Barr has way too distinguished a name to disgrace it. The "Barr", Burr, Stanton line were associated with very conscientious Southern families.

Cathexis, I'd really be interested in reading more about the "Bar,Burr, Stanton" line if you wouldn't mind posting more information about this. Thanks.

Me too

:|

They are a line of people who deeply cared about making improvements in our country. All references are gathered from the surnames as known from their history.
Aaron Burr 1756-1836
Elder Mr. Burr began in revolver development in TN for the army. He served as Vice President in the Federal government, served in the Continental Army as well as a number of NY State offices including as the state's AG. This service was followed up with being elected US Senator from 1791-1797.

Will continue with Barr and Stanton in following posting.

Is Barr related to Burr?

Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1815-1902
Served as a prominent suffragist, social activist, abolutionist, and champion for womyn's rights to include birth control. Ms. Stanton was active in the initiation of the suffrage movement and the protests at the NY Capitol.

Barr will be discussed in following post (don't want to get booted mid post. Thanks for your indulgence).

John Watson Barr. 1826-1907

A private practice attorney until he was appointed judge in 1864 as a US District Judge for the District of KY. Mr. Barr began to advocate abolition of slavery as early as 1849.
He also organized several Union Regiments before returning to private practice.
Following, he was he appointed again into Federal Judgeship appointment from 1880 until retirement in 1899.

Hope?
 

I had hope that today's hearing would give a *glimpse*-
Reports thus far reflect there has been a *hick* up -

Ks- :hamactor: (or am I too hopeful)

.

Hi cathexis,

Thanks for the research. Much appreciated, but, I guess, my question had to do with the line/connection between these people and Barr. This is intriguing.

Watching the debate. Omg Corey Booker attacked pharmaceutical companies. What a crock! They own his vote in the Senate.

This is going to confuse the average, limited political person who is not able to pick apart this splintered debate. We have seen what happens when splinters occur.

There needs to be break out rhetoric.

I'm enjoying it. Castro kicked Beto's ass. Tulsi Gabbard called the Trump cabinet chicken hawks. Corey Booker and Di Blasio are saying all the right things and saying them well, but we know not to trust them based on their records. I am liking Inslee out of this bunch.

Clearly Rachel likes Castro. She soft balled a gun question to him. She is the least fair and objective journalist working outside of Fox. God, I dislike her. I think she likes Klobuchar too. She loves the centrists. Fuck her.

I really like Castro..he is low key and reachable...and he's not a million or billionaire...i'm done voting for ANYONE who is super rich. If someone knows something negative in Castro history, please let us know!

I had liked Buttigieg but i think he has problems relating to people of color...not good...we can't afford to put someone in office who has clever answers but no real substance..

I'm finding this first set of candidates very interesting. i think they are passionate and have some great ideas. I just have this feeling the 2nd set will not be nearly so interesting..

~
 

I am impressed with Gobbard ! as always NOONE said how they would change anything ~ they just repeated the questions with self boasting and with no answers .

I thought they all did a good job. Beto and Tulsi Gabbard seemed the least able. Tim Ryan was the next least able. Everyone else was on their game although I thought Klobuchar's toxic personality peaked out a couple of times. I thought they called on Warren too rarely, but her closing was awesome.

We are lucky to have so many good candidates. The only two of this bunch who might not be able to beat Trump are Gabbard and Beto, I think. I loved everything Di Blasio and Booker said, but I wouldn't trust either of them.

Inslee and Castro stood out for me.

Tomorrow it's Bernie and Kamala, Biden and Mayor Pete. Fucking Rachel Maddow will fall over herself enabling Gillibrand whom she loves. But onward. Yay Dems. You talked about poverty. Not enough. But you did.

I have to say fuck tax credits and even the increase in the minimum wage as priorities. TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! Say it loud. Say it often.

Noone in this lineup has me all that impressed. Warren has some pretty progressive ideas, but to distinguish between her and Sanders will be difficult.
Also, I don't know about hearing her grating voice for 4+years. It really is kind of whiny.

