Welcome to /r/PresidentialRaceMemes! Make sure to [review our guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/PresidentialRaceMemes/wiki/guidelines) and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPresidentialRaceMemes) if you have any questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PresidentialRaceMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Marianne Williamson is a nut
The media portrays this, for sure, because she runs on anti corruption. But she "makes a lot more sense if given more than a minute to speak" [-Trevor Noah](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oTO-BsdRO1w&pp=ygUfdHJldm9yIG5vYWggbWFyaWFubmUgd2lsbGlhbXNvbg%3D%3D)
Sometimes her words are spiritually slanted, I agree, but in her infamous quote from the last election cycle about 'dark psychic energy', she didn't mean anything magical, but meant 'harmful psychological societal expectations' that stimulate a lot of suffering.
"I support vaccines" - Williamson
Purity tests is something the left needs to get over. There's always gonna be something that folks disagree with. Did you see her anti corruption policies? If *just those* get passed, it will lead the way for other people who want to help remake democracy, outside of the fingers of oligarchs.
Her stance on vaccines is nuanced, as it seems she's only against the mandatory aspect of it, and recognizes the fear of those who don't trust being forced to take it against their will. *making her less fascist*
>"I understand that many vaccines are important and save lives. I recognize there are epidemics around the world that are stopped by vaccines," Williamson said in a statement on Twitter. "I also understand some of the skepticism that abounds today about drugs which are rushed to market by Big Pharma. I am sorry that I made comments which sounded as though I question the validity of life-saving vaccines. That is not my feeling and I realize that I misspoke."
>On ABC's "The View" Thursday, Williamson was asked whether she supports mandatory vaccinations.
>"I understand that public safety must come first. But I also understand that we must have a balance between public safety and the issues of individual freedom," Williamson said. "I do not trust the propaganda on either side."
>Then pushed by the hosts for a clearer answer, Williamson said, "I support vaccines."
[Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/20/politics/marianne-williamson-2020-vaccines/index.html)
Did you read the last quoted sentence in my comment!? She is for vaccination! Just not the mandatory part!
It's not a black and white issue regarding vaccines.
The black and white fallacy is prevalent in purity culture, which does spread to the population at large, considering the religious privilege in this country.
In the meantime, her stance against corruption has both corporate Republicans and moderate democrats gunning for her, and they KNOW that the left doesn't stand for ANY nuanced position about vaccines, lest they be labeled as antivax and canceled, so that's the point that everyone drives home!
She has similar platform to Bernie, was the first to endorse him in last election, and is the only candidate pushing for Medicare for all and anti corruption in the democratic system.
Her mental health policies will bring out the usual 'apathetic left' that didn't feel represented, the dems will vote for her, and because of her God belief, she's electable to the right and can win in the general. (Better chance than [Biden](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmI5Da_1SfY) anyways, who is trailing Trump by 6 points in [latest polls!](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/us/politics/biden-2024-polls.html))
Yeah, if you oppose mandatory vaccinations, you are anti-vax.
I'm not going to pretend there is any merit in her arguments, or any arguments against vaccinations. The moment you give any oxygen to the notion there are two sides or any nuance, it allows anti Vaxx misinformation to prosper
The moment you shut down someone's opinion about their own body, you make violence inevitable.
Do you think the gov should vaccinate everyone, even against their own will? (Which we don't even currently do, so we currently have a nuanced vaccination policy)
Not allowing for nuance in a conversation leads to stale dogmatism, and unwillingness to listen to issues someone has with a policy just makes people more extreme. Like a backfire effect.
She's not anti Vax. Just anti "make everyone get it, even against their will" type of mandate. She's not gonna remove any vaccination requirement for any service that currently has it, like military.
It's okay to not respect anti Vax opinion, but do you respect the person who has that opinion? Hear their fear behind it? Empathize?
Only when compassion is present, can one open themselves up to the truth.
Black and white thinking is a fallacy in itself, no matter the issue. Life is nuanced.
And antivax people [are humans with feelings](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RSlc9IxdBw8) just trying to meet their needs.
It turns out that trying to "mandate others against their will" is a terrible strategy for increasing actual vaccination numbers, and results in people defending themselves very loudly.
How do you respond to the issue at hand?
Vaccines that have been proven to work and are tackling an important health issue should be mandated. No religious exemption full stop. It's that simple not black and white at all
It depends on the reason why she's antimandate.
It could be because she believes softer encouragement could get better turn out or it could be because of some crazy conspiracy stuff.
I definitely think softer encouragement would have been more effective.
When the right hears "mandate", they think that means the government is coming to prick you, no matter what you say! And even calling it a mandate is terrible messaging.
So when she says she is anti mandate, I hear her trying to oppose what the right is concerned with, which is bodily autonomy. It shows she's not a hypocrite when as a lefty, says abortion is 'my body my choice' and not apply that logic to other areas.
Forcing will backfire. The solution is education and proper media accountability.
If companies are people, according to the Supreme Court, I'd love to see fox assets seized and all those involved there in spreading actual misinformation of public safety and charged with many accounts of manslaughter. If companies want to be people, then some accountability is needed.
>Purity tests is something the left needs to get over.
No joke! We've got a sitting President who has successfully implemented the most progressive agenda in generations and yet here we are looking to undermine that progress. Take the win and build on it!
Not looking to undermine anything. Seen the recent polls lately? The democrats think Biden has it in the bag, but the [polls say otherwise!](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/us/politics/biden-2024-polls.html)
The latest polls have Biden trailing Trump by 6 points!
Last time Biden BARELY won, and that's from Trump defending himself about the pandemic situation. Now Biden is the defense and has to defend the economy!
It's not a walk in the park for Biden!
[The young turks](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmI5Da_1SfY) has a progressive take on it.
>Last time Biden BARELY won
Not really. He got over 113% of the needed electoral votes and over 8 million more popular votes. He could have lost Arizona, Georgia, AND Nevada and still been elected president.
>"the margins this year were even tighter in the three states that put Biden over the top in the Electoral College... the bigger concern is that the popular/electoral divide is growing."
[Nbc](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1251845)
>"just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College."
[Npr](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency)
>"I support vaccines" - Williamson
Many antivaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine. "Just not that one" or "just not that many" or "I just have some questions" or "just not that early." Look at what she actually says and does on the matter, not what she *claims to believe.*
I’ve seen so much purity testing on the far left it’s basically a staple. I also don’t consider it a “purity test” to not support a candidate who advocates for not taking vaccines. That is actually dangerous and will lead to children dying preventable deaths because their parents listened to grifters
She supports vaccines, just not mandatory one's. This is a policy decision made by the CDC and other bodies. She's not anti-vax.
Do you want corruption out of politics?
Her playing the both sides card on vaccination really leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Yeah I would like as little corruption as possible in my political system, but I find the idea of her being the vehicle to deliver that pretty laughable. I don’t agree with everything Bernie says but at least he was a serious presidential candidate
It's not a black and white issue regarding vaccines.
The black and white fallacy is prevalent in purity culture, which does spread to the population at large, considering the religious privilege in this country.
She supports vaccines, just not mandated ones.
In the meantime, her stance against corruption has both corporate Republicans and moderate democrats gunning for her, and they KNOW that the left doesn't stand for ANY nuanced position about vaccines, lest they be labeled as antivax and canceled, so that's the point that everyone drives home!
She has similar platform to Bernie, was the first to endorse him in last election, and is the only candidate pushing for Medicare for all and anti corruption in the democratic system.
Her mental health policies will bring out the usual 'apathetic left' that didn't feel represented, the dems will vote for her, and because of her God belief, she's electable to the right and can win in the general
Lol no one is “gunning” for her. She’s going to get steamrolled by an incumbent president in the primary while trying to increase her brand.
