i'm glad to hear that from someone who's a semi-"outsider" to the party. for the record my fellow pedes convinced me to follow through with publishing a book i'm writing about soros i've started and decided to finish with their support.

not pro-conservative, not anti-liberal... right now the framework is a laid down narrative based on nothing but facts on how much of the media soros controls, how much of the democrat party/hillary clinton he controls, and also fact about how much him (and to a lesser extent his lap dog david brock) are fucking psychopaths (nazi collaboration, thinking he's god, hating america, etc. etc.)

but i have to present it in a completely unbiased way. which is harder than it sounds..because even though i'm only using facts, when you start accusing someone of being a nazi who thinks he's god and secretly controlling the democrats from a "shadow government"... no matter how many facts you have to back that shit up, you still have to present it in a very specific way so most people don't automatically think "this is ridiculous bull shit" lol

also i'm up in the air on leaving it a factual based narrative, or including part opinion on his effect on the rise of this "progressive" party (socialists, anti-free speech, rioters, sjw's).

on one hand it's a big part of his influence. on the other and adds more interest/topical debate to the narrative.

but on the other hand, once you enter opinion/theory into what is otherwise a (very difficult to believe) fact based narrative...it might call into question everything you just read.

and my point is, when you say "I believe the big-money influences are going to stick with the Democratic Party".. the big money is only coming from one guy named soros.

but i'm working on it lol.

(ps: don't judge me on my shit grammar, spelling and run on sentence rant posts, i promise i'm capable of editing stuff into coherent reading haha)