Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

a district attorney is not the same as a "cop" ffs

I am reliably informed that in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.

These are their stories. DUN DUN

a charisma sink (despite the artificial limbs)

Admit it, it would be pretty awesome if she had, like, cyborg flamethrower attachments

xp the DAs carry BADGES and they continue to INVESTIGATE CRIMES until TRUTH and JUSTICE have won the day

"Look at that statue. Do you see that blindfold that Lady Justice wears? She woke up in a bathtub and found that someone had harvested her eyes. And that's why I voted Blue Cop!"

everyone knows how much I love cops and prosecutors right lol

people judging candidates based on their past careers/positions is kind of stupid imo. look at where the candidates are now and how they're triangulating their positions to get elected - a good candidate is one who responds to the needs of the electorate, and if that means they advocate for different positions than they used to, that's not necessarily hypocrisy or being untrustworthy, it's being smart.

in trump's case it is 100000000% accurate tho

Let's Kill All the Lawyers

in trump's case it is 100000000% accurate tho

not sure what this is in reference to tbh

I think Hunt3r's point is Trump's professional life accurately predicted his political one.

trump represents actual valueless hypocrisy, the dark side of politicians responding to voters - here the con man as shimmering blob, morphing into whatever his marks want to hear at any given time, to be forgotten again minutes later with no consequences.

I happily voted for a woman who was a former CIA officer and had a photo of her and GW Bush in her TV commercial (as well as the same photo of her with Obama); she flipped a gerrymandered as shit district that was held by an asshole republican guy for ages and I don’t feel even slightly uneasy about this.

morphing into whatever his marks want to hear at any given time, to be forgotten again minutes later with no consequences.

This is why, barring incontrovertible evidence of massive criminality, Trump will win the Republican nomination handily. He accurately mirrors what goes on inside the heads of his supporters, no matter how ignorant, misguided, racist, or nonsensical those thoughts might be.

These people aren't going to Iowa and South Carolina for the culture.

up yrs Johnny Fever, some of the strivers actually visit to pump up interest in congressional elections

I'll admit that's the bare minimum of them, but it happens

I'll try to be more proactive in documenting the Iowa visitors who are the definite presidential strivers this cycle

It will probably pay dividends for Dem candidates to study the effects Trump's tariffs and the Chinese countertariffs are having on Iowa corn, soybean, and swine exports. It may not be high culture, but taking a clear stand in favor of free trade in agricultural exports may shift a lot of habitual Republicans there...

As for South Carolina, I'm guessing that they've been historically dependent on German capital, like the BMW plant. Numerous German multinationals are holding off on further US investment for the duration of this presidency.

Harder pulling ahead in D10 in CA

Er wrong thread

Nobody's gonna shift any Republicans, habitual or otherwise. Republicans are a death cult, and Presidential elections are understood as a strictly binary choice - My Team versus Satan's Team. (I'm excluding third party voters from this discussion because fuck those moss-brained suck-asses forever.)

...except those of us who live in irrelevant states, riiiiight?

Are you disputing the moss-brained or the suck-ass

you cur, i am much closer to moss-assed and suck-brained

who sucked your head?

lads

...except those of us who live in irrelevant states, riiiiight?

I exclude no one. Vote third party in a "safe" state*, you send the message to moss-brained suck-asses in "unsafe" states that it's OK for them to do it, too.

*there's no such thing

I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

unperson would you feel differently if at some point down the line a set of reasonably popular set of left figures took a stab at a genuine left party or do you see the US as uniquely doomed to forever be a two-party country where 40%+ just don't engage

(this is not a defense of jill stein)

unperson would you feel differently if at some point down the line a set of reasonably popular set of left figures took a stab at a genuine left party or do you see the US as uniquely doomed to forever be a two-party country where 40%+ just don't engage

Yes, I would feel differently if at some imaginary future point "the left" started focusing on running candidates for - and winning - local offices (school board, city council, mayor, state legislature) instead of just running for president in acts of public masturbation so egregious they'd embarrass Vito Acconci. So wake me up when that happens.

you send the message to moss-brained suck-asses in "unsafe" states that it's OK for them to do it, too.

yeah, fuck that. such people would be thicker than you are, if they existed.

wait a sec, i'm confused, i thought the Democrat Party was the only "left" in America

you know, the party that went to Trump's last wedding and took his donations

umperson, Nerdstrom and iatee probably have weekly write-hatemail-to-Susan-Sarandon parties.

"in acts of public masturbation so egregious they'd embarrass Vito Acconci"

lol <3<3 this made my day

"have weekly write-hatemail-to-Susan-Sarandon parties" also pretty good

the political system of the u.s. is so heavily favored toward a two-party system (not just because of the established power of the current two parties but because we use a winner-take-all system rather than proportional voting) that even a reasonably popular third party couldn't just sort of co-exist with the existing two parties and share congressional space with them, it would have to become popular and powerful enough to replace one of them, the way the republicans replaced the whigs. so even if someone like bernie or whoever were to go off and start his own party, the results wouldn't be significantly different than perot in 92 or nader in 00, it would just be a weak party barely holding together around a celebrity candidate.

wait a sec, i'm confused, i thought the Democrat Party was the only "left" in America

You reveal yourself once again.

people judging candidates based on their past careers/positions is kind of stupid imo. look at where the candidates are now and how they're triangulating their positions to get elected

shakes are you fucking serious with this weak shit man

agree with Οὖτις, some people evolve

up yrs Johnny Fever

I keed

look, when it comes to voting for democrats in the general election in meaningfully close races, that's one thing. but if you're going to sit here in 2018 and stump for this prosecutor to be the democratic nominee, you're a mark

and yes, (most) prosecutors are cops

the guy in philly and the guy in brooklyn and their ilk largely being exceptions

Consider the possibility that a black woman in America might have different motivations to become a prosecutor than are held by the majority of prosecutors, who are overwhelmingly white men, especially if that black woman then uses her experience as a stepping stone to higher offices that do not require a prosecutorial approach to various social issues.

^yes

people judging candidates based on their past careers/positions is kind of stupid imo. look at where the candidates are now and how they're triangulating their positions to get elected

harris aside, this is ridiculous

people can change but if you want to know who someone is you don't take solace in how they're "triangulating"

yes, agree with that

sure, what's her record

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/12/kamala-harris-is-not-smart-on-crime
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html

Reason is a libertarian magazine

liked that NYTM article, although 2 years old

I'm aware of what reason is, thanks. I can think for myself

I agree with your point about voting for someone vs stumping for them

don't think anybody you're talking to here is 'a mark' though