These candidates are really the only challengers to Biden in the primaries. All of their campaigns are extremely long shots (but not impossible in my opinion- if we decided we liked them more than Biden they could win). Let’s all have a civilized discussion/debate over them. Let’s try to not focus too heavy on their perceived inability to beat Biden but focus on them as actual candidates.

my take

MW: I recently watched an interview with Marianne Williamson who I’d never heard of before (I’m sure there’s a reason media doesn’t cover her). She really impressed me with her views, especially on neoliberalism. She heavily reminds me of Bernie and isn’t running just for the sake of it or as a protest like some other long shot candidates do. In my opinion she deserves everyone’s vote in the primaries, at least. She is also very talented at oration.

CW: I’ll be honest, I know very little about him and need to do more research.

RFK JR: He’s literally a clown. He’s a nepo baby and all his views are inconsistent, harmful, and crackpot. He has no shot at winning.

  • fades@beehaw.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    CW is also sorta kinda but not totally antivax

    Edit: oh you said MW…

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      Just read this about CW

      Westerners safe from bombardment like long-shot third-party presidential candidate Cornel West continue to accommodate Russia. In a July 13 interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, West called Russia’s invasion “criminal” but insisted it was “provoked by the expansion of NATO” and is a “proxy war between the American Empire and the Russian Federation,” adding Neville Chamberlain-esque icing on the appeasement cake by proposing Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia.

      So that’s enough for me to lose any interest I had in him.

      Source

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          You think that giving Ukrainian land to Russia is the right way to solve this conflict?

          • TokenBoomer @beehaw.org
            2·
            1 year ago

            Not necessarily. Maybe Crimea. Russia has their military navy there. They only have 2 facing Europe/NATO .Asking them to give that up may be too much. If Mexico joined BRICS and China started placing weapons there, ya think America would be happy. That’s what is going on in Ukraine. I’m not defending Russia or Putin. I just understand that there’s a lot of geopoliticking going on that we aren’t privy to. If you were Russia, would you want NATO on your border. You can be against NATO and Putin. Not everything has to be a false dichotomy.

            • realitista@lemm.ee
              1·
              1 year ago

              What’s going on there is more similar to if Mexico invaded Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. And you are saying, “eh, just let 'em have Texas. They used to own it anyway. And they deserve it since the USA aligned with Canada”.

              Giving Russia Ukraine essentially means that Ukraine will never be able to effectively export anything again since Russia will exert total control over the Black Sea. That means that Ukraine’s main economic means of survival, the produce and export of grain will become impossible.

              Does Ukraine not get to decide what treaties and organizations they join? Or does Russia get de-facto control over everything it’s neighbors do? If we allow Russia to invade and annex any country they want, how long before we are dealing with the invasion of another country such as Moldova or even the Baltics or Poland?

              It’s quite clear that they want their borders to extend to the Carpathians to make them more defensible with their shrinking population. Do we just allow this? Then they will need to expand south and East to close the gaps there from the lost USSR as well. And at that point, why stop?

              So, just to reiterate, we need to allow Russia to invade and destroy whichever country it wants so that it can “feel more comfortable” by owning that country’s land? Is that a fair assessment of your position?

              And then I suppose we need to let China do this too, right? And then when we are down to 3 superpowers running everything, we can just duke it out for who’s the final winner in one big war?

              What you are recommending is called “appeasement”. It was tried in very much the same way with Germany by Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930’s in the country where I live, Czechia in an area called The Sudetenland, under extremely similar circumstances as you describe today. It wasn’t very effective to say the least.

              So I must say, it’s a very interesting plan you’ve got.

              • TokenBoomer @beehaw.org
                2·
                1 year ago

                Watched the interview again. Still agree with West. You are prioritizing land over lives. Should Russia have invaded. No. But here we are, and people are dying, homes lost. The alternative is to play this out. Where everyone loses, but America and NATO. If that’s the goal. Proceed. You want Russia to retreat and concede. Would NATO do that? The solution is concessions. Is it optimal? No. But again, the alternative is death and destruction.

                • realitista@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  If Russia wins there will be more wars and more lives lost. It will not work any better than Chamerlain giving Hitler the Sudetenland.

                  Giving Russia what they want at best pauses the fighting until they can regroup and come back for more. Anyone, like myself, who lives in this region knows that, because we were paying attention after Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine.

                  This will not end until at least Russia controls most of the USSR territory again (some of which I happen to live in). Your plan guarantees the maximum loss of life.

                  And anyway, isn’t it up to Ukraine to decide if they want to fight or not? Why the hell is it up to you or Cornell West?

                  • TokenBoomer @beehaw.org
                    0·
                    1 year ago

                    West was prescribing a position based on a hypothetical situation where both sides choose diplomacy. That is what I agree with. That is not the current situation. Russia has said they do not seek diplomacy and Ukraine doesn’t want to concede land, so the hypothetical is irrelevant. If you don’t agree to the hypothetical diplomacy, due to historical precedence and speculation for the future, you’re condemning the region to war. Yes, Russia may continue and expand the war. But making geopolitical decisions based on fear and speculation is not the ideal position when lives are being lost daily. Do you want the war to stop? If you do, then Cornel West’s position of diplomacy is the best option.