Marianne Williamson Drops Out of 2020 Race

[laylalex 7,300]

I haven't heard anything about her campaign in so long except that she fired all her staff. I was surprised this hadn't happened sooner.

Quote

 

“Mr. President, if you’re listening, I want you to hear me, please: You have harnessed fear for political purposes, and only love can cast that out,” she declared from the debate stage in June. “I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field, and sir, love will win.”

 

Ms. Williamson was averaging less than 1 percent in polls and had not qualified for a debate since July. Earlier this month, she laid off her entire staff — a development first reported by New Hampshire’s WMUR television station and confirmed by Ms. Williamson’s campaign manager, Patricia Ewing, who was among those laid off.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/us/politics/marianne-williamson-dropping-out.html

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Because the system is sexist in 3 2 1

[Crazy Cat 42,149]

The Dems better hope that Bloomberg gets the nomination.  He is the only current candidate with any hope of beating Trump.  When I was back in my home town a few weeks ago...in south Arkansas, Bloomberg was saturating the airwaves with his ads.....

[laylalex 7,300]

38 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Because the system is sexist in 3 2 1

More like because we don't need someone who thinks all that we need is love to fix the problems in this country. 

 

Not everything that involves women failing to achieve also involves sexism. It's actually kind of sexist to think that it does.

[Crazy Cat 42,149]

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

More like because we don't need someone who thinks all that we need is love to fix the problems in this country. 

Maybe a little love for our fellow human beings would be better than all the real hate that exists in our country right now.

[laylalex 7,300]

10 minutes ago, missileman said:

Maybe a little love for our fellow human beings would be better than all the real hate that exists in our country right now.

I don't disagree -- I try to be a force for good in the world. I listen to people I don't agree with, and try not to respond impolitely. I firmly believe in the saying, be the change you wish to see in the world. Having a kind word for others, turning down the heat, but also speaking up for injustice -- small things to do that can lead to a better place for us all.

 

On the other hand, I also think that love and kindness and patience are not the only solution. We need introspection and caution and a commitment to making tough decisions. Now, all of that can come from a place of love, but love can sometimes be too much from a place of emotion, and not enough from cool reflection.

 

Just my thoughts. My hungover thoughts at that!  

Edited January 10, 2020 by laylalex
Forgot an important "not"!

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

22 minutes ago, missileman said:

The Dems better hope that Bloomberg gets the nomination.  He is the only current candidate with any hope of beating Trump.  When I was back in my home town a few weeks ago...in south Arkansas, Bloomberg was saturating the airwaves with his ads.....

The paradox would be a white male capitalist burning through money bins of cash spent his way to the top. 

 

Would turn off the increasingly polarized (yet increasingly populous) socialist/anarcho-communists who support that party.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

59 minutes ago, laylalex said:

More like because we don't need someone who thinks all that we need is love to fix the problems in this country. 

 

Not everything that involves women failing to achieve also involves sexism. It's actually kind of sexist to think that it does.

sorry what was I thinking. Certainly no woman that lost an election or had to drop out would blame sexism 

[laylalex 7,300]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

sorry what was I thinking. Certainly no woman that lost an election or had to drop out would blame sexism 

It helps to think of women as individuals rather than as a class of people.  

 

Just because it would be true for one woman would not mean that it would be true for all. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Personally I think its best to treat people as classes of groupthink until they demonstrate individual thought processes. Or unless they're really hot.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

8 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It helps to think of women as individuals rather than as a class of people.  

 

Just because it would be true for one woman would not mean that it would be true for all. 

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON SAYS THERE IS A 'WELL-STRATEGIZED EFFORT' ON THE LEFT TO SMEAR HER CAMPAIGN

https://www.newsweek.com/marianne-williamson-says-there-well-strategized-effort-left-smear-her-campaign-1453651

 

On Friday, Williamson said she was also the victim of sexist smears by her political rivals as she pursues the Democratic presidential nomination.

[laylalex 7,300]

Well, that's kind of a cynical attitude, Burnt. I try to treat people as I wish to be treated, and I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt. We are all individuals, and while we are obviously influenced by our environment and education and class and upbringing and... and... and... we are all still undeniably individuals with our own opinions and our own ways of looking at the world. There are times when my fiance and I are so attuned in precisely the same ways to a situation that we respond in unison, and the feeling of chiming in with someone can be uncanny. Spooky. But we are very much our own selves, even with the overlap.

 

My sister's the hot one, I'm only on the aboveish-average end of the spectrum (I am told).

 

Thank you for the sexism update, Nature Boy. It is useful to get additional information as it comes in. I hope she clarifies what in particular was used against her by rivals in terms of sexist language/behavior.

[Boiler 45,970]

I liked Marianne, she had no chance, but she played a straight bat.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

50 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well, that's kind of a cynical attitude, Burnt. I try to treat people as I wish to be treated, and I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt. We are all individuals, and while we are obviously influenced by our environment and education and class and upbringing and... and... and... we are all still undeniably individuals with our own opinions and our own ways of looking at the world. There are times when my fiance and I are so attuned in precisely the same ways to a situation that we respond in unison, and the feeling of chiming in with someone can be uncanny. Spooky. But we are very much our own selves, even with the overlap.

 

My sister's the hot one, I'm only on the aboveish-average end of the spectrum (I am told).

 

Thank you for the sexism update, Nature Boy. It is useful to get additional information as it comes in. I hope she clarifies what in particular was used against her by rivals in terms of sexist language/behavior.

You're conflating general life with politics. Even though there's overlap there, I separate them, for obvious reasons (the odds of conflict arising from politics is very high). Nonetheless, if people really behaved in such individualistic fashion, the mere concept of segmenting would be non-existent, but the truth is, people rarely act like individuals, so there's little reason to differentiate. In reality, people are rarely the individuals they portray themselves as -- when cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head, people's ego-defense mechanisms are there to slay it with enviable precision.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,745]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The paradox would be a white male capitalist burning through money bins of cash spent his way to the top. 
 

of the Democrat Party.  All billionaires except him are bad will be his campaign slogan.

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

Would turn off the increasingly polarized (yet increasingly populous) socialist/anarcho-communists who support that party.