This election is nothing if not interesting. One of the biggest surprises for me was the response to Marianne Williamson, the spiritual adviser to Oprah and self-help author. I considered her performance at the debate to be truly cringe-worthy but her polling numbers have risen and a columnist has declared that “Marianne Williamson is just what the Democratic Party needs.”
Williamson left many of us squirming in our seats with a new age pitch to unleash the power of love:
I watched the debate with my family from Argentina and we thought this was such a bizarre moment that we spent days recounting it. In delivery and content, it reminded me of the wedding scene from Princess Bride:
Yet, Reddit and Internet sites show that many liked what they heard about harnessing the power of love rather than offering “plans.”
Republicans love Williamson so much that they are encouraging donations to keep her in the race. They view Williamson as the personification of shallow and slightly wacky views from the left.
Tyler Cowen, Bloomberg News columnist, sang Williamson’s praises and wrote that people should ignore her “eccentric manner” but instead focus “on her values.” He added that her “performance suggests that Democrats need to take a broader, deeper set of values into account: sometimes love and New Agey spiritual values, other times historical values.”
I do not view Williamson as an improvement of any kind. Rather, she represents how American politics has been reduced to the level of a spiritualist self-help book.
why would you want to bring back one of the greatest mass murderers the country has ever had in public office.
As long as she sticks to publicizing the private doings of Socialists should have no problems they will pretty much go along with what their order to go along with having no concepcion of private lives
Williamson left many of us squirming in our seats with a new age pitch to unleash the power of love
How dare her. What gall, what nerve, clearly she is nuts. Stone her!
Now a word from our Sponsor….
The Greatest Commandment.
25 There was a scholar of the law* who stood up to test him and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”x
26 Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
27 He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
28 He replied to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”
The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
29 But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied, “A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
32 Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
33 But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight.
34 He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him.
35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’
36 Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
37 He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/10
We had a union employee who would repeatedly argue the most far-fetched interpretations of the union contract.
One manager got sick of him and said to “Keep Perry Mason out of my office”.
JT is reminded of the wedding speech from the Princess Bride but I think Marianne better tracks Michael Scott’s toast from The Office episode “Phyllis Wedding” which also channels the famous scene from The Princess Bride:
https://dai.ly/x39z0rb
Where is the love?
“Trump calls Ivanka and Pompeo ‘beauty and the beast’ – video”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/jul/01/trump-calls-ivanka-and-pompeo-beauty-and-the-beast-video
Meanwhile, in this brave new world where anything is possible, Trump is helping to ready Ivanka for her 2024 run:
‘President Trump said that he believes his daughter Ivanka Trump would be a strong presidential contender.
‘“If she ever wanted to run for president,” he told The Atlantic, according to an article published Friday. “I think she’d be very, very hard to beat.”’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/438604-trump-touts-ivanka-as-strong-presidential-contender-shed-be-very-very
“Oh, to Be Ivanka!”
“So many hot spots, so little time.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/opinion/ivanka-jared-trump-nepotism.html
You can say “love” all you want but she looked and sounded angry, hostile and thoroughly loveless.
Jonathan Turley wrote: “I do not view Williamson as an improvement of any kind. Rather, she represents how American politics has been reduced to the level of a spiritualist self-help book.”
And yet you apparently view Trump as “an improvement?”
How about addressing Ivanka Trump’s “cringe-worthy” moments at the G20:
“The viral video of Ivanka Trump at the G20 perfectly captures the problem with nepotism”
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/1/20677253/ivanka-trump-g20-nepotism
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln, to “Save the Union,” and Comrade Franklin Roosevelt, to “Save the Citizens,” nullified the Constitution, seized power and ruled as tyrannical despots by executive order and proclamation.
President Trump is fully justified in adopting their model to restrict the vote to Americans, repeal all improperly ratified and unconstitutional “amendments, deport foreign invader hyphenates and re-implement the “manifest tenor” of the literal words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Turley claims to be worried about American politics being “…reduced to the level of a spiritualist self-help book” because a candidate speaks of love to counter Trump, as if this, albeit unconventional, is a bad thing. I really don’t know how far up your rectum your head has to be shoved to prioritize this over the truly disturbing issues created by that fat slob pretending to be POTUS. Where to start? How about awarding a murderous dictator international prominence and a propaganda coup by visiting the DMZ and calling it an “honor”? Kim Jong Un will never divest of the nukes, because without them he’s just a fat little loser of a dictator that everyone can ignore and mock. Just like Fatty, he needs attention, adulation and power, which the nukes give him. He can’t threaten or intimidate anyone without the nukes, and he has failed to comply with every agreement entered into with the US so far, yet our POTUS is “honored” to cross the DMZ to shake his pudgy hands, because, after all, Fatty is a marvelous negotiator–right? How about lying about President Obama “begging” to meet Kim Jon Un? This lie was refuted by multiple members of the Obama Administration. What about ignoring the murders of Otto Warmbier and Kim’s half-brother? Yes, Liberty 2nd, it’s the “Dems” who have sunk to a new low”.
