Look, I agree with most of her political positions, but she’s not a viable candidate. I can’t think of a way to describe her that isn’t reductive or condescending. The kindest words that come to mind are “talk show,” “pseudoscience,” and “nutty.”
I welcome her support to the policies she likes, because those are the policies I like, but I don’t trust the train of thought she took to get there. If she were running for state or local government, I might vote for her, but I wouldn’t phone bank or donate to her campaign. I just don’t know how to look someone in the eye and say she’s a serious person.
Having said all of that, her platform is peace in general, peace as a priority. And while I can agree with that on principle, it isn’t a plan but a goal. She wants Israel and Hamas to reject the evil psychic forces drawing them to war and dismantle their bonbs to make garden planters. She isn’t running in opposition to Zionism or promoting a two state solution. She doesn’t know how to get them to heal their hearts and end the violence, but she’s sure that’s what she wants.
So you’re probably right, but I don’t really count that because it’s not a serious campaign. Anyone who offers criticisms without alternative solutions is just trying to get a little publicity.
No, I don’t support Williamson. She was more coherent on some issues than I expected in 2020, but on whole she’s not a serious candidate with real solutions that should run anything. Also, for a peace candidate, Williamson actually wasn’t initially as unequivocal about the war as you’d expect. She got there eventually, but it should have been a simple answer. It’s not a complex question, cease fire and no more arms for ethnic cleansing. If they won’t stop, start the sanctions. “What about Hamas” went out the window with the 5,000th civilian casualty.
No one but Biden has a serious campaign on the Democratic side (and third parties have never been viable). All the people who could have put forth a serious campaign deferred to him when it wasn’t as clear how weak a candidate he was. He should have stepped aside from the start, but his extreme support for Israel’s ethnic cleansing has turned a potential for weakness into terrifying danger. However, since modern political custom dictates that incumbents should never be opposed by their own party, he gets to make the decision for all of us and we’re just stuck with him.
Is she the candidate you support?
Look, I agree with most of her political positions, but she’s not a viable candidate. I can’t think of a way to describe her that isn’t reductive or condescending. The kindest words that come to mind are “talk show,” “pseudoscience,” and “nutty.”
I welcome her support to the policies she likes, because those are the policies I like, but I don’t trust the train of thought she took to get there. If she were running for state or local government, I might vote for her, but I wouldn’t phone bank or donate to her campaign. I just don’t know how to look someone in the eye and say she’s a serious person.
Having said all of that, her platform is peace in general, peace as a priority. And while I can agree with that on principle, it isn’t a plan but a goal. She wants Israel and Hamas to reject the evil psychic forces drawing them to war and dismantle their bonbs to make garden planters. She isn’t running in opposition to Zionism or promoting a two state solution. She doesn’t know how to get them to heal their hearts and end the violence, but she’s sure that’s what she wants.
So you’re probably right, but I don’t really count that because it’s not a serious campaign. Anyone who offers criticisms without alternative solutions is just trying to get a little publicity.
No, I don’t support Williamson. She was more coherent on some issues than I expected in 2020, but on whole she’s not a serious candidate with real solutions that should run anything. Also, for a peace candidate, Williamson actually wasn’t initially as unequivocal about the war as you’d expect. She got there eventually, but it should have been a simple answer. It’s not a complex question, cease fire and no more arms for ethnic cleansing. If they won’t stop, start the sanctions. “What about Hamas” went out the window with the 5,000th civilian casualty.
No one but Biden has a serious campaign on the Democratic side (and third parties have never been viable). All the people who could have put forth a serious campaign deferred to him when it wasn’t as clear how weak a candidate he was. He should have stepped aside from the start, but his extreme support for Israel’s ethnic cleansing has turned a potential for weakness into terrifying danger. However, since modern political custom dictates that incumbents should never be opposed by their own party, he gets to make the decision for all of us and we’re just stuck with him.