*sigh*, so it's started. The guardian released an article that has a dozen of so anonymous people claiming that Marianne was abusive toward them (former staffers and the like).
And...I don't know what to think about this one. I mean, here's the thing. On the one hand, a dozen or so people making these accusations sounds damning, but at the same time, we are in a political campaign season, and the democrats are known for playing dirty politics against those who oppose them, and hey, I've seen this one before. It's not even new at all. See? It's like everyone has been accused of this. And yes, the first two examples I posted were democratic candidates who were backed by the establishment, but that just shows how unoriginal this is. All the democrats need to do is claim they're anonymous staffers and say similar things. So who knows if it's true or not? I really don't know, it's a he said she said situation. And there's some really bad motivations at work here that undermine the credibility of these allegations. I mean, she's running for president and the democrats have every incentive to badmouth her and run as dirty a campaign as possible to crush her. So...yeah.
Williamson responded to the allegations on a podcast, and I'm not sure what to think of that either. I mean, she seemed to admit to being tough at times and leaned into it asking "wouldn't you want someone who is tough to be commander in chief?" while also stating that this is mostly slanderous lies. She said even if 10% of this is true it deserves to be taken seriously, which is why she seemed to at least give it some consideration and reflect on her past actions. So there may be a grain of truth to it. But....let's face it, this is so unoriginal it's like everyone is accused of this at some point. And in a lot of cases it's probably highly exaggerated. So yeah.
Even if it were true, how much would it impact my vote? Not much. Again, I'm voting based on policy. I've already admitted to being lukewarm on Williamson. I mean, she isn't my ideal candidate. She's just the one who showed up who is closest to my views. She has no political experience, she's considered this weird new ager no one takes seriously, she's gone full Bernie lane despite shifting away from that toward something closer to Andrew Yang, she's not for UBI (although has a lot of other proposals I like), and yeah. I'm not supporting her because I particularly like her. I don't dislike her. But I acknowledge her flaws. As I always say, I'm always compromising in election seasons. I think solidarity in order to promote an agenda is more important than personal disagreements here and there, and as long as she supports enough stuff I like, I ain't gonna abandon her just because she doesn't support that one priority no one is championing so far, or because she allegedly hits car doors in fits of anger. I honestly believe that despite whatever flaws she has, she has genuine convictions and wants to make the country a better place, and until a better candidate shows up, this is what I'm supporting. And that's all there is to it.
So don't think I'm going full Williamson stan and that I can't be critical of her. I'm covering this because Im trying to be honest here. But at the end of the day, this doesn't sway me, and I can't even be convinced this is true in the first place. It's fruit from a rotten vine so to speak. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Who knows? Who cares? I really don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment