Progressives (Liberals)

I think the candidate with the most votes has the most broad appeal.

Everything up until an election date is just guessing.

And most everything at this stage of the game is simply name-recognition. Campaigning hasn't really even started yet.

I just gave $1 to Pete Buttigieg as well.

Are you sure that automatically-recurring donations are counted separately?

I know that it's possible that they are counted separately. But you might want to verify to make sure -- unless you've already verified it and already know for sure.

There’s only one reason, and we just got the proof.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/14/former-obama-bundler-reaches-out-to-donors-to-back-orourke-in-2020.html

An old Obama ‘bundler’ is working the old donor tree for the one donors have picked. Yes, it DOES mean oligarchs think their money is more important than much greater numbers (votes) of regular people.

They’re not. The first set of donations are counted from individuals—how many different people in different locations around the country support this person? Individuals are counted.

After that, how many individuals donate? The amounts speak to the financial wherewithal of donors.

Beto is getting money from wealthy donors; Bernie, regular people.

It is either idiotic or intellectually dishonest for George to bitch about Blat having an opinion and sharing it... And he did that numerous times.

Since i don't think of George as an idiot, I vote for intellectually dishonest.

I ask progressives to donate a few bucks to Tulsi Gabbard to get her in the debates.

I don't think George is an idiot either. I suppose the latter is more likely.

Oh, i thought it was about moderate progressives vs. progressive moderates... cause I so much HATE the latter, you know, they're as fake as any moderate moderate.

<sarcasm>

Yes, George is a smart guy alright. I suspect part of him, deep down, knows the Trump regime cannot be trusted with anything.

I am watching Hardball as I type, so far I am impressed with Booker; he is talking very knowledgably about a lot issues.

Hold on here. His own opinion, as opposed to pointing at someone else and yelling "Look everyone! I think what that person thinks!" ???

Can you provide a cite of such a thing happening?

George, I think, doesn't like the political content and opinions (mine and others') that I post particularly given the quantity of it. Where george's take has some merit is those cases where I make broad generalities, eg "modern Republicans are dolts" or "the modern GOP is corrupt". Unfortunately, though generalities are always going to include the innocent, there is often no way to talk about this stuff without generalizing (imagine sociology or anthropology without such general statements).

Re the particular issue of "propaganda", george simply hasn't studied this subject very much or reasoned through it (no big deal, there's a bazillion subjects where applies to me or any of us). But again, there's a protest he might be on the edge of making that is an important distinction. That is, how do we think about and differentiate 1) the agent who is out to deceive his audience (Limbaugh) and 2) those who believe that agent and go on to repeat the deception, they just don't know what's happening (the dittoheads). That second group we can't label as propagandists. The first group, we must. It is a very important and destructive social phenomenon. And right at this point in time, it's at high tide.

But I think george is a good guy. Each of is raised in a particular family in a particular city and in a particular faith or philosophical framework and that stuff marks us deeply. If I'd been born into a evangelical family in Texas or an alcoholic family in Saskatchewan what I think and write would be much different. There's really very little separating george and I. What it boils down to is that george correctly intuits that I am majestic when dancing naked and that I correctly intuit that george eats 40 extra sour lemons every day.

Took this from a contact's post on another site

Tell me angain how establishment Democrats aren't Republican-Lite. When the billionaires could no longer buy enough Republicans, they simply started buying Democrats as well. This is the predictable result of corporate influence in our elections, and the reason we need to oppose Corporate Candidates, in favor of the actual Lefties, in the progressive wing.

In total contrast, peeps like Bernie Sanders (and it would certainly appear AOC) are not for sale; and Sanders has proven it for over half a century.

If you think the Federal Government exists to represent Corporate interests instead of your own, don't vote for Progressives. Otherwise, do.

Nuf said

Donna Brazile Says Now Is ‘A Time For Civility,’ So She’s Joining Fox News

I definitely want her to be in the debates.

Yeah, I saw that. I think "Idiot!" was my exclamation.

That's not quite right, edgar. Corporate money has always gone to both parties. It's the smart way to do it if you want an agreeable ear with those in power. But it is overly simplistic to believe that a large corporate donation to candidate X means corruption.

Still, you're absolutely right that campaign finance is perhaps the key problem in US politics. Getting the sort of system you and I want will not be easy but we have to keep pushing.

How then did the pure Bernie afford three houses?

Do you have more than one?

You have less than three???