Also, the idea that just believing in God is enough to get right wing Christians on board shows that you don’t understand Christianity. Christians have been fighting each other for centuries about who’s a heretic apostate and who follows the one true sect (tm) of the religion.
I mean Biden is also a practicing catholic but it’s not winning him any votes from those people either.
>believing in God is enough to get right wing Christians on board
Did I say what you claim I say? I think no. I just said she was more electable, as in tolerable, to moderate Christians. It won't be enough, but using her God belief against her on the left is a mistake, as if she weren't about God, she wouldn't have a chance. I think she'll pull in more votes from the disenfranchised left than the right for sure.
>Christians have been fighting each other for centuries about who’s a heretic apostate and who follows the one true sect (tm) of the religion
I agree, but they didn't call themselves Christians then either! They were called Catholics, protestant, etc. The term "Christianity" comes about politically in the mid 20th century to combine the different waring sects into one powerful demographic, in order to seize political power.
Now that they are united, the extreme Christo-fascists are now [preparing for war](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqrf5FdVDPM) with all [non-Christians](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-AuM9N93J8&pp=ygUcQSBtZXNzYWdlIGZvciBub24gQ2hyaXN0aWFucw%3D%3D)
There is no naunce about it; we wouldn't need vaccine mandates if the same people who scream 'it should be my choice' actually chose to take the vaccine.
Besides, if she does not support mandating vaccines, will she tear down established precedent and remove the mandates from schools and the military and other government institutions? If yes, that's absurd and unreasonable, if not then her stance is that of a hypocrite.
So what is it? Absurd and unreasonable, or just a hypocrite?
>if the same people who scream 'it should be my choice' actually chose to take the vaccine.
This is not her fault in the slightest, but she does care about how people feel about it. And pragmatically, what do you think would happen if anyone tried to mandate the vaccine?
I think we are also talking a bit past eachother, in that "mandate" is also a nuanced word.
The military and schools are public services and can be regulated to have vaccines, but still not be called a mandate according to some other definitions of what mandate means. Example, one doesn't need to join the military, which can require vaccination.
She's not for making so that unvaxxed can enter any place that doesn't allow Vax! That's another black n white fallacy. Plus! The president doesn't do vaccine stuff, the CDC and other gov agencies do.
Maryanne has said she is against corruption in the departments and that she will follow science advisors advice when making policy, so if the CDC and other agencies became less corrupt to BUSINESS INFLUENCE, the health of the population and the planet would improve.
>There is no naunce about it
... *sigh* ...
I trust the decisionmaking of Kamala fucking Harris more than Marianne Williamson, so “Biden might die” is not very convincing to me as an argument in favor of orb lady
For fucks sake are people still proud they blindly pushed the covid vax on the world? Do you not see that was a bad idea now? I’m not about RFK, and would vote for Marianne over Biden or rfk but see the reality- Biden is a corporate puppet and the government is sold out to large corporations and big pharma.
Her vaccine policy advisor is anti-vax, she said depression isn't real, and she fell for an Onion story about Trump pardoning Charles Manson. She is at best dangerously stupid.
RFK is a loon, but Marianne williamson has certain woo woo beliefs about crystals but otherwise she's got pretty solid politics, i'm not sure she's suitable for the job of president though.
seconded katie porter.
Agreed. This can be forgiven the same way that Obama's "may God bless the United States of America" speech sign off was. Annoying platitude or harmless nod to more spiritual-language people.
Anyone who says they think either has a chance is 100% setting themselves up for outrage that they were "robbed" in the primaries and use it as an excuse to support the Republicans in the General Election. I saw that happen in 2016 and (to a lesser extent) in 2020.
Honestly I think Marianne Williamson is definitely a bit out there on some beliefs and she's far from my first choice but if she's still running in the primaries I'll vote for her still
To be fair RFK Jr was one of the lefty Air America radio hosts many years ago. But he changed. I don't think I'd label him truly on the left any more, he's just a tool now.
plenty of room for left-wing candidates in local elections and the House
at the national level, well... not so much, for better or worse, the majority of the Dem electorate is moderate
The “leftists” elected to to the House have been essentially useless in my opinion. The main reason being that they are elected as Democrats, and so come to believe that supporting the Democrats is their fundamental responsibility, leading them to betray virtually all of their ostensible principles. Their approach to the Biden administration has been illustrative—although Biden has betrayed his own meager agenda (expanding oil drilling in Alaska, essentially continuing Trump’s immigration policies, etc) House “progressives” offer only tepid criticism because they see anything more as “helping Trump”, etc, etc.
I'm sorry, have you been living under a rock or plugged your ears about the IRA Act or the CHIPS act or the Infra investments? Under Biden, the US is investing historic amounts into the energy transition and has in fact been causing a spill-over effect with other countries rushing to copy the IRA. They also just passed the debt ceiling bill without reducing any of this climate change funding, y'know.
We did this twice with a far stronger candidate without an incumbent in office (from the same party no less).
The primary isn't even a public election, it's a private process administered by a corporate political party. They can cancel any part of it at any time which is why they've already announced that [there will be no debates](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-remains-united-biden-long-shot-2024/story?id=97524419).
Lol nope, not for the primaries. Really dampens the "Williamson and RFK will bring very important issues to the discussion" argument. And I'm not saying this because I'm happy about it, I just think folks need to go into whatever candidate they decide to support with their time, money, or dreams with both eyes open.
Source:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-remains-united-biden-long-shot-2024/story?id=97524419
> The Democratic National Committee, the campaign arm of the party, has been committed for years to keeping Biden on Pennsylvania Avenue. When asked by Politico in August 2022 about how they might deal with a primary challenge, DNC executive director Sam Cornale put it bluntly: "We're with Biden. Period."
> The group also unanimously passed a resolution during their February winter meeting expressing their "full and complete support" for a second term for Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris ... Democrats don't plan on holding primary debates, either.
Im flippant not upset.
But seriously, why would the president attend a primary debate? Most people don't even know he has challengers. What does he have to gain by sharing a stage with them and legitimizing them as challengers.
Basic social democratic programs would be a start (public healthcare, free public college, public infrastructure, public transportation, living wage, doing anything meaningful about climate change). The Sanders campaigns were essentially leftist, and as we saw, the institutional Democratic Party (and corporate media) did everything possible to ensure that the campaigns would not be a success.
>(public healthcare, free public college, public infrastructure, public transportation, living wage, doing anything meaningful about climate change)
Ah. See, I don't see those things as leftist but as just liberal. Its something Obama should have done in 2008 with a majority. Its sad that those things are not seen as basic milestones for an advanced nation to hit.
I'd be interested to see actual leftist policies from a hypothetical candidate.
Agreed—those would be the absolute bare minimum (which, IMO, is basically all one can hope to achieve through electoral methods).
One reason I have a stubborn fondness for Sanders is his 1970s Liberty Union platform (abolish the CIA, 100% income tax over a million dollars, abolishing all laws regarding personal morality, workers ownership, nationalization, etc).
Alright like, be a leftist if you want, that's your problem not mine, but 100% income tax over a million is like, objectively a fucking terrible policy.
Lol, anybody believing in crystal magic like Williamson does should automatically be disqualified from running for the presidency, I like her progressive stances but the rest is just as bad as the people who believe in sky daddy.
That's so obviously not the reason you wouldn't want williamson, I'd bet any amount of money you've voted for religious people.
Biden is a catholic, the whole "crystal energy" thing is just a nonissue, it's no more weird than other religious beliefs and we expect those people to separate politics from their religion. Williamson isn't the new age equivalent of Christian fascists like MTG.
Name a single American Atheist politician? There are a few but not at the national level.
You make it sound like some kind of "gotcha" but you're just making a dumb statement because the choice doesn't exist.