One of the most-disturbing things Fatty has done so far is to actually mock Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections by finger wagging at Putin, telling him not to do it again, treating the whole matter like a joke. I don’t know–is it funny that Russia hacked into e-mail accounts and targeted a social media campaign to influence our elections? It’s probably only OK if it benefits Trump. If Obama had lost the popular vote and cheated with the help of a foreign government, I shudder to think what the reaction would be.
Fatty also played up to MBS, the murderer of Jamal Khashoggi, and brought his stupid, bleached, unqualified little Princess along to meetings on world monetary policy. The looks on the faces of people who ignored her when she tried to butt into high-level discussions to add her comment that monetary policy is controlled mostly by men, says it all. How humiliating for the US.
Now, the Fat puxxygrabber has co-opted the national 4th of July celebration in Washington, by forcing generals to stand next to his fat ass, and demanding an Air Force fly-over and tanks, given that he and his family are cowards and draft-dodgers, defies all standards of decency. There is no limit to his gall and narcissism. He can’t even allow this country to celebrate the freedom he and his cowardly family refused to protect, without making it all about him, him, him. He really doesn’t get it–most Americans dislike him and want him gone.
There’s a lot more, but Turley is obsessed with the notion of love triumphing over the toxicity of Trump.
Kek was here
Nuthatch says:
“Kim Jong Un will never divest of the nukes, because without them he’s just a fat little loser of a dictator that everyone can ignore and mock”
super ignorant remark — among your best for sure
https://www.forces.net/news/north-koreas-military-how-does-it-actually-stack
“North Korea has the second largest number of total military personnel in the world – with 7,679,000 troops out of an approximate population of 25 million. There are 1,190,000 active, 6,300,000 reserve and 189,000 paramilitary personnel.”
they have a pretty interesting training regime too. all officers start out as privates. think about that.
the nukes are the least of it.
Iraq had the world’s ‘fourth largest military’ in 1990. ‘Battle seasoned’ and all that.
No, without the nukes he’s just a short, fat psycho murderer dictator with a dumb hair do. Conventional weapons and troops are no match or threat against a nuclear power. Nukes elevated N. Korea to the next tier, along with the US and other countries with nuclear weapons, a status N. Korea has always coveted, which Trump delivered it to him, cameras flashing, declaring it an “honor”. His new press secretary actually assaulted N. Korean photographers to force them to move out of the way so that US reporters could get a good shot of short fat ass shaking hands with taller fat ass at the DMZ. Kim Jong Un will promise anything to get sanctions lifted, but he’ll never divest because he needs the status, attention and perceived prestige. No other POTUS has ever given anyone in N. Korean government the propaganda photo op that Trump did, and it is nothing short of shocking and disgusting. My aunt and uncle, both Korean War veterans who are buried at Arlington, are probably turning over in their graves. What did all of those Korean veterans die for, anyway? Appearing at the DMZ, shaking the hands of a multiple murderer and calling it an “honor” is a slap in the face to American Korean War veterans. But, then again, no one named Trump has ever worn the uniform or put their life or safety at risk to defend this country, so why should he care? He needed something to divert coverage away from the Democratic debates. The cameras were on his fat ass, and he took the opportunity to lie about Obama begging for an audience with Kim Jong Un, as if President Obama would betray this country and its veterans by sniveling up to a murderous dictator. I said it before: we are at serious risk of outrage overload.
Natacha, Trumps entire foreign policy – and much of his domestic as well – is based on trolling Obama, and of course, getting on TV. If he has to make s..t up, no problem, his cult followers here don’t care. They love being lied to.
After seeing the Dims two nights of ritualized virtue signaling and anti-American screed, I’m convinced Kim is less of a threat to the country than Perv Biden and his 22 dwarfs.
Williamson’s the nominee and it’s official; we’re all characters in Love in the Ruins.
I like her hair by the way. When I was a kid I adored Farah Fawcett and that feathered look always charms me. Shows how old i am I guess.
I hate the short chop shop hairdos on women. Hate em.
You say that this election is nothing if it’s not interesting, and I find that interesting because this election is nothing! Where in the Constitution does it say that the President is guaranteed the inside track, the pole position, in a re-election campaign and an opposition party to that of the President must hold an all out search for the best person to go head to head with the President in a 50:50 election as a referendum on the Current President’s job performance?
