Marianne Williamson is back -- to talk about forming a third party

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Two former long-shot presidential candidates are speaking at a convention this month where participants will debate the idea of creating a third party, organizers of the event told POLITICO.

Self-help author Marianne Williamson and former Sen. Mike Gravel — left-wing contenders who ran for the White House this cycle — will appear at the “People’s Convention.” Other previously announced headliners include Nina Turner, Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign co-chair, and Cornel West, a Harvard philosopher and past Sanders surrogate.

The event will serve as an implicit warning to Joe Biden: If he is elected but viewed as not progressive enough, he or his running mate, Kamala Harris, could face a challenge from a new left-wing third party in 2024. Some Democrats argue the Green Party helped elect President Donald Trump four years ago by siphoning progressive votes from Hillary Clinton.

“An entirely new way of being is struggling to be born, and we need a political container for it — one that puts humanitarian values before amoral economic ones, and breaks free of a 20th-century political paradigm that no longer serves our democracy or even our survival on the planet,” Williamson said in a statement. “‘A new birth of freedom’ is struggling to be born, emerging from the hearts and minds of millions of people no longer willing to go along with systems that devolve rather than evolve our life on earth.”


Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/marianne-williamson-third-party-398411

[mitch96]

1. Pardon my sarcasm and how much is the Putin/tRump team donating to their election? nt

[groundloop]

3. And probably being overseen by the same GOPers behind Kanye West

[brush]

29. They can all get together with Nina Turner and Cornell West...

who are talking of doing the same thing.

Who cares though, it's too late for them to get on any ballots for Nov. Screw them all.

[Justice]

90. It's the same group. Working together

[ehrnst]

91. That'll go well.

[SheltieLover]

4. My thought exactly! Likely same amount as Jill shitbag Stein

[mitch96]

8. I wonder if they get a seat at Putins table like Stein?? nt

[SheltieLover]

11. Yuk

Who the fuk would want to be in that pos's presence?

[get the red out]

5. I don't pardon it, I AGREE WITH your sarcasm

Has she been promised to be allowed to hawk her spiritual books in Russia, grift some Rubles?

[mitch96]

9. I preclude some of my posts b/c some people don't "get" my humor... just sayin'.. nt

[get the red out]

39. I certainly know about that experperience, happens to me a lot.

[olddad65]

17. I would imagine the Russians would donate nothing to this cause

Since these people actually see through the trump/russian connection. Unlike the traditional old school
Democrats.

[mitch96]

45. ? how so? nt

[IronLionZion]

20. The only donation they need is love

[Fullduplexxx]

2. People and their egos

[George II]

6. Politico. An anti-Democratic Party article. Quelle surprise.

[brooklynite]

18. " Magazine POLITICS 'He's Destroyed Conservatism': The Republican Case Against Trump's GOP"

Just another anti-Democratic story I guess...

[brooklynite]

19. " 'He's Destroyed Conservatism': The Republican Case Against Trump's GOP"

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/19/interview-stuart-stevens-republican-case-against-trump-397918

Just another anti-Democratic story I guess...

[awesomerwb1]

27. Legend has it

that if you post the same Politico article three times, it will magically make Politico not suck. (one more to go chief).

[George II]

41. Bazinga!

[Gore1FL]

7. If she can solve the world's energy problems with essential oils and crystals she'll have my vote.

Until then, Biden/Harris 2020

[bringthePaine]

10. move over Kanye! both transparent and pathetic; guess I'm allergic to NUTS...

[Traildogbob]

12. Green Party

If you need a shred of evidence the third party crap is bull shit, has ANYONE heard a squeak from the Green Party for the last 3.5 years about the total destruction of our planet every way possible by Trump and his lobbyist criminals? Not one word. Jill...anything from that green party shit. The only thing green about her was Putin/GOP cash. Kanye and Williamson can go the fuck away, forever. Fucking twits.

[SharonClark]

23. In Iowa, a guy who ran as a Green Party candidate last election is running as a rabid repug

this time around. The Green Party is a joke.