I wasn’t impressed by any of the candidates tonight, and I’m finding it hard to be inspired by the people running this time. Maybe because there are so many of them to listen to? It all becomes a bit blah, blah, blah after awhile...my brain just shuts down.

I wasn’t impressed by RM tonight, but I LOVE HER any other time. I have gained so much insight into topics that I had no background in; she explains issues so that I can understand and retain the information. She does appear a bit centrist to me, but so am I, and so is MOST of this country.

The far left candidates have almost no hope of being elected...I know you all don’t like to hear that, but after tRump, people are going to want what seems to be “normal” and safe.

Anyway, if I had to vote today, it would be a Harris/Warren ticket.

I thought Castro, Warren, and Inslee performed well. Booker said a lot of good lines, but he just does not seem like a grownup to me.

A lot of tweeters praised de Blasio's performance. I have not really looked into him bc he did not have the air of viability to me. This morning on a hunch that his record is too recent, too verifiable, and too compromised to help him, i googled "de Blasio record"

New York Post: Does de Blasio really think it’s a good idea to run with his record? By Michael Goodwin

Earlier this year, de Blasio summed up his politics with a ­salute to socialism: “Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands!”

For once, he was being honest, because de Blasio sees wealth, success and even public order as enemies of the people. He has held that view for most of his life, with him and his wife sneaking into Cuba for their honeymoon, followed by his work for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

That the Castros and Sandinistas were anti-American was not incidental to their attraction.

De Blasio hid his radicalism for years as he toiled away in the City Council and as public advocate. He was a go-along, get-along nobody until he pulled off a stunning upset in the 2013 mayoral primary.

He did it by doing a left-end run around better-known candidates, becoming the harshest critic of the NYPD and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He courted Al Sharpton and made a TV ad famous for the large Afro of his mixed-race son, Dante, efforts that got him nearly half of the crucial black vote. He won the general election in a landslide.

Thus, in a matter of months, de Blasio ripped off the center-left mask he wore for a decade to become the far-left “progressive” we see now.

That background might have national appeal if his mayoralty were a success. But despite vows to attack income inequality, he is a disaster for those who depend on public services.

His school policies offer a prime example. Unable to move the needle on the racial achievement gap, de Blasio wants to impose quotas on top schools.

The plan is hitting strong opposition from Asian Americans, who could lose 50 percent of their seats in high schools where admission is based on a single test. That success comes despite the fact that many Asian students are among the poorest in the city and grow up in immigrant households where English is not spoken.

But instead of trying to duplicate that miraculous achievement among black and Latino students, de Blasio wants to abolish the entry test.

Conspiring with unions, he even wars against charter schools that prove race and class are no barrier to academic success. The mayor also makes it nearly impossible for schools to suspend unruly and violent students.

In schools and elsewhere, de Blasio never lets facts get in the way of ideology. He has decriminalized more and more crimes and wants to close Rikers Island to redistribute criminals to low-security “green” facilities in residential areas. He aims to add 90 homeless shelters to spread around that pain, too.

I don't know if this article helped me assess de Blasio's national chances, but...

it was QUITE an enjoyable read, on a petty level, just for the right-wing whining. That writer sounds like an asshole, and he's hissing and spitting like a wet cat, here. This sparks joy.

We watched Jeopardy in the third quarter instead of the debate so I may have missed some interesting or important stuff but the following is my take:

- 10 people debates are useless.

- Warren speaks well, has actual plans for how she will implement the many changes I am interested in seeing, and she has a very strong background of having worked towards changes in the past.

- Booker seems to be only focused on his current small world and didn't seem to be able to expand concerns for the whole country.

- de Blasio..... He may have good ideas but I wouldn't know. Every time I see or hear about him, I think about how his wife "used to be a lesbian" and I spend time working through that.

- Castro is a very strong candidate and I think he would make a good president. I feel like he gets lost in the male candidate pack though.