If your answer is nowhere in the Constitution then you would get an “A” for the day, otherwise if you try as you might to interpret the Constitution to give credence to this abhorrent debacle we call the Electoral College, then you are rightly awarded an “F”, not even an “E” for effort!
If you look at the two selection processes for the Selection of the President, Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, you will find that Article 2 Section 1 is a double blind process and the 12th Amendment is the ultimate ranked Choice Voting, ultimate because it too relies on a blind selection! In both cases the Electors form the Electorate and it forms an indirect choice by the People as the Electors are Representatives of the People and vote on their behalf. These selection processes are also doubly removed from the Sitting President, the Sitting Representatives, and even from the States, although the States return to make the final selection if no person received the required majority of the Electors ballots.
Now I expect that there is some smarty pants out there that thinks that they can clarify my delusion, but let me add these excerpts from Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution to forestall their attempt and save them some credibility:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;…The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.,…The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States;…No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Notice, the State’s appoint their Electors, then the Electors Vote by Ballot, the ballots are tabulated into list which are certified and transmitted to the Seat of Government Directed to the President of the Senate, who will then preside over the opening and counting of the ballots to determine the persons selected to serve as the President and Vice President.
Easy and straightforward, no declared candidates, no Party Nominations, no Party Tickets where the Presidential nominee’s choose the Vice Presidential nominees, no general election of contrived ballots of partisan selections by our Major Parties that the People then are forced to choose from, and no winner takes all by State, the States are required to list all persons receiving Electors Votes, the States get one Vote per State when there are two or more persons tied with a majority of the Electors, or no person receives the required majority, then it is decided by the States in the House, 1 vote per State, from the top 5 persons receiving Electors votes;
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3
“ The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”
Notice I have not included the 12th Amendment in this analysis because the only differences are that each Elector must indicate which ballot they are casting for the President and which for the Vice President, all other requirements of Article 2 Section 1 are still applicable until the determination of the persons elected in the cases of ties or not achieving the required majority of the Electors for either office, in which case the States in the House will vote, 1 Vote per State, from the top 3 persons receiving votes for President, and the States in the Senate will vote, 1 vote per State, from the top 3 persons receiving votes for Vice President.
For the life of me I don’t understand why we have such trouble with this process, especially in California, where the hold primary elections and if no person gets a majority then they hold runoff elections with the top persons receiving votes in a general election without regard to Party Affiliation. This is a process in practice in some variation in every State, why do they claim not to Understand what’s written in the Constitution.
So, I’m ready for all takers to try to poke holes in the Constitution to justify this nonsense we call a presidential election process, American Democracy at its finest.
“Where in the Constitution does it say that the President is guaranteed the inside track, the pole position, in a re-election campaign and an opposition party to that of the President must hold an all out search for the best person to go head to head with the President in a 50:50 election as a referendum on the Current President’s job performance?
If your answer is nowhere in the Constitution then you would get an “A” for the day, otherwise if you try as you might to interpret the Constitution to give credence to this abhorrent debacle we call the Electoral College, then you are rightly awarded an “F”, not even an “E” for effort!
*******************************
You decry a feature of an electoral process not in the Constitution and within one paragraph decry another one that is in the Constitution. It seems you feel strongly both ways about the Constitution.
Brain teaser for you: The fundamental assumption of our entire criminal justice system is “innocent until proven guilty” or its widely applied Latin cousin “he who asserts must prove.” Where are they in the Constitution?
I can’t help you if you cannot read and comprehend the English language at least on an 8th grade level, and you can take your brain teaser which is only relevant to a small Mind such as yours, and stick it in a place that makes you happy.
Here’s hoping the presumption of innocence remains “irrelevant” to you but I doubt it.
Our Government is not a court of law, and therefore is not bound by presumptions of innocence or your right not to incriminate yourself.
There are a large number of regular posters that have no understanding of the Constitution or Law! Count yourself among them!
I will pray that federalist finds herself something to do with her day besides post more insults and wordy dreck. Every day is a blessing!
All prayer is answered, but fortunately sometimes that answer is NO!
fpr:
“Our Government is not a court of law …”
******************
But the law courts are part of government. You might want to actually occasionally read the document you cite constantly.
Your so smart, what else did you learn in kindergarten today?
fps:
“Your so smart, what else did you learn in kindergarten today?”
**************************
The big topic of the day was “Only the Fool is Certain.” I thought of you: often wrong; never in doubt.
“Williamson left many of us squirming in our seats with a new age pitch to unleash the power of love.”