[LisaM]

31. When the Green Party sabotaged Al Gore, their credibility was shot.

I've never once heard any smidgen of an apology about what happened in 2000 from anyone who was in the Green Party about that.

[not_the_one]

13. They can STFU and STFD until after the election.

Then if Joe fails, the can give their pitch. Otherwise they are nothing but Kanye retreads.

Poor babies, you can't take rejection so you are willing to burn the house down? That is EXACTLY what the turd is willing to do.



Nina and Cornell? BWAHAhahahahahaha Let me guess, that whooshing sound will be black Americans deserting the Democratic party...

[SharonClark]

22. In Williamson's defense, the article says she's voting for Biden.

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2020, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't really imagine Nina Turner and Cornell West working with Williamson for long. They'd eat her alive.

[not_the_one]

52. I believe during the debates she, along with the other candidates, agreed to support

the eventual nominee. I would assume she will live up to her pledge.

But right now she is just stirring shit, trying to still be a "player", when her expiration date passed this time around MANY months ago.

She can do as she wants AFTER the election. If Joe (and the party) doesn't get the job done, I will be among the first to look for alternatives.

But to do so right now is disingenuous at best, and traitorous at worst. And to pair with those two, stinks to high heaven (said the atheist).

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Let's see if Jill Stein comes flying in to guide them

(article written by of course - HOLLY OTTERBEIN)

[LymphocyteLover]

15. Why now, FFS? Sickos.

This is only helping Trump, which is treason in my book.

[ancianita]

16. Follow her money and doxx her AND her donors.

[sarcasmo]

21. Crystal healing power party.

[BlueIdaho]

24. They can probably hold their convention

In a phone booth.

[NurseJackie]

25. She can go eat-shit with Nina Turner.

[LanternWaste]

47. Your Freudian slip is showing

Again.

[NurseJackie]

48. Haaaaa!

[Gothmog]

71. I was so glad when they blocked Nina from giving a nominating speech for Sanders in 2016

I am not a fan and she is welcomed to form her own party

[NurseJackie]

26. I see that Politico's "ace reporter" H-A Otterbein is being tasked to really IMPORTANT stuff.

Good for her!

[lapucelle]

56. THe story is about SuperdelegateSenatorNinaTurner's People Party

Self-help author Marianne Williamson and former Sen. Mike Gravel — left-wing contenders who ran for the White House this cycle — will appear at the “People’s Convention.” Other previously announced headliners include Nina Turner, Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign co-chair, and Cornel West, a Harvard philosopher and past Sanders surrogate.

[NurseJackie]

57. It sounds like a Sore Losers' Shadow Convention, honestly.

Their behavior in this regard really serves no good purpose other than to create divisions in an attempt to peel-away supporters, or to discourage people from voting for the Democrat. They have no meaningful strength or influence or vision in their own right, so instead they settle on being saboteurs. They tried-out to be the starting-string for the home-team, but others were chosen instead. So rather than proudly wearing the home team uniform of the Democrats... rather than continuing to support the team and work to improve... they show that they answer ONLY to their vanity and egos. They are the worst kind of sore losers. For some reason, they are now feeling compelled to take their ball and glove and go home... AND START THEIR OWN TEAM! Stomping their feet, shaking their fists, and shouting every four-letter curse word they can think of as they depart the playing field. The thing is, their new team will be weak, ripe for ridicule, of no meaningful influence. Their "players" will have even LESS influence than they would have if they'd just swallowed their pride and continued on with the home team.

[TNNurse]

28. NOW????

Pathetic.

[NurseJackie]

30. She went to the Michael Moore / Kanye West School of Attention-Getting

She's feeling ignored, left-out, irrelevant... she knows she's the butt of woo-woo jokes... and this is just a cry for help. She wants someone to notice her again. She craves attention. Good or bad, it's all attention and she loves it. Just like Moore and West.

Me me me me. Me. Me me me me me. Me me.

PS: Me!

[BamaRefugee]

32. why can't she just be Kanye's VP????

[lagomorph777]

33. For a week or so, I thought she was pretty cool.

Now I've tossed her in the trash with Jill Stein.

[CBHagman]

34. Oh, well, that ought to work.

Seriously, how much progress or even modest attempts at reform have third-party candidates and supporters in effect blocked over the decades? You can't do what you don't have the power and the alliances to do, end of story.

[cstanleytech]

40. Not to mention the actual backing of enough voters to do it because without enough

voters not much will get done.

[The Daily Irishman]

35. Not This Year? Never Mind!

Marianne can have all her imaginary friends in her play-party, play-primaries and play-convention four years from now.

[relayerbob]

36. But, Tulsi i!!!

She's going to feel left out

[TygrBright]

37. I have this strange feeling of deja vu.... paging 2016! n/t

[helpisontheway]

38. How much is the Trump team paying her? Seems kinda

late to get on some of the ballots.

[KWR65]

42. They can call it the bizarro party!

[jcgoldie]

43. Fuck these guys

If they want to challenge Biden in 2024 then why the fuck are they holding a convention 2 1/2 mos before the 2020 election in which Donald Trump is on the ballot. Something smells here... like somebody Put(in)ed...

[matt819]

44. If a tree falls in the forest. . .

If no one covered Marianne Williamson et al, would they make a sound? Ignore them. Ignore them to the point that Google searches return results from 4 or more years ago. Ignore them to the point where you wonder, whatever happened to. . . . Ignore them to the point where, when you learn they aren't dead you, you're surprised.

Ignore them to the point where they are like the other 20+ candidates who always show up on the ballot and who all get a few "why the hell not" votes, not enough to make a difference one way or the other.

Sometimes content it content. Sometimes content is dangerous.

[betsuni]

49. The Both Sides Party. Not based on reality.

For some reason they don't understand what majorities are and a 100% obstructionist Republican Party.

[paleotn]

50. Are they paying Williamson in dollars or rubels?

Or is she just stupid?

[SunSeeker]

51. Oy

[LiberalLovinLug]

53. Its all in the Democratic party's hands. Which way they will lean

They can snub their large and growing progressive base to their own peril. Do not blame progressives if they finally have had enough. A big majority of Democrats wanted to hear AOC. But she was only given a 60 second pre-recorded message which she made the most of. While the GOP anti choice, anti union right winger got center stage at the DNC.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING A THIRD PARTY!
But I can see it happening if progressive values are put on the back burner again.

[lapucelle]

55. Do you have any data to support the claim

that a "big majority of Democrats wanted to hear AOC"?

[NurseJackie]

63. There is none. This simply means: "Me and a few online friends who feel the same way I do."

There is none. This simply means: "Me and a few online friends who feel the same way I do." There's an inherent "danger" (or weakness) in spending too much time in an insulated online bubble only talking to like-minded individuals. Namely, from that practice will come the skewed belief that EVERYONE feels the same way... or that the majority of people share the same view.

However, out in the real world... it's a much different story. In fact, if "everyone" or the "majority" felt the way that some of us believe to be true, then those feelings would have been borne out in the primary results, and we'd have someone else other than Joe Biden as our party's nominee.

All I'm trying to say is that it's very easy for people to make incorrect assumptions when they deprive themselves of all the facts (or when they ignore information that's uncomfortable and difficult to accept, or that doesn't fit in their worldview.)

Of course, that's not a crime to do those things or to feel that way. But people who are guilty of that aren't doing themselves any favors and they'll most likely always be disappointed and will end up having a cynical view of the world and the things that happen around them.

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. My only point was that a majority wanted to hear from her

Whether you consider 63% a "large" majority or not. (See link) How about a solid majority? You may be in the 37% that didn't want to hear her, but a good majority of Democrats did.

[NurseJackie]

68. It's false to say that she was given "just 60 seconds to speak"...

Whether you consider 63% a "large" majority or not. (See link) How about a solid majority? You may be in the 37% that didn't want to hear her, but a good majority of Democrats did.

So what? I don't care. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when it comes to this convention, what your or anyone personally wants or expects is irrelevant.