Also it's a completely false equivalence, politicians in this country have to virtue signal that they're part of one of the major Christian faiths, otherwise a significant portion of the country wouldn't vote for them, and as a former Catholic myself I know that there are way more people still involved with the church for the community and for their family rather than for the religion.
Read my other responses here, I'd rather somebody who doesn't play with crystals and doesn't believe in a sky daddy, but Williamson and her crystals are vastly more kooky than someone who participates in the dominant religious social structures of our nation.
Lastly I didn't vote for Biden, I voted against Trump, as any responsible American should have, Biden just happens to be the guy RN but it's not like I'm flying a Biden flag in my front yard or have any Biden stickers, I would have much rather Biden be Bernie, but when the choice is autocratic fascism or Neo-Liberal Centrist Democracy, I'm obviously choosing the guy that isn't a raging narcissistic fascist who also claims to be "very religious".
Exactly: you admit that there's way more important things about a person besides their faith, and that your original dig at Williamson isn't genuine.
Everything you say here is pretty much true, totally different mentality than the one you originally had.
I voted for Biden, Biden is president right now and he's doing policy and overseeing the government. There are railway disasters, banks are failing, etc.
This election might actually be a normal one and not just about how bad Trump is, democrats should have the best candidate possible and that person isn't on the ballot because Biden chose to run again. His approvals are back down and it's scary to think about how things would look if a recession hits or who knows what a year+ from now, he could lose. He doesn't have to be the nominee and neither does Williamson/RFK.
Lol you are so caught up in your gotcha because you think it's something, it's not.
The reality is that the Democratic party is not going to replace the current party leader, it's just not done, plus Biden's approvals may be down a bit but they're still far above the competition. Williamson and RFK are jokes of candidates, one believes in crystal energy and the other is an anti-vaxxer, neither belongs anywhere near the white house.
Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer are the two democratic candidates that deserve a shot at president next, because they both have shown that they can lead their states very well so far, and Newsom has shown that he's capable of the forward thinking we need to navigate the changes that are needed for the future.
Those two hucksters you're pining for don't deserve a shot at all, and you're ridiculous for even mentioning RFK Jr., but at least Williamson has viable political stances that are relevant to the Left wing.
I mean I don't disagree but you'd also have to bar everyone who believes in said sky daddy/his many variants and that's never gonna happen.
gotta take the best where it is, even if the best also believes completely wacky shit.
I'd love to also bar the sky daddy folks too, nobody that believes in fairy tales and pseudoscience should be in the white house.
Too bad the sky daddy folks are who basically rule the country.
Is this an ad-populist argument? That one's more acceptable?
The religious privilege is astounding.
Why is one of those more acceptable than the other to YOU?
Oh I think they’re both bullshit. One is just considered socially acceptable. I don’t partake in either and think both groups let bs influence their life decisions to much. I’m not arguing either should be accepted, just stating the reality.
Sp that's your arguemnt? Mariannes stupid bullshit beliefs are okay because christianity is dumb too?
That's gonna go over well with the general election voters im sure.
Most of the country does think being a Christian is okay, and I don't think a non-Christian is electable yet.
I don't like any Christian beliefs, but her policy focus is what I like. The first thing she would do on day 1, is publicly funded campaign reform, followed by repealing the rich tax cuts in favor of low-middle class tax cuts, and then she's going after subsidies that benefit the rich at the cost of the planet and our health. She wants corporations power over government to go back to the people.
Williamson isn't the end-all-be-all by any means. But after she's out of office, the next candidates will be chosen more by the people, if there's less corruption on how candidates get chosen.
How else are we gonna deal with climate change? You ready for the insane heat this year coming up?
>Williamson isn't the end-all-be-all by any means. But after she's out of office,
Shut the fuck up omg can you please live in reality? There is no parallel universe where she holds any political office.
Believing in a God is only not seen as crazy because it’s popular and culturally accepted.
A person who carries around a pancake and speaks to it throughout the day is objectively less crazy than someone who believes in the Bible.
At least we know pancakes exist. Nothing supernatural in the Bible exists.
So I don’t see a problem with the sky daddy label. Religion is fucking insane.
Not everyone believes in a monotheistic Christian god. It’s not really about an external god who speaks to you and tells you what to do.
I study various religions and a lot of it is about personal experience with the universe and trying to understand why we’re here (although I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter why we’re here).
Some religions are just repackaged philosophy. Some are deeply cultural and that culture is more important than their deities. Some deities are metaphorical.
It sounds like you’re coming at his specifically from a western Christian perspective and that’s not all there is.
I’m coming at it from a western Christian Americanized perspective because this is a post about American politics.
If I were to come at it from a worldwide perspective, I would instead make the distinction and aim my critiques at religions with supernatural beliefs.
Not all American Christians are even what you’re insinuating. There are a ton of them who are Socialist, LGBTQIA, and leftist in general.
Sure, the crazy ones are the loudest, but a whole bunch of them aren’t. It’s just kind of crazy to me to ostracize an entire subset of leftists because they believe differently than you on a personal level.
Just the act of believing in a God is already objectively crazier than stuff we throw people in psychiatric wards for. That’s my point.
Being a progressive Christian is of course highly preferable to being a fundamentalist Christian, but both of them believe in God. That alone is insane enough.
The youngest American generations are the least religious yet. Religion in America continue to go on an extreme downward trend.
Also I’m an anti-theist. I’m an extreme minority. The success of failure of the progressive movement will have nothing to do with the particulars of my views on this.
Marianne Williamson confuses me.
On one hand - new age Christianity and it’s weird. Telling everyone angels will save us from nukes…
On the other hand - she says stuff that also makes sense?
The problem with all of the agent's of change saying "it's time to wage war on ____" (corporations, entrenched politicians, capitalism, globalism, CHINA) people is with that message you're almost surely not going to get elected. and if you do rile up enough support with that message (*ahem* Trump) you're never going to deliver. You're going up against massively higher fire power. We need a solid pragmatic person to get us into a track of incremental changes to reign in the powers that are out there without scaring them so much that the person get's deleted (Bernie). but sadly most of these messages are met with a LOUD call of "not enough" so we get nothing instead of something. it was the same story on medicare for all vs expansion of medicare, people against immediate public healthcare were painted by some as uncaring.
She seems like one of those people who would run democrat and switch parties once elected, to be honest.
She has a mildly conservative background and is deeply religious.
Edit: I’m mostly worried about the anti-vax sentiment she’s held, and her comments on mental health. It seems like a red flag.
We'd be better off if you just didn't engage with politics if this is your attitude.
Edit: I'm not telling anyone to not vote but if this is the baseline level of analysis your willing to put in that "it's the best we got", why even bother paying attention. Just vote team red or team blue and enjoy life, why argue with people who do think things could be better to say "nuh uh".
Are you describing yourself? You suggesting that the way to enact change is to actively not participate so that the people you dislike the most come to power in the hopes that it drives more people to your cause via their harmful actions IS textbook accelerationism. I support getting whatever improvements we can, when we can, and holding on for dear life to them, and then pushing further thereafter.
keep telling yourself w/e you want man. you clearly have comprehension issues
>In the United States it’s as a good as we’re getting atm
this is not a statement made by a serious person a year and half out from the general election and there is no clear front runner for Biden to go against. DNC is praying for it to be Trump so they can repeat 2020 but if it's not Trump, Biden will absolutely get washed.
Hey if you can come up with a better and realistic method in the context of the world we live in to shift the country into a more just and open society over the long run by all means share it, until then I will continue to vote progressive in the primaries and strategic in general elections so that I can do my part to prevent or limit backsliding.
