice of location, a body shop / garage or whatever, was just as odd. Ann Coulter said the only thing missing was a wet girl in the car behind him, covered in seaweed and clawing at the window to get out.

 

[Hollandtx]

Oh, I think ole Joe had just been checking the transmission of the car, or fixin' some other engine part when the camera arrived. You know, like the regular, blue collar guy that he is. I'm surprised his sleeves weren't rolled up.Why was the hood of the car open? Talk about strange.
It also seems he has been taking lessons from Obama on how to speak in that familiar cadence. I hate Trump's voice, but he isn't trying to speak like someone else.
I don't mind the lip gloss, it's better than that horrible piece of whatever came out his mouth and stuck to Ted Cruz's lip during one of the debates. That thing was pure nastiness.