- Klobachar and Gabbard both speak well but I can't get past personal information about each of them.

- Delaney seemed shocked each time he was called on like maybe he was daydreaming and not paying attention.

- The other three white men? They must have been on stage but I don't remember them. :)

Currently my fantasy is a Sanders/Warren, or Warren/Sanders, ticket because I really like where they are pushing us and because I like how they plan to accomplish getting us there.

I'm hoping a candidate will be picked who can :
" #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain " (courtesy of John Oliver )

Asked what's the first and possibly only thing they'd do, Kamala says middle class tax cuts, and Bernie says take on the special interests. That tells you EVERYTHING. Kamala, while I like her, is another corporate liberal. Bernie is a true progressive. He never loses sight of what's important. That moment said EVERYTHING. There really is no one else to vote for. Bernie is by far the only one who has not bought in to corporate rule of our country.

Bernie's closing was the same. About what is fundamentally wrong and what change means.

Kamala did well, obviously. She was great on race. She kicked Biden's ass. She did a good job.

Mayor Pete was great, but if it's true that many African American voters won't vote for him, we can't afford his candidacy. He's young. He can wait a minute. I think he's amazing though.

Another good debate, I thought. I was never a big fan of Gillibrand, but she got my attention re standing up to Mitch McConnell.

I thought it was not a great night for Biden although he fought hard. His policies seemed -- and are -- behind the times. He looked old. Sort of strange really. Too much makeup?

Marianne Williamson is a trip, but I thought she made a great point about chemicals causing health problems.

I thought Rep. Swalwell did really well, especially on guns although Mayor Pete handled his defense well. A good showing.

But Bernie showed why he is the one to beat Trump and offer us a future, IMO.

the 2020 candidates day #2
 

Yes, indeed, I did like Kamala and Bernie. But, I think Kamala was the only one who really showed that she could take on the Republicans. She won the night.

My take on Bernie is that he seemed out of place in the midst of all the other candidates, and I think it is because of all things, his platform indicates that while some refer to him as a socialist, a progressive, the main thing is that he is not a capitalist (just like me - chuckles). And all the other Dem candidates are capitalists, just like the Republicans, only the difference between the two parties is a question of degree. Of course, the Republicans are so far out in right field that they seem to have forfeited any sense of humanity. Bernie would have no chance of winning an election if he had been elected to run against Trump, because of his stance and because most Americans believe in capitalism - the American dream. So, yes, I agree with you, Martina, when you said that Bernie "is by far the only one who has not bought into corporate rule of our country." However, I don't think the Dem electoral peeps are prepared to accept Bernie's position. It would be a fantasy to imagine that most Americans would accept a pov that seems to attack capitalism in any form.

I liked Biden less and less...

I do not trust Pete, even though his ideas are engaging. But, as Mayor, he could easily fire his Chief of Police and fight for and force the adoption of a more sensitive agenda regarding race relations in his home town, but that particular position might place his own mayorship in jeopardy. It just seemed that he holds his position as a politician in his own home town because he knows how to play the political game, just like Biden - which means nothing to me personally.

I am just beginning to be curious to see who wins this Dem nomination.

As an aside, there is one thing I don't understand, and that is why Pelosi doesn't run herself.

~
 

Harris would make a good candidate for a post on in the US cabinet ~ she doesn't have enough class to represent our country. We have a classless leader now why repeat that with Harris ~ a lot of the candidates showed potential placement's for the future US cabinet , IMO only 2 have shown a presidential potential ~

My guess would be that Pelosi does not run because of the structure of our government. We have (supposedly) 3 coequal branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial...Pelosi/McConnel hold nearly the same amount of power as the President, but in different ways...as does the US Supreme Court.

Have you ever heard of the Peter principle? It means taking a top performer from one job, and putting them into another job where they fail badly. Ie...Just because someone is a great singer, it doesn’t mean they have the ability to be a ballerina.