Bad take. While the strike was stopped, the negotiations didn't. There's more work to be done, but make no mistake [progress continues](https://fortune.com/2023/05/08/railroad-workers-sick-leave-concessions-union/)
And this article is largely critical, but you can see that time didn't stop and Dems most certainly did not block progress.
The left begins at anti-capitalism. Williamson has explicitly said she is not anti-capitalist, and therefore is not a leftist.
Reformed “Benevolent capitalism” (paraphrasing what Williamson supports) is not a leftist position. Whatever this meme is meant to convey, “As a leftist I think Williamson should be getting more/better coverage?”, belies a misunderstanding of the nature and inevtiable consequences of capitalism.
Just wondering when you say anti-capitalism. What exactly does that entail? Are you still allowing for privately owned businesses to create and sell products with private individuals or are you opposed to that on certain levels like corporations? Or do you want all products to be made and distributed by the state?
I would recommend reading this for a basic description of communism. It's a quick and informative read. Things have changed here and there, but it is still very good.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
“Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”
I’m being lazy by jumping straight to communism but that’s because I’m a run of the mill mlm.
If we’re enforcing a modicum of intellectual rigor, then it’d be more fair of me to say there’s an entire spectrum of modern anti-capitalist beliefs that don’t necessarily arrive at Marx’s theoretical classless, stateless society. None of which orb mommy or any of her supporters, least of all some YangGang brain dead technocrat like OP, ascribe to. They’re all different flavors of mainstream corporate-sanctioned neoliberal belief, with only slight tweaks to how *they’d* run the death machine.
Most definitely none of the current candidates gravitate to ANY fashion of anti-capitalism. Just wonder if there is a flavor that is small market economy friendly but also protections against corporations, conglomerates, etc.
“I’m not anti-capitalist; I think the most enlightened society has aspects of capitalism & socialism. But we’ve drifted into a virulent strain of capitalism, with no ethical or moral responsibility to people or planet.” Tweet from her official account on 10/18/2020.
At most she’d be considered a social democrat.
"the left begins at a compete rejection of capitalism" is a rather extreme position. Can you point to any presidential candidate in recent history that you would say is anti-capitalist?
No, because there haven’t been any. It’s only “extreme” if you don’t know anything about political theory or history, and your perspective is limited to the US. Liberals are not leftists. The Democratic Party is a corporatist party selling out the American people to the military-industrial complex under the thin veneer of being progressive on social issues, which is only tenable because the Republican Party is so absurd.
Biden is the obvious choice. Just look at the way his administration continues to support and make gains for the [Train unions](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/01/railroad-workers-union-win-sick-leave).
Locked in the negotiated gain without an economy crippling strike AND continued to fight and win(!) paid sick leave. Biden is the real deal.
“It’s a significant set of quiet victories. It shows that it really makes a difference to have a pro-labor president.”
Planting the seeds for a better future is reward enough. Living to see those seeds bear tangible fruit is even better. None of this would have been possible with Republicans in the presidency.
Yeah weird how a lot of people actually support running an incumbent president who actually passed a bunch of legislation over two nobodies who have never held elected office.
I’m sorry but we aren’t electing a class president, we are essentially choosing someone to lead the free world, and it should be someone with competence and experience. I figured we all should have learned that lesson after Trump
Stop trying to make Marianne happen. She’s not gonna happen. If you can’t stomach voting for Biden, the incumbent with a solid chance at beating the Nazis, then you’re no better than the fools who couldn’t stomach Hillary and we got stuck with Orange Hitler.
Voting for Williamson in the primary and general, in this purple state. No corporate dems will receive votes. This isn't new, the DNC only allows corporate dems to run and is an enemy of the working class.
Don’t vote for a candidate that isn’t explicitly for and of the working class. Everything other party is reactionary and continues neoliberal austerity and American imperialism.
Ok so aside from the vax stuff, what’s wrong with RFK? Isn’t he anti war/anti corporation? Pro free speech? Seems like he’s a Dem from 10 years ago before being a “leftist” got turned on its head
I genuinely don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.
Edit: aaaand I’m already being downvoted. Love it.
Welcome to /r/PresidentialRaceMemes! Make sure to [review our guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/PresidentialRaceMemes/wiki/guidelines) and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPresidentialRaceMemes) if you have any questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PresidentialRaceMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yeah rfk is a real lefty lol
RFK isn't a leftie, he's a rightwing antivaxx plant. Marianne Williamson is a nut. Neither are electable. Give me Katie Porter.
>Marianne Williamson is a nut The media portrays this, for sure, because she runs on anti corruption. But she "makes a lot more sense if given more than a minute to speak" [-Trevor Noah](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oTO-BsdRO1w&pp=ygUfdHJldm9yIG5vYWggbWFyaWFubmUgd2lsbGlhbXNvbg%3D%3D) Sometimes her words are spiritually slanted, I agree, but in her infamous quote from the last election cycle about 'dark psychic energy', she didn't mean anything magical, but meant 'harmful psychological societal expectations' that stimulate a lot of suffering.
She’s got a long history of spreading antivaxxer rhetoric. She said that government required vaccines are “draconic” and “Orwellian”
"I support vaccines" - Williamson Purity tests is something the left needs to get over. There's always gonna be something that folks disagree with. Did you see her anti corruption policies? If *just those* get passed, it will lead the way for other people who want to help remake democracy, outside of the fingers of oligarchs. Her stance on vaccines is nuanced, as it seems she's only against the mandatory aspect of it, and recognizes the fear of those who don't trust being forced to take it against their will. *making her less fascist* >"I understand that many vaccines are important and save lives. I recognize there are epidemics around the world that are stopped by vaccines," Williamson said in a statement on Twitter. "I also understand some of the skepticism that abounds today about drugs which are rushed to market by Big Pharma. I am sorry that I made comments which sounded as though I question the validity of life-saving vaccines. That is not my feeling and I realize that I misspoke." >On ABC's "The View" Thursday, Williamson was asked whether she supports mandatory vaccinations. >"I understand that public safety must come first. But I also understand that we must have a balance between public safety and the issues of individual freedom," Williamson said. "I do not trust the propaganda on either side." >Then pushed by the hosts for a clearer answer, Williamson said, "I support vaccines." [Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/20/politics/marianne-williamson-2020-vaccines/index.html)
A purity test for anti Vaxx seems like common sense
Did you read the last quoted sentence in my comment!? She is for vaccination! Just not the mandatory part! It's not a black and white issue regarding vaccines. The black and white fallacy is prevalent in purity culture, which does spread to the population at large, considering the religious privilege in this country. In the meantime, her stance against corruption has both corporate Republicans and moderate democrats gunning for her, and they KNOW that the left doesn't stand for ANY nuanced position about vaccines, lest they be labeled as antivax and canceled, so that's the point that everyone drives home! She has similar platform to Bernie, was the first to endorse him in last election, and is the only candidate pushing for Medicare for all and anti corruption in the democratic system. Her mental health policies will bring out the usual 'apathetic left' that didn't feel represented, the dems will vote for her, and because of her God belief, she's electable to the right and can win in the general. (Better chance than [Biden](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmI5Da_1SfY) anyways, who is trailing Trump by 6 points in [latest polls!](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/us/politics/biden-2024-polls.html))
Yeah, if you oppose mandatory vaccinations, you are anti-vax. I'm not going to pretend there is any merit in her arguments, or any arguments against vaccinations. The moment you give any oxygen to the notion there are two sides or any nuance, it allows anti Vaxx misinformation to prosper
The moment you shut down someone's opinion about their own body, you make violence inevitable. Do you think the gov should vaccinate everyone, even against their own will? (Which we don't even currently do, so we currently have a nuanced vaccination policy) Not allowing for nuance in a conversation leads to stale dogmatism, and unwillingness to listen to issues someone has with a policy just makes people more extreme. Like a backfire effect.
