I don’t know if the link I gave to you previously was correct. The one I received by text, supposedly the one I posted in the last article, is different. It was: https://usnot.me/deadline-ad
I donated at the first link, but it doesn’t show up in my Act Blue activity, and now the link doesn’t work. There’s a different link provided today in a tweet from Sanders. It seems to go to the right place, but who knows?
If I go to Bernie’s ‘official website’ which is probably more trustworthy (https://berniesanders.com) the donation link is: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/bern-site?refcode=splash-top-right.
If it stops working, go to http://berniesanders.com and click on the ‘donate’ link. If berniesanders.com stops working, manually type it in to the address bar.
The Sanders campaign is working toward a record number of donations in this period. I’ve decided to talk about it here because I think strong donations could counteract misleading poll numbers, like those recently published by CNN and Morning Consult. We knew that Joe Biden was not as strong as his numbers indicate but it’s gratifying to know how they come up with the numbers. Jordan Charitan has been reporting on the contrivance behind these numbers. For example, a major problem with the CNN Poll is that it didn’t poll Bernie’s base. Subsequently, Morning Consult seemed to learn from CNN’s ‘mistake’. That may be why they ommitted the background information about how the poll was constructed.
Of course this is nothing new. Before the 2016 election Hillary’s poll numbers in the rust belt states were astronomical as polls go–in the high 90s–and it turned out the rust belt states were her downfall.
I also want to talk about another concern I have. Gmail has been sending Bernie’s fundraising emails to my Promotions folder instead of the Primary folder. I can’t seem to fix it from my end and if I don’t remember to go the Promotions folder I don’t see his emails. I assume this is happening with all of his supporters. If you want to donate go to https://b2020.me/deadline-a
This was published February 12, 2019.
This is what it will take.
I noticed on Bernie’s previous rallies that another channel was broadcasting the rally and getting the sound all mixed up. Today I watched his LA rally and the same channel was asking repeatedly for donations. Another comment said it was not an official channel and not to donate. I asked for further guidance but the person didn’t answer. Then someone started deleting my messages, so I assume they deleted her messages as well.
I am more concerned now than ever about those apps I mentioned before. It is very possible they are fake. If they are fake that would be a great way to steal voter info. That would allow them to ask for donations by email as well. Someone has to deal with this now.
I think it’s safe to say that Fox New’s latest attempt to smear Bernie in a so-called comedy routine was a failure. The main problem with this attempt is that lies are not funny. The same goes for frantic meanness in the defense of ideology. In short, Fox News can never be funny.
I decided before Bernie announced his candidacy that I would not let the opposition get to me this time. It didn’t occur to me that if I ignore all the silliness I won’t have anything to talk about. Then I realized I’m missing an opportunity. Probably the best use for the fake candidates and their outrageous lies is comic relief.
I don’t know what the establishment has up its sleeve with its unbelievable pols and fundrasing numbers and I’m not going to waste my time worrying about it, but I am a little curious. Can fake poll numbers decide a presidential race? Sometimes I wonder if they think they’re actually fooling us with their stupid tricks, or if they’re just trying to be annoying. Either way, it’s bizarre behavior for people who presume to run a country.
And about those polls, this is the first time I’ve seen poll numbers for a guy who isn’t in the race. We have a ghost candidate running for president. I hesitate to say his name on the chance that it will summon him from the underworld. Clearly, our fearless leaders have gone around the bend. What’s next? Dress up the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a suit and tie and give him a super pac?
On a serious note, I do have two concerns about Bernie’s campaign. First, my emails from Bernie are going to the Promotions folder in Gmail. I tried to move them to the Primary folder, but it didn’t work. I don’t see his emals unless I remember to go to Promotions and look for them. Second, there are a few apps out there that claim to organize volunteers for Bernie. I tried one two days ago. It never had any assignments and it messed with my phone so I had to delete it. I just found an article about Field the Bern https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/bernie-sanders-app/ but I don’t think they have one for an android. Has anyone used this app? My main concern is that there are unofficial apps that are just there to gather voter information from Sanders supporters. .