Also... it's completely false to say that she was given "just 60 seconds to speak". As I told you previously: At Bernie's request, she was asked by the DNC organizers to formally "Second the Nomination". That's all she was asked to do (nothing more). And for that specific purpose, 60-seconds was more than enough time.

It's dishonest for people to continue to act as though the DNC asked her to give "a-speech". Such phrasing and the choice of the word "speech" is falsely suggests that the DNC was giving her air-time to speak on a topic of her choosing... while simultaneously pulling the rug out from under her by imposing an arbitrary 60-second time limit. It's being talked about in a way that portrays the DNC as being cruel, or unjust, or trying to humiliate her. Or that she was entitled to speak for some reason. Once again: She was there to second Bernie's nomination. And that's what she did.

You can include me among the Joe Biden supporters who trust the decisions that Biden and his campaign have made with regard to this convention. I also trust which individuals are selected to address the delegates and the nation. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to second-guess him or his campaign decisions. It's HIS SHOW! He's the "man of the hour". Enough of the moaning and groaning and belly-aching.

When it comes right down to it, NOBODY is entitled to be given speaking time at a convention. In pre-Covid years when we had the luxury of SIX HOURS PER NIGHT to divvy up over the course of four days (ie: 24 hours) that made it possible to throw-a-bone to whatever special interests there may be and give a moment or two of stage time (even if not televised during prime-time).

But, everyone knows perfectly well that this year, things are different. It's now limited to being a very short 2-hour nightly show. There will be cuts. There will be shorter time allotments. The folks who are having a fit about this are just going to have to set aside the hurt-feelings and find a way to get over it... and move on. Good grief... that's politics. People just need to find the inner strength and cope... and stop looking to blame others... and stop stirring the pot.

I can't emphasize this enough: Nobody is entitled to speak at Joe's convention. This is the Democratic National Convention for Joe Biden. Joe won. Nobody else. He and his team get to decide which speakers benefit the Biden/Harris campaign best... and which speakers can best advance his vision and his agenda. Joe and his campaign get to decide whether they want to spend their precious few hours speaking to a small group of far-lefties... or whether the time is better spent speaking to a much larger group of centrists, independents, center-rightists, and never-Trumpers whose votes we desperately need! Do the math. The answer is simple.

The incorrect version of events being told and re-told around here accomplishes absolutely nothing except for creating division, distrust and resentment. So why do it? All I'm trying to point out is that this type of behavior weakens the party. What good purpose does that serve? --- What a tempest in a teapot this is. Over absolutely nothing.

It's time to get to work and defeat Trump.

[George II]

70. Her seconding speech was actually almost two minutes, twice as long as the woman who....

....NOMINATED Biden. Nominators got up to five minutes, seconders only one minute.

I don't understand why now days later people are still going on about this.

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. Again, all I was saying was that a good majority of Democrats wanted to hear AOC

Twice as many as wanted to hear the anti choice, anti union Republican.

Whether they made room for her or not, Whether "That's all she was asked to do (nothing more)" is besides my point.

Democrats wanted to hear her. Presumably more than a formal endorsement. She is a rising star. lapucelle wanted a source about that majority wish, which you denied, so I felt I had to source it for him to set the record straight. Nothing more.

"It's time to get to work and defeat Trump." I agree. One thing ALL Democrats want.

Have a nice day

[ehrnst]

74. On what do you base your statement "good majority of Democrats"

As we have seen, a small group often feels it is a majority if they are louder.

[LiberalLovinLug]

78. I gave one already.

You want more?

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/08/9971319/aoc-john-kasich-democratic-convention-speakers

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/19/21375250/democratic-convention-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders-nomination

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/conflict-between-aoc-john-kasich-024012777.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/john-kasich-democratic-national-convention

63% AOC
38% Kasich

I am not editorializing about it. Just pointing it out.

[ehrnst]

82. Right. This one..

She came in lower than Pelosi. So a bigger "majority" wants to see the Speaker.

[NurseJackie]

84. So what? They're not entitled to anything. It's Joe's convention. Joe's message.

He and his staff selected the people that they believe will be the BEST in delivering the BIDEN MESSAGE.