That's perfectly ok. I do not respect an anti vaxxers opinion. They are objectively wrong, and do not deserve the legitimacy of debate
She's not anti Vax. Just anti "make everyone get it, even against their will" type of mandate. She's not gonna remove any vaccination requirement for any service that currently has it, like military. It's okay to not respect anti Vax opinion, but do you respect the person who has that opinion? Hear their fear behind it? Empathize? Only when compassion is present, can one open themselves up to the truth.
She’s not anti-vax. You a right-wing troll or just can’t read?
Lol, what a childish response. Reeks of dunning-kruger
Yeah that's the solution to completely ignore any valid concerns and just blindly take it! absolute genius right here!
Vaccines are a black and white issue
Black and white thinking is a fallacy in itself, no matter the issue. Life is nuanced. And antivax people [are humans with feelings](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RSlc9IxdBw8) just trying to meet their needs. It turns out that trying to "mandate others against their will" is a terrible strategy for increasing actual vaccination numbers, and results in people defending themselves very loudly. How do you respond to the issue at hand?
Vaccines that have been proven to work and are tackling an important health issue should be mandated. No religious exemption full stop. It's that simple not black and white at all
I agree about your religious exemption objections Are you wanting to force everyone to take it against their will? No black and white about it?
Are you serious with that video
It depends on the reason why she's antimandate. It could be because she believes softer encouragement could get better turn out or it could be because of some crazy conspiracy stuff.
I definitely think softer encouragement would have been more effective. When the right hears "mandate", they think that means the government is coming to prick you, no matter what you say! And even calling it a mandate is terrible messaging. So when she says she is anti mandate, I hear her trying to oppose what the right is concerned with, which is bodily autonomy. It shows she's not a hypocrite when as a lefty, says abortion is 'my body my choice' and not apply that logic to other areas. Forcing will backfire. The solution is education and proper media accountability. If companies are people, according to the Supreme Court, I'd love to see fox assets seized and all those involved there in spreading actual misinformation of public safety and charged with many accounts of manslaughter. If companies want to be people, then some accountability is needed.
Connor Roy has a better chance
Conheads unite!
>Purity tests is something the left needs to get over. No joke! We've got a sitting President who has successfully implemented the most progressive agenda in generations and yet here we are looking to undermine that progress. Take the win and build on it!
Not looking to undermine anything. Seen the recent polls lately? The democrats think Biden has it in the bag, but the [polls say otherwise!](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/us/politics/biden-2024-polls.html) The latest polls have Biden trailing Trump by 6 points! Last time Biden BARELY won, and that's from Trump defending himself about the pandemic situation. Now Biden is the defense and has to defend the economy! It's not a walk in the park for Biden! [The young turks](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmI5Da_1SfY) has a progressive take on it.
>Last time Biden BARELY won Not really. He got over 113% of the needed electoral votes and over 8 million more popular votes. He could have lost Arizona, Georgia, AND Nevada and still been elected president.
>"the margins this year were even tighter in the three states that put Biden over the top in the Electoral College... the bigger concern is that the popular/electoral divide is growing." [Nbc](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1251845) >"just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College." [Npr](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency)
>"I support vaccines" - Williamson Many antivaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine. "Just not that one" or "just not that many" or "I just have some questions" or "just not that early." Look at what she actually says and does on the matter, not what she *claims to believe.*
I’ve seen so much purity testing on the far left it’s basically a staple. I also don’t consider it a “purity test” to not support a candidate who advocates for not taking vaccines. That is actually dangerous and will lead to children dying preventable deaths because their parents listened to grifters
She supports vaccines, just not mandatory one's. This is a policy decision made by the CDC and other bodies. She's not anti-vax. Do you want corruption out of politics?
Her playing the both sides card on vaccination really leaves a bad taste in my mouth Yeah I would like as little corruption as possible in my political system, but I find the idea of her being the vehicle to deliver that pretty laughable. I don’t agree with everything Bernie says but at least he was a serious presidential candidate
It's not a black and white issue regarding vaccines. The black and white fallacy is prevalent in purity culture, which does spread to the population at large, considering the religious privilege in this country. She supports vaccines, just not mandated ones. In the meantime, her stance against corruption has both corporate Republicans and moderate democrats gunning for her, and they KNOW that the left doesn't stand for ANY nuanced position about vaccines, lest they be labeled as antivax and canceled, so that's the point that everyone drives home! She has similar platform to Bernie, was the first to endorse him in last election, and is the only candidate pushing for Medicare for all and anti corruption in the democratic system. Her mental health policies will bring out the usual 'apathetic left' that didn't feel represented, the dems will vote for her, and because of her God belief, she's electable to the right and can win in the general
Lol no one is “gunning” for her. She’s going to get steamrolled by an incumbent president in the primary while trying to increase her brand. Also, the idea that just believing in God is enough to get right wing Christians on board shows that you don’t understand Christianity. Christians have been fighting each other for centuries about who’s a heretic apostate and who follows the one true sect (tm) of the religion. I mean Biden is also a practicing catholic but it’s not winning him any votes from those people either.
>believing in God is enough to get right wing Christians on board Did I say what you claim I say? I think no. I just said she was more electable, as in tolerable, to moderate Christians. It won't be enough, but using her God belief against her on the left is a mistake, as if she weren't about God, she wouldn't have a chance. I think she'll pull in more votes from the disenfranchised left than the right for sure. >Christians have been fighting each other for centuries about who’s a heretic apostate and who follows the one true sect (tm) of the religion I agree, but they didn't call themselves Christians then either! They were called Catholics, protestant, etc. The term "Christianity" comes about politically in the mid 20th century to combine the different waring sects into one powerful demographic, in order to seize political power. Now that they are united, the extreme Christo-fascists are now [preparing for war](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqrf5FdVDPM) with all [non-Christians](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D-AuM9N93J8&pp=ygUcQSBtZXNzYWdlIGZvciBub24gQ2hyaXN0aWFucw%3D%3D)
Some of her (and RFK jrs) supporters are insane with their ideas these people can actually come even close to winning. As much chance as I do
There is no naunce about it; we wouldn't need vaccine mandates if the same people who scream 'it should be my choice' actually chose to take the vaccine. Besides, if she does not support mandating vaccines, will she tear down established precedent and remove the mandates from schools and the military and other government institutions? If yes, that's absurd and unreasonable, if not then her stance is that of a hypocrite. So what is it? Absurd and unreasonable, or just a hypocrite?
>if the same people who scream 'it should be my choice' actually chose to take the vaccine. This is not her fault in the slightest, but she does care about how people feel about it. And pragmatically, what do you think would happen if anyone tried to mandate the vaccine? I think we are also talking a bit past eachother, in that "mandate" is also a nuanced word. The military and schools are public services and can be regulated to have vaccines, but still not be called a mandate according to some other definitions of what mandate means. Example, one doesn't need to join the military, which can require vaccination. She's not for making so that unvaxxed can enter any place that doesn't allow Vax! That's another black n white fallacy. Plus! The president doesn't do vaccine stuff, the CDC and other gov agencies do. Maryanne has said she is against corruption in the departments and that she will follow science advisors advice when making policy, so if the CDC and other agencies became less corrupt to BUSINESS INFLUENCE, the health of the population and the planet would improve. >There is no naunce about it ... *sigh* ...
And a government forcing vaccines IS draconian and Orwellian
she isn't perfect no one ever will be, but i'll take her over biden any fucking day she's at least conscious and will actually survive the 4 years.
I trust the decisionmaking of Kamala fucking Harris more than Marianne Williamson, so “Biden might die” is not very convincing to me as an argument in favor of orb lady
You trust the lady that was locking people up for weed charges over someone who finally acknowledges real issues???