If Biden didn’t keep digging his hole deeper, then I would agree with you...his mistakes were in the past. But...he keeps trying to justify what he did without giving thought to the damage he continues to cause.

Harris is a bit rough around the edges, but I want someone strong and take charge! Are we objecting to her because she is kick ass instead of “ladylike”? Well FUCK ladylike, we need an ass kicker to beat Trump!

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one I think. I’m tired of Democrat politicians being nice and turning the other cheek only to have that cheek slapped as well. We are the party of the namby, pamby, weak talking, losing to assholes like Trump party, and someone needs to pull up their big girl/boy panties and fight for US!!

Might be useful to remember that you're trying to defeat a Fascist president not adopt a cute puppy.

In the long run if Biden is not capable of dealing w Trump it will become obvious..It was disheartening to watch adults last night attacking at each other, interrupting and for some to think that a victory. We never learn. Noted, Mayor Pete & Biden were the only ones who did not join in the free for all ...We need someone who can think strategically..which apparently is a stretch for most of these candidates and democrats in general. However, i am hopeful that one decent human being shall become known and prevail..will she/he be perfect? No...but hopefully it will not be Harris or anyone like her...I'm not interested in someone who can trump, Trump. Hell, just about anyone with half a brain can do that.

We need the next President to be a person of vision, intelligence, & wisdom who can lead us into the future..anything less then that will only make things worse.

Not trying to dump on you kitty, but remember where nice and Hilary got us last time..... The time for civility may have ended with Trump, because I now see every Republican after his term, pulling the same crap.

Maybe someday Democrats can be all warm and fuzzy again, but now? Now we need a strong determined leader to fight the fight and get this country back on track. Good ol’ Joe or milktoast Mayor Pete are not going to get us there.

I think Harris came out on top and if I had to vote today it would be for her, but I don’t think any of them will be able to beat Trump. At least not based on what I saw in the two debates.

They’ll need to be more ruthless, cunning, and convincing. Harris was these things with Biden, but Trump is a different cookie and I wonder how she would (will?) handle him as an opponent.

I’m not optimistic after watching the debates but i haven’t given up hope, either.

I always find having a discussion with you to be refreshing. ;)

thankfully we live in a freedom of speech country, with very tender subject like politics , we can SHARE our views ! always remember to nod that we are free thinkers and someone's views can open our eyes to another way to look at a subject ~ bashing is as classless as being ignorant to other country's politics. The up coming year is going to be intense . ** smiling ** and ^ 5's all my sister's. be kind ~

Spoil sport! ;)

Since the debates i feel i could do a 180 from my position last year and declare that we do need to split the party into liberals vs. progressives.

Today I really felt like the progressives should not have been at these debates. I do not feel like progressives are dragging centrists to the left, and i do feel like sharing the stage with centrists is forcing progressives to leave a lot unsaid.

They just should not be competing for the same base of voters, and i feel like the real differences between the two wings are obscured when they try to share any platform.

Put Gabbard, Yang, Williamson, and Bernie (etc?) on one stage and the rest of them(?) on another stage and let the winners debate each other.

Centrists gonna centrist. Let the centrists debate themselves and let the progressives debate themselves. Let the real values of each wing crystallize around their very best person and let them confront each other directly.

Let people compare apples to oranges instead of having ideologically polarized candidates try to pretend they're all apples.

Right now the two wings are trying to put on different sleeves of the same jacket. Voters need to see two separate jackets.

I have been listening to the audiobook of The Chapo Guide to Revolution and i just feel like progressives hate the democratic party too much to continue trying to do a makeover on it in good faith.

Progressives should be their own party. And 2020 might be a perfect storm year for that.

Trump IS very weak. Bernie is very strong. Progressives may not get anyone as strong as Bernie for decades-- someone that could peel off enough support from centrism-- given the opportunity to run directly against it-- to outnumber what remains of Trump's base. There may be no other candidate for awhile who has enough grassroots support to be able to viably turn their back on a major party.