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.