About the Dawkins-Pell debate: Pell did not deny that evolution happens. As I understand it he objected to the mechanism of change proposed by Charles Darwin. So it was rather confusing when Richard Dawkins argued for non-random selection. To Pell that meant design (or purpose). This assumption wasn’t based on a religious belief. Evolution has been accepted since ancient times, but the theory of natural selection is unique in its complete denial of teleological explanations and its insistence on a purely mechanistic process.
Evolution by natural selection is a purely mechanistic theory of change that does not appeal to any sense of purpose or a designer. There is no foresight or purpose in nature, and there is no implication that one species is more perfect than another.
Recently, a video of an old debate between Cardinal George Pell and Richard Dawkins appeared in my YouTube news feed. (Please see the video below.) I had to watch it twice to be sure I understood what I was seeing, but you can guess my impression of the debate from the title of this post.
The Saducees denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, and emphasized acceptance of the written Law alone. I call Dawkins a Saducee because he denied the validity of metaphysical propositions, claiming that ‘life’ is sufficiently explained by Charles Darwin. In my opinion, this is very similar to the stance of the Saducees. However, what I learned from this debate is that the Church addresses this line of thought with sympathy and compassion.
The statement that started me thinking about the Saducees did not come from Richard Dawkins. It came from the moderator who asked Cardinal Pell whether atheists can go to heaven (Part 4). The context was a caller who stated that he was an atheist and wanted to know what the Cardinal thought would happen to him when he died. Cardinal Pell answered that of course Atheists can go to Heaven.
The more I thought about it, the more I saw the question as a trick question. As I understand it, the whole point of being an atheist is that you are not worried about whether you will go to Heaven. I concluded that the moderator must really be questioning the extent of Pell’s, and therefore the Church’s, good will and compassion. Until I watched this exchange a second time I had the impression that Pell felt pressured to answer the way he did. I no longer think so.
Jesus was asked trick questions during his ministry. According to an article entitled Four Questions: Four Questions: Matthew 22:15-46, they came from three distinct groups of people: Herodians, Saducees and Pharisees. The Herodians asked a political question; the Sadducees asked a doctrinal question; and the Pharisees asked an ethical question.
The Sadducees were a wealthy, aristocratic party. They said when you’re dead, you’re dead, so don’t worry about it. They were very logical, and said since there’s no proof, they won’t believe it, and if the Bible isn’t logical in some point, they will always choose logic over the Bible. And many today say that where science disagrees with the Bible in some point they will choose science over it…
At least I was right about one thing. When the moderator asked Mr. Dawkins’ opinion on this matter, Dawkins said it all depends on whether you are cremated, buried, etc. When asked whether he thought there might be some part of his mind that would wonder if there wasn’t something more, Dawkins answered that since it’s the brain that wonders such things, that would be impossible. The brain rots after you die.
I will admit that I sort of expected the Cardinal to respond to Dawkins with more force. I partly blame the debate format and the audience responses but I see now that I wasn’t thinking like a pastor. It gradually became clear to me that Pell wasn’t trying to win a contest. He was a pastor and more than a pastor–he was a fisherman. He was inviting Richard Dawkins and everyone who was listening to think about other possibilities.
It may be true that the logic of atheism indicates indifference, or at least the claim of indifference, as to what happens to you after you die, but Pell was probably thinking of people he actually knows, including Richard Dawkins. He may also have been thinking about the family members of atheists who have already passed away. Cardinal Pell believes and hopes they will go to Heaven. And this is not just his personal belief.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)…
…we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:13).
Cardinal Pell, who was in the process of cleaning up corruption at the Vatican Bank, has been convicted by a court in Australia of molesting two boys. He was recently sentenced to 6 years in prison.