 Does the President annoy, frustrated with Marion Williamson for jumping in the race ahead of him? Did he want a clear field to run against the Republican nominee in 2024? Just not tracking that. I mean, if I had a, what is it called, a little globe here, wrist the wall, then I can tell you. But I imagine A-ball, whatever. If I could field her aura, I just don't have anything to share on that. Gosh, you guys are making me laugh now. There's nothing like a good old fashioned Democratic Party primary to remind you how smug and condescending liberal elites within the Democratic Party establishment are. That's how Biden's press secretary reacted to news that Biden has a primary opponent, Marion Williamson, who announced just over the weekend. But here's how you answer that question if you don't want to make it sound like you hate democracy. Actually, no, the president is not annoyed or frustrated that the field isn't cleared for him because we believe in democracy unlike the Republicans and Marion Williamson absolutely has the right to run. And I wholeheartedly welcome her and anyone else's participation in the Democratic process because not only am I confident that the Democratic Party's primary voters will renominate the president again, but our administration's commitment to democracy is unwavering, unwavering. So no, we're not annoyed or frustrated that Marion Williamson is announcing that she's running for president. I mean, she could have said that, but instead she chose to smugly dismiss Marion Williamson as some sort of a kook, which isn't just me and spirited. It's a mischaracterization of Marion Williamson. And I get that nobody really took Marion Williamson seriously when she emerged on the national scene back in 2019, myself included. But it's not 2019 anymore. The more she talked, the more that she convinced me and others that she's not some fringe character worthy of mockery. She's a thoughtful person who's talking about issues that most politicians never address. She's calling out corrupt institutions that make politicians beholden to their corporate donors. She's objective and gives Biden credit when he's right, but condemns him when he's wrong. And she's constantly set up for disadvantaged and marginalized people again and again, regardless if it's politically expedient for her to do so. In a sub-stack op-ed she wrote about her experience with the UK's socialized healthcare system, she eloquently points out, quote, we can either base our economy on the short-term profits of huge corporate entities, or we can base our economy on an effort to increase the health and well-being of our people and planet. We can't do both. The former is an economic model that serves a few, ensuring that a majority of people will be made to sacrifice to shore up the piles of goodies being enjoyed by a small number of us. The latter is an economic model that serves the many, ensuring that a majority of people have a chance to get into the game, create their own wealth and contribute to an economy that serves everyone. So she took her experience with the UK's healthcare system and that made her realize why it's so important to decommodify healthcare, but then she extrapolated beyond that and acknowledged how other industries also prioritize profits over people. And in this next paragraph we're gonna read here, she explains beautifully why it is that politicians refuse to change this barbaric system. She writes, G, you wouldn't think that would be such a hard call referring to the system being changed and needing to be changed, and it wouldn't be if our representative democracy actually represented the people, but these days it does not. It represents its corporate donors, the very entities that thrive at the expense of people and the planet, putting the needs of an unfettered capitalism before the needs of the American people. Those corporatist forces spend huge amounts of money trying to convince people that standing up for their own good is socialism, communism, collectivism, the destruction of America. They don't want people to know apparently that there are successful capitalist economies in the world that still provide people what they need in order to thrive. And she's absolutely correct about that. Capitalism is a global phenomenon. It is not unique to the United States, but yet other capitalist countries have found ways to meet the basic needs of its citizens while the richest country on earth fails to provide citizens with basic material needs, basic infrastructure. Some areas of the country don't even have access to clean drinking water. So for her to address this, address our failures as a country and point directly to the institutions that cause this, that is something that we don't see. And that's why I think it's important to have voices like hers included. So that way these issues that are oftentimes neglected get talked about. Now let's listen to her speak about important issues that politicians and media usually don't touch because she goes on and on. And as you can see, she is focused specifically on policy substance. Let's listen. We have 500,000 Americans who go into medical debt every year. We have 68,000 Americans who die every year for lack of healthcare. We have 85 Americans who either underinsured or uninsured. We have an $88 billion total medical debt. And I think when you consider the fact that that produces so much economic anxiety and so many people's lives. We have 64% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, 60% of Americans who could not absorb a $400 unexpected expenditure. Healthcare alone would really take that level of despair and drop it quite a bit. You know what we all need to realize is exactly what you were saying before about East Palestine. What happened in East Palestine is a feature, it's not a bug of the way the current system works. And it's exactly the corruption. What I was talking about in that article is exactly the corruption that you and Sharon were talking about over the last few minutes. The deregulation, the fact that for the sake of short term profits, it's not just the railroad companies, it's the insurance companies, it's big oil. It's the pharmaceutical companies, it's big agricultural companies, it's big chemical companies, it's big food companies. It's a military industrial complex. It's the system itself. It's not just one industry and it's not just one incident. And as long as you put short term economic profits before the health and safety and well-being of people and animals and planets, we are going to get more and more East Palestinians. But you know, this is the thing. It's not like one particular institution. Slavery was one institution. You gotta end it with institutionalized oppression of women we need suffrage. One institution that needs to be removed. Segregation, one institution. Today, it's more like an atomizer spray. An atomizer spray of injustice. It's the racial inequality and our criminal justice system here. It's infiltration of white supremacists into our police there. It is lack of healthcare over here. It is the fact that people don't have healthy food over there. It is the East Palestinians. It is the economic, it is the environmental injustice of it all. It is the fact that we have some such high rates of chronic illness in this country. And of course, the war machine in the United States. So at this point, we need to recognize that the system is so deeply corrupt that the corruption is baked into the cake. And at this point, I don't think the system is going to disrupt itself. I mean, how can anyone listen to that and smugly dismiss her as the kooky crystal lady? She is a thoughtful, progressive using her platform to raise the salience of important issues. But Biden's press secretary in the media, they've all just collectively chosen to dismiss her in the most smug, infuriating manner possible. But here's the thing. They don't even need to do that. Any primary challenger to an incumbent president has a near 0% chance of winning even a single primary. Everyone knows this. So why the unnecessary vitriol? That's the question. First of all, I think that it's because they're just genuinely smug, miserable people. And second of all, it's because even if Mary Ann Williamson politically isn't a threat to Biden in the sense that she can beat him in a Democratic Party primary, her presence alone will unilaterally raise the standards. That's important. I mean, do you think that Biden wants to talk about healthcare when the entire health industry bet on him as their savior for Medicare for All back in 2020? I mean, when was the last time he even vocalized support for a public option? That's what he ran on as the preferable system to Medicare for All. So do you think that Biden wants to talk about these policies? Of course he doesn't. Because it makes him look bad. He doesn't want to discuss how his immigration policies are arguably as cruel as Donald Trump's. Having a primary challenger reminds him that there is widespread dissatisfaction within his own party, and that encourages him to do better. It raises the standards. That's why there's this smug condescending dismissal. It's because even if Mary Ann Williamson will have a very difficult time at beating Joe Biden, if not a near impossible time of beating him, she still is a threat to him in that limited sense. So I, for one, am thankful that Biden is getting a primary challenger. In fact, I'm consistent in my support for democracy and believe that every single incumbent politician, including ones that I agree with, like Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, should all get primary challengers every single cycle and be forced to debate them. I don't have to support those primary challengers, but I think that robust competition matters in democratic societies and people who are small D Democrats should support that. But you see, I'm confident also in the incumbent politicians that I support. I think that they would survive intraparty primaries. So if the Biden administration is confident as well, then what do they have to worry about? Why needlessly attack Mary Ann Williamson and laugh at her? Especially if you know you're overwhelmingly likely to win anyway. It's because they don't want to be forced to address their own failures. So with that being said, I think it's obvious if you haven't picked up on it by now, I will indeed be voting for Mary Ann Williamson over Joe Biden in 2024 because I agree with her. And even if the odds are against her, I don't think that we should just automatically coordinate Biden. There's no harm in making him work at least a little bit for that nomination again. But I am curious to know what other leftists think. So be sure to share your thoughts down below and don't forget to give the video a like to help us beat YouTube's algorithm. And of course, if you're not already subscribed, what are you doing?