I am not editorializing about it. Just pointing it out.

Not editorializing, just complaining.

[lapucelle]

88. Aah, the "big majority" claim came from a CBS poll. Well, 100% of the Democrats who watched the DNC

coverage on Tuesday night did hear her speak, so the 68% got what they wanted.

[NurseJackie]

76. Sorry, the convention is about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris... not AOC.

Whether they made room for her or not, Whether "That's all she was asked to do (nothing more)" is besides my point.

Really? Then what exactly IS your point? It sounds like whining because someone felt entitled. That's not how it works.

Twice as many as wanted to hear the anti choice, anti union Republican.

So what? Who cares? That's not what JOE wanted. That's not what his campaign staff and organizers and strategists wanted. She didn't fit in with the message that Joe wants to present. In Joe's opinion, he wanted someone better suited to deliver HIS message: The BIDEN message. Kasich was brought in to speak for 4.5 minutes to a very specific voter that we're going to NEED in November. It would be very short-sighted and foolish to write off those "never-Trumpers" who could be persuaded to put the future of our country above party and vote for Biden (rather than not voting at all).

I can't understand how anyone can SERIOUSLY still be bent-outta-shape over Biden's messaging? Stop second-guessing Biden. Stop complaining. It's over. Done. Seriously. Over.

Democrats wanted to hear her. Presumably more than a formal endorsement.

Well, that's a damn shame, isn't it? Now what? People who are so distraught over this just need to take a deep breath and move on.

[ehrnst]

80. +1000

[ehrnst]

75. About the results of that poll...

[LiberalLovinLug]

81. There you go

Thanks for posting that. Interesting that more wanted to hear from AOC than Hillary or Bill Clinton.

[ehrnst]

83. But fewer than Pelosi.

So there's that. You're welcome.



Pro-tip: Before repeating a single isolated stat from a survey to prop up a point about who the 'majority' is, you may want to check the actual survey, in case other numbers from that same survey don't quite make your point about who is more popular with the majority, and who the majority is.

Cherry picking stats might make for good clickbait, but don't always hold up under scrutiny when used to 'prove' a point.

[LiberalLovinLug]

65. I should have included this link

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/live-blog/2020-democratic-national-convention-kicks-n1236923/ncrd1236949#blogHeader

A CBS News poll released over the weekend said only 38 percent of Democrats would like to hear from Kasich at the convention. Sixty-three percent said they’d like to hear from Ocasio-Cortez, who will reportedly have just 60 seconds to speak.

[ehrnst]

85. Last I heard, a CBS poll of less than 2000 Dems in a single battleground state

was not the basis for choosing speakers for the Convention.

The Battleground Tracker looks at individual states, focusing on competitive ones.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-2020-battleground-tracker-5-things-to-know/

The Clintons have certainly earned their spot, After all, Bill was a two term POTUS, and HRC was the overwhelming favorite candidate for 2016, did win the popular vote, was Sec of State, and a Senator. Whether or not they are social media darlings, their decades of experience and wisdom gained is very much a part of any Convention.

[NurseJackie]

58. That's not what "base" means.

They can snub their large and growing progressive base to their own peril.

That's not what "base" means. And nobody is being snubbed. Just cut it out. That's untrue.

A big majority of Democrats wanted to hear AOC. But she was only given a 60 second pre-recorded message which she made the most of.

That's incorrect. Here's what really happened: At Bernie's request, she was asked by the DNC organizers to use 60-seconds of air-time to formally "Second the Nomination". That's all she was asked to do (nothing more) that's all the time that was needed to do so. And so she did.

She had a specific role to play and she fulfilled that role as requested, because that's what Bernie wanted. Nothing more. It's wrong for anyone to continue to try and stir the pot by characterizing it differently. The fact of the matter is that that the DNC did not ask her to give "a-speech" with a 60-second time limit. That's simply untrue. The DNC didn't short-change her, or make unreasonable demands. The DNC did not kneecap her nor snub her. For anyone to continue to tell the story in this way only serves to create division and resentment.