***************************
Very 80s; Very Huey Lewis:
Huey Lewis propagated the world’s best love song:
I love Marianne and hope she’s the nominee. She makes me laugh and the spot-on parodies of her make me laugh harder — but by just a little.
I honestly never heard of Williamson. But Republicans who find her ‘wacky’ should remember that Trump made jokes about Megyn Kelly’s periods at one of the earliest debates of 2016. In a normal America, those jokes should have ended Trump’s campaign right there.
i heard her on NPR a while back. All i can say is good for her that she has the confidence to make a go of it. Certainly makes the electoral system look more authentic. However real that appearance may be.
As for fear, fear like pain helps you survive. Without fear and pain, one would not make it past childhood.
Except that Trump never did that. But you be you.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/07/02/williamsons-call-for-harnessing-love-picks-up-support-as-a-new-age-anti-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1861262
And “you be you”…
Not presidential:
Your TDS has grown tiresome. Run along, now.
Ah, gee. It’s not your call, FFS.
Trump never said anything about her periods during a debate. Replay it. He just said “based on the way you’re treating me tonight I may not be nice to you.” Then in a later interview he mentioned blood coming out her eyes, as in being mad.
This is just the next step in the message of “Hope and Change”. Which has to be one of the worst campaign slogans ever produced. Hope is a horrible message to tell people. It is a defeatist attitude in which the people have no feeling of control of the outcome. Hope should be only reserved to things we can not control. i.e. I hope the weather is nice for our bbq or I hope the Yankees win this game. But using hope for things like, I hope me child does well in school, is nonsense since you have an influence on this outcome. “Hope and Change” and now “Love” are asking us to just take a back seat and magically, everything will become wonderful. It is silly, immature and most of all lacks involvement.
Hope is often just hopium. Determination and will are what makes change.
It’s a complicated world that needs navigating, one where Machiavellian-type U.S. adversaries are ready to take advantage of naive idealists like Williamson. She represents just another lame strain of sophisticated escapism….unwillingness to deal with reality as it is and nudge it in a favorable direction. This is where Pres. Trump excels. He always entertains a sense of the possible grounded in current reality. His catchphrase “We’ll see what happens” conveys a modesty about Presidential power in a free society such as ours, where public opinion, foreign actors and the opposition Party wield forces to contend with. The President is effusive in his expressions of love, so I don’t think Williamson is offering anything unique. What the U.S. needs is “tough love”, religious zeal about continuous self-improvement taking root in sectors that are underachieving (public k-12 education, Congress, news media, public employee unions). I don’t see Williamson ready to coach tough love.
Well written, I think we are on the same page. Hope and love will not magically lead us to success.
Hope and love will take you a long way. It won the West. But Hope, Love and Stupid won’t get off the dock. Marianne has the trifecta.
“But Hope, Love and Stupid won’t get off the dock. Marianne has the trifecta.” -mespo, the great
She has written 13 books, including 4 New York Times number one bestsellers within the “Advice, How To and Miscellaneous” category. She is the founder of Project Angel Food, a volunteer food delivery program that serves home-bound people with AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses. She is also the co-founder of the Peace Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots education and advocacy organization supporting peace-building projects. -Wikipedia
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/marianne-williamson-net-worth
“Democratic presidential candidate author Marianne Williamson is worth between $783,031 and $2,126,006, according to OpenSecrets.”
“She even funded her unsuccessful congressional campaign with $581,000, the center reported.”
Anonymous:
And for all that, she’s still an obvious dip$hit. Amazing what chemicals can do.
For all her faults, she’s not asking for handouts; she’s not on the dole.
What’s that saying about “living well…” It truly is “the best revenge.” And she’s apparently doing some good, as well with “Project Angel Food” and other similar initiatives.
https://www.angelfood.org/
Credit where credit is due.
Never even implied that fools can be useful, merely that they can’t lead. By the way, anybody can give away other people’s money and claim credit for it as philanthropists. Look at the Dims.
Mespo, maybe you haven’t noticed the red ink flowing in the wake of the Trump stimulus bill.
Rep Frederica Wilson (Dem) agrees. Prosecute them all.
Ignore her pimp hat. 😉
Marianne Williamson reminded me of Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane, singing “White Rabbit”
High on magic mushrooms with the codes to launch the nukes. Go ask Alice when she’s 10 feet tall. Remember what was said….Feed your head.
I had a Missouri mule. I know about harnesses. I also used to hang out in the Red Light District in Amsterdam and am aware of humans harnessing love. I watched the debates. This one person was sort of a dork in sheep’s clothing. The Dems have sunk to a low. Bring back LBJ and I will go all the way.