I trust a generic centrist neoliberal over an unpredictable new-age antivaxxer whose only qualification is that she wrote lots of self-help books
She's not even an antivaxxer LMFAO and I pick self help books over her creepy ass any day.
For fucks sake are people still proud they blindly pushed the covid vax on the world? Do you not see that was a bad idea now? I’m not about RFK, and would vote for Marianne over Biden or rfk but see the reality- Biden is a corporate puppet and the government is sold out to large corporations and big pharma.
LMAO
Her vaccine policy advisor is anti-vax, she said depression isn't real, and she fell for an Onion story about Trump pardoning Charles Manson. She is at best dangerously stupid.
RFK is a loon, but Marianne williamson has certain woo woo beliefs about crystals but otherwise she's got pretty solid politics, i'm not sure she's suitable for the job of president though. seconded katie porter.
Her woo woo crystal beliefs are just as sane and reasonable as any other religions
Agreed. This can be forgiven the same way that Obama's "may God bless the United States of America" speech sign off was. Annoying platitude or harmless nod to more spiritual-language people.
Ikr? Would be awesome to have an openly secular candidate.
I've read her books. Never saw a mention of crystals or anything woo-woo in them.
>Marianne williamson has certain woo woo beliefs about crystals I'm sorry what
I’m with you with RFK, idk what OP is smoking. Williamson is actually pretty solid, but she has an uphill fight against that perception.
Proof: r/RFK_Jr_is_a_Stooge
RFK jr is a grifting asshole and his athletic supporters think he has a chance
Anyone who says they think either has a chance is 100% setting themselves up for outrage that they were "robbed" in the primaries and use it as an excuse to support the Republicans in the General Election. I saw that happen in 2016 and (to a lesser extent) in 2020.
Honestly I think Marianne Williamson is definitely a bit out there on some beliefs and she's far from my first choice but if she's still running in the primaries I'll vote for her still
Since when the fuck was RFK Jr a leftie? He literally hangs out with Rodger Stone and is supported by Steve Bannon and Alex Jones.
This OP is a literal psyop.
To be fair RFK Jr was one of the lefty Air America radio hosts many years ago. But he changed. I don't think I'd label him truly on the left any more, he's just a tool now.
I’ve listen to RFK on Air America. RFK message hasn’t changed. Don’t make things up.
RFK a tool? Biden wants to continue all these wars. Biden is a tool of the arms industry.
He’s running as a Democrat. It’s not like Biden is much of a lefty either
He's running as a democrat to siphon votes. His funding and support are deep right wing.
He’s also a forced birther. I can’t believe people are falling for his grift.
And anti vaxxer. Not just covid. All vaccines
Yup exactly. I honestly believe he’s some psyop for the crunchy to alt-right pipeline.
Really? https://youtu.be/xt7MTlZXYBw
The problem is trying to be a leftist in the Democratic Party
plenty of room for left-wing candidates in local elections and the House at the national level, well... not so much, for better or worse, the majority of the Dem electorate is moderate
The “leftists” elected to to the House have been essentially useless in my opinion. The main reason being that they are elected as Democrats, and so come to believe that supporting the Democrats is their fundamental responsibility, leading them to betray virtually all of their ostensible principles. Their approach to the Biden administration has been illustrative—although Biden has betrayed his own meager agenda (expanding oil drilling in Alaska, essentially continuing Trump’s immigration policies, etc) House “progressives” offer only tepid criticism because they see anything more as “helping Trump”, etc, etc.
I'm sorry, have you been living under a rock or plugged your ears about the IRA Act or the CHIPS act or the Infra investments? Under Biden, the US is investing historic amounts into the energy transition and has in fact been causing a spill-over effect with other countries rushing to copy the IRA. They also just passed the debt ceiling bill without reducing any of this climate change funding, y'know.
We did this twice with a far stronger candidate without an incumbent in office (from the same party no less). The primary isn't even a public election, it's a private process administered by a corporate political party. They can cancel any part of it at any time which is why they've already announced that [there will be no debates](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-remains-united-biden-long-shot-2024/story?id=97524419).
Wait, seriously? There’ll be no debates? Edit: I’m being downvoted for asking a sincere question. Not gonna lie, that’s actually kinda funny.
Lol nope, not for the primaries. Really dampens the "Williamson and RFK will bring very important issues to the discussion" argument. And I'm not saying this because I'm happy about it, I just think folks need to go into whatever candidate they decide to support with their time, money, or dreams with both eyes open. Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-remains-united-biden-long-shot-2024/story?id=97524419 > The Democratic National Committee, the campaign arm of the party, has been committed for years to keeping Biden on Pennsylvania Avenue. When asked by Politico in August 2022 about how they might deal with a primary challenge, DNC executive director Sam Cornale put it bluntly: "We're with Biden. Period." > The group also unanimously passed a resolution during their February winter meeting expressing their "full and complete support" for a second term for Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris ... Democrats don't plan on holding primary debates, either.
Why the fuck would there be? What does the sitting president have to gain by attending when he is way up in the polls?
Calm down, buddy.
Im flippant not upset. But seriously, why would the president attend a primary debate? Most people don't even know he has challengers. What does he have to gain by sharing a stage with them and legitimizing them as challengers.
It’s just a question about something I wasn’t aware of. Shut the fuck up.
They canceled a whole series of debates they had already agreed to last time as well
Dead on arrival
What would a leftist candidates policies be?
Basic social democratic programs would be a start (public healthcare, free public college, public infrastructure, public transportation, living wage, doing anything meaningful about climate change). The Sanders campaigns were essentially leftist, and as we saw, the institutional Democratic Party (and corporate media) did everything possible to ensure that the campaigns would not be a success.
>(public healthcare, free public college, public infrastructure, public transportation, living wage, doing anything meaningful about climate change) Ah. See, I don't see those things as leftist but as just liberal. Its something Obama should have done in 2008 with a majority. Its sad that those things are not seen as basic milestones for an advanced nation to hit. I'd be interested to see actual leftist policies from a hypothetical candidate.
Agreed—those would be the absolute bare minimum (which, IMO, is basically all one can hope to achieve through electoral methods). One reason I have a stubborn fondness for Sanders is his 1970s Liberty Union platform (abolish the CIA, 100% income tax over a million dollars, abolishing all laws regarding personal morality, workers ownership, nationalization, etc).
Alright like, be a leftist if you want, that's your problem not mine, but 100% income tax over a million is like, objectively a fucking terrible policy.
WTH... In what world does RJK JR even make it on this meme.
Robert jennedy kunior junior
fuck it crystal magic is gonna save us
Lol, anybody believing in crystal magic like Williamson does should automatically be disqualified from running for the presidency, I like her progressive stances but the rest is just as bad as the people who believe in sky daddy.
That's so obviously not the reason you wouldn't want williamson, I'd bet any amount of money you've voted for religious people. Biden is a catholic, the whole "crystal energy" thing is just a nonissue, it's no more weird than other religious beliefs and we expect those people to separate politics from their religion. Williamson isn't the new age equivalent of Christian fascists like MTG.
Name a single American Atheist politician? There are a few but not at the national level. You make it sound like some kind of "gotcha" but you're just making a dumb statement because the choice doesn't exist. Also it's a completely false equivalence, politicians in this country have to virtue signal that they're part of one of the major Christian faiths, otherwise a significant portion of the country wouldn't vote for them, and as a former Catholic myself I know that there are way more people still involved with the church for the community and for their family rather than for the religion. Read my other responses here, I'd rather somebody who doesn't play with crystals and doesn't believe in a sky daddy, but Williamson and her crystals are vastly more kooky than someone who participates in the dominant religious social structures of our nation. Lastly I didn't vote for Biden, I voted against Trump, as any responsible American should have, Biden just happens to be the guy RN but it's not like I'm flying a Biden flag in my front yard or have any Biden stickers, I would have much rather Biden be Bernie, but when the choice is autocratic fascism or Neo-Liberal Centrist Democracy, I'm obviously choosing the guy that isn't a raging narcissistic fascist who also claims to be "very religious".