All I'm trying to point out is that this type of behavior weakens the party. What good purpose does that serve? Why do it? --- What a tempest in a teapot this is. Over absolutely nothing.

But I can see it happening if progressive values are put on the back burner again.

You know what else is wrong: Threatening "third party" in order to get their way (when the voters clearly rejected it). So, Okay-bye. Have a nice day.

[ehrnst]

77. The Democratic base is women of color and they chose Biden.

And according to the poll you quoted, more wanted to hear Pelosi than AOC. It seems that a bigger part of the base wanted to hear from the Speaker.




How exactly is the Democratic Party "snubbing" progressive voters when they gave a prime speaking spot to a self-described progressive who also states that he does not identify as a Democrat? If one wants to be outraged, I suppose one will be no matter what.

[Steelrolled]

54. There will always be 3rd party candidates.

It's part of the game.

[apnu]

59. There are several 3rd parties now, but she wants to take on forming ANOTHER one?

The Greens, The Libertarians, and The Constitution parties.

Good luck with that Williamson.

[NurseJackie]

60. The "My Feelings Were Hurt" party? The "Ego Above Country" party?

Good luck with that Williamson.

She's desperately clinging to whatever notoriety she thought she had. This is just an attempt (albeit a lame one and ill-advised one) to grab the headlines one last time.

Leave it to Politico to give her oxygen and promote that kind of nonsense. So glad they've got their ace-reporter "HA Otterbein" on it.

[MosheFeingold]

61. Maybe

They could add Mitt Romney and make it bipartisan.

Don't know what to think about all the also-ran Republicans at the DNC, particularly Kasic (sp? -- the Gov from Ohio). I don't see what they have to offer.

[NurseJackie]

62. They have very little to offer... and that's why the voters rejected them.

They have very big egos, however. They have more vanity than realistic ideas and plans.

Fact of the matter is this. If they TRULY wanted to be influential, then they'd stick it out and work within our nation's de-facto TWO PARTY SYSTEM. By working within our party (and by actually supporting our party, not denigrating it at every opportunity) then they'd have MORE influence and MORE potential than they will by waddling off with their full-diapers because of egos and pride.

This is politics, hardball national politics... they need to just grow up and learn to work within the system if they truly want to achieve anything meaningful. This is NOT "Youth Soccer" where nobody keeps score and everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.

What I'm trying to say is this: The sense of entitlement among people like Williamson and Turner is just astounding to me. They aren't willing to do the hard work, but they ARE willing to do their best to be saboteurs and spoilers. It's amazing to me that people like that can function at all.

[ehrnst]

86. Influence is earned in ways that are different than numbers of twitter followers

and magazine photo shoots.

Not that those are bad, they're just not a substitute for real experience and maturity. After all, when one decides to run for office, one assumes a candidate knows what they are getting into - which is a meritocracy, not a media visibility contest.

After all, that's what Trump relies on in the place of credentials, and we've seen how that turned out.

[MosheFeingold]

89. I am betting

Romney slithers in tonight.

Probably carrying his binders of women with his dead dog on the roof.

[Nitram]

64. They will join Ralph Nader in Hell. Ralph gave and election to W. bush and they want to give one to

Dump.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

67. "THIRD" party? I doubt it - prob more like 57th. Theres always been crackpot partiies

and presidential candidates who are legends in their own minds.

What's one more? YAWN.....

[marie999]

69. If we have a third party candidate who can keep anyone from getting a majority of EC votes,

the House picks the president from the top 3 vote getters each state gets 1 vote and the Senate picks the vice-president from the top 2 vote getters each senator get a vote. This is why we need to change the Constitution for a runoff between the 2 top candidates. This election could be held as early as 1 month later since they have spent enough time campaigning.

[Gothmog]

72. I doubt that this third party will be successful

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

79. I would LOVE to hear a recording of a meeting between her and Nina Turner

concerning creating a third party.

That would be interesting to say the least.

[dchill]

87. Rubles are Green, too, right? Marianne?

Right?