The references to cults was probably because I posted some articles about it much earlier in this thread. There are several news articles, many from unapologetically left-wing sources, that have said she has connections to a Hare Krishna cult.

I'm no fan of hers but in her defense

1. She did resign from that establishment because she didn't like the direction it was going.

2. She has become quite alienated from that estabishment.

3. So long as some sort of government is established, there will always be an establishment, so you shouldn't necessarily be against "establishment" so much as "the current establishment". Ideally, if you don't like the establishment, you'd want to reform or change the establishment and if you like Tulsi's politics she could be a part of that. You'd need more than just her though, you'd need enough anti-war leader types for the follower types to just follow along as anti-war too. That's how the establishment holds so much power. The types that just kiss up to the establishment don't care what their views are, they care what the views of the powerful are. Oust the establishment and replace it with a new establishment of your preference, and the toadies of the old establishment will follow along with you and kiss up to your establishment.

1. Didnt she resign because she was a supporter of Sanders in 2016 and didnt like how he was treated? If Sander didn't run she'd probably still be a DNC chair today.

2. I feel like she's doing this because that's the thing to do. While she was a chair in the DNC they had fundraisers and did and still do continue to take money from the elites and big companies. Booker took millions of dollars and was a advocate for big pharma companies until he launched his campaign. Gillibrand has a history of having close ties to wall street and taking money from them but since she is running for President she has tried to distance herself. I just don't feel like these candidates are genuine about being anti establishment. Trump and Bernie ran pretty successful campaigns in 2016 by being anti establishment candidates and I feel like it's the trend now to be appear as anti establishment.

3.I have no problem with the concept of an establishment. If the government is working and the people are benefiting then the establishment is good. But the issue is that the government isnt working for the people but instead for the elites and the big corporations. Even if she tries to distance herself from the establishment she was still a big part of the problem. It wasn't like she was a random member of the DNC she was up there and nothing changed.

Fair enough. I actually do agree about how a lot of these candidates seemed to just distance themselves from the establishment at a very convenient time, and I don't really trust them yet. Which is why I like Bernie, because he was always running on what he's running on now. Same with Warren for the most part, though she cowered before Clinton last time which was sad to see. And then Yang is going for UBI which is even more daring than Bernie, essentially a "Social Security For All", and definitely fundamentally against the wishes of the current status quo, so I feel like I can trust him. After that it's tough to tell, but I like the direction things are moving in. The Biden's of the party are getting trampled, while Bernie's ideas are coming out of almost everyone's mouths.

While Marianne Williamson didn't make the most pointed policy point. Seth Meyers with Kate McKinnon did make a lot of fun, but in a completely non-cruel way. Most of all, it was actually funny.

This daytime panel, on the other hand, isn't funny at all: just plain cruel. These fat clucking hens are disgraceful:

This is just straight-up junior high school bullying.

Yeah, some of it was funny, but much was bullying. But you have to admit, Williamson at some instances acted a bit strange on the stage. At other times though she made a lot of sense. And better her than idiots like Tim Ryan or John Hickenlooper.

What gets about this clip is, that they show her cite new zealands Prime Minister and take her on, on the promise to make the country the best place for a child to grow up. That is not crazy, that actually is a pretty solid and great goal to have. Why did they show that along the 'harnessign love' stuff, because demanding the country is a good place for a child to grow up is very far from crazy.

I agree, it was a weird thing to conflate. Something about the above panel, especially the blonde one, really rubbed me the wrong way; they're not decent human beings.

I forgot to put in the Seth Meyers clip. I found this to be a funny take that didn't have the sarcasm and underlying disdain and hate that the other panel had:

I watched it expecting it to be as bad as you said and it was pretty tame.

I mean the way Williamson said it and the way she worded it made her sound a bit like a hippie straight out of the 60's, and she has a few strange beliefs, but she makes a good point that Trump does motivate his base with fear, and to beat that, we'll have to motivate people with something else, and love and acceptance and hope are good ways to do that. She also wasn't all fluff either. She made a good point that addressing health care costs will require not just making Medicare available to all, and not just to prevent corporations from taking more than their fair share by combating drug costs and healthcare costs with a Medicare program capable of cost negotiations, but also to bring down the actual demand for more expensive forms of healthcare by just making Americans healthier with preventative measures. And she's right that this would require systemic reform of several different institutions, not just healthcare and drugs, but chemicals, environment, food and more.

I'm not American, so I am not accustomed to this sort of media. Do you not see that as cruel and disrespectful?