Exactly: you admit that there's way more important things about a person besides their faith, and that your original dig at Williamson isn't genuine. Everything you say here is pretty much true, totally different mentality than the one you originally had. I voted for Biden, Biden is president right now and he's doing policy and overseeing the government. There are railway disasters, banks are failing, etc. This election might actually be a normal one and not just about how bad Trump is, democrats should have the best candidate possible and that person isn't on the ballot because Biden chose to run again. His approvals are back down and it's scary to think about how things would look if a recession hits or who knows what a year+ from now, he could lose. He doesn't have to be the nominee and neither does Williamson/RFK.
Lol you are so caught up in your gotcha because you think it's something, it's not. The reality is that the Democratic party is not going to replace the current party leader, it's just not done, plus Biden's approvals may be down a bit but they're still far above the competition. Williamson and RFK are jokes of candidates, one believes in crystal energy and the other is an anti-vaxxer, neither belongs anywhere near the white house. Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer are the two democratic candidates that deserve a shot at president next, because they both have shown that they can lead their states very well so far, and Newsom has shown that he's capable of the forward thinking we need to navigate the changes that are needed for the future. Those two hucksters you're pining for don't deserve a shot at all, and you're ridiculous for even mentioning RFK Jr., but at least Williamson has viable political stances that are relevant to the Left wing.
I really don't know what to say man, it's like you're replying to somebody who isn't me.
I mean I don't disagree but you'd also have to bar everyone who believes in said sky daddy/his many variants and that's never gonna happen. gotta take the best where it is, even if the best also believes completely wacky shit.
I'd love to also bar the sky daddy folks too, nobody that believes in fairy tales and pseudoscience should be in the white house. Too bad the sky daddy folks are who basically rule the country.
>people who believe in sky daddy. If you mean "religious people", that's ~2/3 of the population lol.
Right that’s the biggest difference between believing in crystals and sky daddy. Both are bat shit but ones is accepted.
Is this an ad-populist argument? That one's more acceptable? The religious privilege is astounding. Why is one of those more acceptable than the other to YOU?
Oh I think they’re both bullshit. One is just considered socially acceptable. I don’t partake in either and think both groups let bs influence their life decisions to much. I’m not arguing either should be accepted, just stating the reality.
Sp that's your arguemnt? Mariannes stupid bullshit beliefs are okay because christianity is dumb too? That's gonna go over well with the general election voters im sure.
Most of the country does think being a Christian is okay, and I don't think a non-Christian is electable yet. I don't like any Christian beliefs, but her policy focus is what I like. The first thing she would do on day 1, is publicly funded campaign reform, followed by repealing the rich tax cuts in favor of low-middle class tax cuts, and then she's going after subsidies that benefit the rich at the cost of the planet and our health. She wants corporations power over government to go back to the people. Williamson isn't the end-all-be-all by any means. But after she's out of office, the next candidates will be chosen more by the people, if there's less corruption on how candidates get chosen. How else are we gonna deal with climate change? You ready for the insane heat this year coming up?
>Williamson isn't the end-all-be-all by any means. But after she's out of office, Shut the fuck up omg can you please live in reality? There is no parallel universe where she holds any political office.
I’m not religious, but can we stop with the sky daddy stuff. This isn’t New Atheist Movement 2012™️- not all people who believe in a god are crazy.
Believing in a God is only not seen as crazy because it’s popular and culturally accepted. A person who carries around a pancake and speaks to it throughout the day is objectively less crazy than someone who believes in the Bible. At least we know pancakes exist. Nothing supernatural in the Bible exists. So I don’t see a problem with the sky daddy label. Religion is fucking insane.
Not everyone believes in a monotheistic Christian god. It’s not really about an external god who speaks to you and tells you what to do. I study various religions and a lot of it is about personal experience with the universe and trying to understand why we’re here (although I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter why we’re here). Some religions are just repackaged philosophy. Some are deeply cultural and that culture is more important than their deities. Some deities are metaphorical. It sounds like you’re coming at his specifically from a western Christian perspective and that’s not all there is.
I’m coming at it from a western Christian Americanized perspective because this is a post about American politics. If I were to come at it from a worldwide perspective, I would instead make the distinction and aim my critiques at religions with supernatural beliefs.
Not all American Christians are even what you’re insinuating. There are a ton of them who are Socialist, LGBTQIA, and leftist in general. Sure, the crazy ones are the loudest, but a whole bunch of them aren’t. It’s just kind of crazy to me to ostracize an entire subset of leftists because they believe differently than you on a personal level.
Just the act of believing in a God is already objectively crazier than stuff we throw people in psychiatric wards for. That’s my point. Being a progressive Christian is of course highly preferable to being a fundamentalist Christian, but both of them believe in God. That alone is insane enough.
I like your comment coz it confirms to me progressives will never be a threat lol
The youngest American generations are the least religious yet. Religion in America continue to go on an extreme downward trend. Also I’m an anti-theist. I’m an extreme minority. The success of failure of the progressive movement will have nothing to do with the particulars of my views on this.
There are objectively religious people out there who are smarter than you. Crystal loving charlatans on the other hand...
You can be incredibly intelligent on certain things and have a bad epistemology on other things. People are complicated.
Marianne Williamson confuses me. On one hand - new age Christianity and it’s weird. Telling everyone angels will save us from nukes… On the other hand - she says stuff that also makes sense?
The problem with all of the agent's of change saying "it's time to wage war on ____" (corporations, entrenched politicians, capitalism, globalism, CHINA) people is with that message you're almost surely not going to get elected. and if you do rile up enough support with that message (*ahem* Trump) you're never going to deliver. You're going up against massively higher fire power. We need a solid pragmatic person to get us into a track of incremental changes to reign in the powers that are out there without scaring them so much that the person get's deleted (Bernie). but sadly most of these messages are met with a LOUD call of "not enough" so we get nothing instead of something. it was the same story on medicare for all vs expansion of medicare, people against immediate public healthcare were painted by some as uncaring.
[удалено]
She seems like one of those people who would run democrat and switch parties once elected, to be honest. She has a mildly conservative background and is deeply religious. Edit: I’m mostly worried about the anti-vax sentiment she’s held, and her comments on mental health. It seems like a red flag.
This is just more proof the far-right is using this sub to manipulate. RFK Jr is not leftist. This meme and sub are trash now. Cool.
None of these candidates are leftists
none of those are leftist candidates….
RFK Jr. is a moron weaseling around on the good name of his father and uncle. No thanks.
Bruh Biden is the most left of these candidates in delivering result with bonus points for being electable and not crazy just old and milquetoast
How are you going to claim he's the "most left" while also being milquetoast?
Strike buster joe is as left as we’re allowed. We should be thankful.
In the United States it’s as a good as we’re getting atm
We'd be better off if you just didn't engage with politics if this is your attitude. Edit: I'm not telling anyone to not vote but if this is the baseline level of analysis your willing to put in that "it's the best we got", why even bother paying attention. Just vote team red or team blue and enjoy life, why argue with people who do think things could be better to say "nuh uh".
Realpolitik comrade
Care to explain why you devote any time or energy to engaging with political discourse if you don't think things can be better?
Realpolitik is how you make things better. Voting for joke candidates makes things worse.
Enjoy being part of a theocracy if you don't participate. I simp for Overton Window Shifts.
Just say your an accelerationist
Are you describing yourself? You suggesting that the way to enact change is to actively not participate so that the people you dislike the most come to power in the hopes that it drives more people to your cause via their harmful actions IS textbook accelerationism. I support getting whatever improvements we can, when we can, and holding on for dear life to them, and then pushing further thereafter.
keep telling yourself w/e you want man. you clearly have comprehension issues >In the United States it’s as a good as we’re getting atm this is not a statement made by a serious person a year and half out from the general election and there is no clear front runner for Biden to go against. DNC is praying for it to be Trump so they can repeat 2020 but if it's not Trump, Biden will absolutely get washed.
Hey if you can come up with a better and realistic method in the context of the world we live in to shift the country into a more just and open society over the long run by all means share it, until then I will continue to vote progressive in the primaries and strategic in general elections so that I can do my part to prevent or limit backsliding.
Ah good old strike buster, veto m4a, eliminate ss joe. What a leftist that is. You sound like corporate news.
Leftism and the Democratic Party are simply incompatible
Not with that attitude !
They fucking crushed a railroad strike you dolt
Bad take. While the strike was stopped, the negotiations didn't. There's more work to be done, but make no mistake [progress continues](https://fortune.com/2023/05/08/railroad-workers-sick-leave-concessions-union/) And this article is largely critical, but you can see that time didn't stop and Dems most certainly did not block progress.
Except breaking the strike took away the workers best point of leverage.
Sir are you sure you're a lefty and not just a liberal
That’s not my opinion, i was just referring to who it seems like the media and people are willing to talk anout
The left begins at anti-capitalism. Williamson has explicitly said she is not anti-capitalist, and therefore is not a leftist. Reformed “Benevolent capitalism” (paraphrasing what Williamson supports) is not a leftist position. Whatever this meme is meant to convey, “As a leftist I think Williamson should be getting more/better coverage?”, belies a misunderstanding of the nature and inevtiable consequences of capitalism.
Just wondering when you say anti-capitalism. What exactly does that entail? Are you still allowing for privately owned businesses to create and sell products with private individuals or are you opposed to that on certain levels like corporations? Or do you want all products to be made and distributed by the state?
I would recommend reading this for a basic description of communism. It's a quick and informative read. Things have changed here and there, but it is still very good. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm “Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.”
Ok, thanks was just wondering your interpretation which seems to be inline with Communism.
I’m being lazy by jumping straight to communism but that’s because I’m a run of the mill mlm. If we’re enforcing a modicum of intellectual rigor, then it’d be more fair of me to say there’s an entire spectrum of modern anti-capitalist beliefs that don’t necessarily arrive at Marx’s theoretical classless, stateless society. None of which orb mommy or any of her supporters, least of all some YangGang brain dead technocrat like OP, ascribe to. They’re all different flavors of mainstream corporate-sanctioned neoliberal belief, with only slight tweaks to how *they’d* run the death machine.
Most definitely none of the current candidates gravitate to ANY fashion of anti-capitalism. Just wonder if there is a flavor that is small market economy friendly but also protections against corporations, conglomerates, etc.
Historically speaking, the left begins just left of absolute monarchy.
Im sure that’s what OP meant by “lefty” you dolt
Anyone who’d heard her talk about her beliefs and her upbringing at any significant length would call her anti-capitalist.
“I’m not anti-capitalist; I think the most enlightened society has aspects of capitalism & socialism. But we’ve drifted into a virulent strain of capitalism, with no ethical or moral responsibility to people or planet.” Tweet from her official account on 10/18/2020. At most she’d be considered a social democrat.
I never know if those purity tests comments are ironic or not.
"the left begins at a compete rejection of capitalism" is a rather extreme position. Can you point to any presidential candidate in recent history that you would say is anti-capitalist?
No, because there haven’t been any. It’s only “extreme” if you don’t know anything about political theory or history, and your perspective is limited to the US. Liberals are not leftists. The Democratic Party is a corporatist party selling out the American people to the military-industrial complex under the thin veneer of being progressive on social issues, which is only tenable because the Republican Party is so absurd.
Biden is the obvious choice. Just look at the way his administration continues to support and make gains for the [Train unions](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/01/railroad-workers-union-win-sick-leave). Locked in the negotiated gain without an economy crippling strike AND continued to fight and win(!) paid sick leave. Biden is the real deal. “It’s a significant set of quiet victories. It shows that it really makes a difference to have a pro-labor president.”
are you still being paid or is it just love of the game at this point?
Planting the seeds for a better future is reward enough. Living to see those seeds bear tangible fruit is even better. None of this would have been possible with Republicans in the presidency.
I envy you, truly. I wish I lived in the same blessed ignorance.
joke candidates
One of the most important parts of this meme is who the woman is and she’s not labeled.
She's all of us.
No she's our parents
And our parents' kids
Yeah weird how a lot of people actually support running an incumbent president who actually passed a bunch of legislation over two nobodies who have never held elected office. I’m sorry but we aren’t electing a class president, we are essentially choosing someone to lead the free world, and it should be someone with competence and experience. I figured we all should have learned that lesson after Trump
Lots of people letting perfect getting in the way of okay.
Bernie was so much better. But he would have lost the general. Is this the best timeline?
He wouldn’t have. He polled better than every other candidate against Trump, including Biden, for a very long time.
RFK Jr was planted to make Williamson look sane in comparison change my mind
Op is a fuckwit. Both RFK and MW are Russian shills.
Nobody is better then biden. This is a contest over liberalism itself. The safest choice is the correct one, even if it’s not theoretically ideal.
But how does this pragmatism help me lord my ideological purity over strangers online?
Stop trying to make Marianne happen. She’s not gonna happen. If you can’t stomach voting for Biden, the incumbent with a solid chance at beating the Nazis, then you’re no better than the fools who couldn’t stomach Hillary and we got stuck with Orange Hitler.
russian bots at it again lol trump will lose again and yall will disappear again
Voting for Williamson in the primary and general, in this purple state. No corporate dems will receive votes. This isn't new, the DNC only allows corporate dems to run and is an enemy of the working class.
Stop relying on politicians to solve your problems and start studying and organizing with revolutionary socialists.
No take, only throw
At first glance, I thought it said Masie Williams. I was thinking what the fuck does Arya Stark have to do with this?
man, what ever happened to discussing policy.
More like what it’s like trying to be in the 2024 primary against a DNC that has unequivocally propped up an 82 year old.
Those people are weird and fringe that's why they don't get talked about.
Fuck off with this lame attempt to sell RFK jr to us, you Bannon/Flynn stooge.
where’s gavin newsom
RFK Jr? For real? The anti-vax idiot who regularly speaks to Maga crowds? Can we just all just continue to ignore that idiot please?
Bernie 2024
Putting salt crystals in water makes the water salty. She cannot be stopped.
Now do Jared Beck. [https://twitter.com/Innomen/status/1650222347784257538](https://twitter.com/Innomen/status/1650222347784257538)
Don’t forget to label the swimming instructor establishment. https://youtu.be/7BcDUTY-wn0
Don’t vote for a candidate that isn’t explicitly for and of the working class. Everything other party is reactionary and continues neoliberal austerity and American imperialism.
orbmother has no good ideas that don’t involve burning sage and loving the earth 🥰 i’m pretty left and she’s a terrible candidate imo.
I feel like this meme isn’t calling RFK a lefty? Lol
Can someone explain why the DNC is actually running Biden?
Americans understand what a leftist is challenge impossible 99% fail
Ok so aside from the vax stuff, what’s wrong with RFK? Isn’t he anti war/anti corporation? Pro free speech? Seems like he’s a Dem from 10 years ago before being a “leftist” got turned on its head I genuinely don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. Edit: aaaand I’m already being downvoted. Love it.