Are you following the 2020 Elections?

Please Democrats, no women. Don't put a woman forward, just don't. No SJW cuckoldy either.

If he even gets close he gets a bullet. We're not doing this.

Of the three woman running, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris would get destroyed by Trump. Mark my words, they're not fit for running this country. Kamala Harris is basically Hillary Clinton v2.0. A candidate who will play up identity politics and use inspirational empty words to try and convey her point about why you should choose her.

"Come on user, you like good things like justice, democracy, and equality right? Go ahead and vote for me. I'll make sure to lift everyone's voices up and break down the barriers, we'll be a unified nation that fights for stuff."

Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't seem like she'd quite go down that route, but I still don't trust her. Her voting record isn't quite as bad as Kamala Harris's, but she definitely has some votes that are dealbreakers (for me at least). Definitely a calculating politician. She'll try to get brownie points by pointing this and that out, but she's not going to win.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only female running who I think has a decent chance to beat Trump.* To be fair, I don't know her actual stances on policy though, I've just heard good things about her. It's telling when the media says Kamala Harris is a shoe-in to become the democratic nominee because she's a minority woman, and another minority woman (Tulsi Gabbard) isn't talked about at all. Main stream media clearly knows which candidate they want to sway you too.

Oh, I just remembered, Elizabeth Warren is also running. I kind of forgot about her. Eh, I think she can beat Trump, but personally, I don't think she lives up to the hype. Too much baggage after last election. I don't care much for her, outside of the fact that she's not absolutely terrible like Kamala and Kirsten both are. (Still terrible though)

don't be delusional no one stand a chance against Trump
Trump will win second term easily

I hope dems run the blackest most muslim person they can find, preferably a chick and he/she wins. Just to see people seethe.

Disagree heavily. Of the people running right now, here's how I'd rank them.

Absolutely demolished by Trump
Richard Ojeda (but only because his campaign was suspended)

Loses to Trump
Kirsten Gillibrand (Loses by a significant margin)
Kamala Harris (Loses just as bad as Hillary Clinton, if not worse)
Julian Castro (Mr. Plastic doesn't stand a chance. He's trying to mimic Obama, but that crap isn't going to work)

Wildcard
Andrew Yang (Really unorthodox candidate, but could potentially pick up huge support if he gets his ideas out there. Probably the single candidate who has a written plan for individual issues, of which there are like 100 or some crazy number like that. (I didn't count, but it's a lot) It basically showcases the problems, goals, and what changes he wants to make. Very business oriented.

Might win
Tulsi Gabbard (Not sure about where she stands on policies, but from what I heard about her, she could potentially upset Trump in the race) - One of the few good candidates.

Elizabeth Warren - (Eh, Trump could still beat the living daylights out of her, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, even though I personally don't want her to be president.)

4 of the 7 candidates lose to Trump though, so you have that going for your side of the field. Also I don't think I'm delusional, if anything it's delusional to assume that no one can beat Trump in a general election. That's kind of absurd I think, especially since it's so early in the game.

Vote for Tulsi Gabbard then, though I wouldn't recommend voting for her until you read up on her policies and such.

Kamala Harris is an absolute joke though, she voted for the Anti-BDS bill, and wants civil asset forfeiture. The latter being the police have the power to stop you for any reason, and then say something like:

"Hand over your wallet. You look like you're about to do something shady." They can then pocket that money, and you can't ever get it back. All perfectly "legal".

Yeah Rand Paul seems ok but I think he's kind of weak on immigration, and they won't ever let him get the nomination.

He wouldn't be the greatest president, but he seemed like the least wacky of the people who were running in 2016 on the republican side. If I had to choose between him or Hillary, I would have chosen Rand Paul for sure.

I like Andrew Yang quite a bit I think if he even gets a little mainstream exposure his campaign will pick up some steam. Only Democrat i'd vote for.

Are you forgetting he barely one the first term

I'll personally slap any of my friends or family straight in the teeth if I find out they voted.

>it's election time already
slow the fuck down, it feels like trump only got elected 2 weeks ago

I hope you get hit by a giant truck.

If you want I have a link to the comprehensive list of issues he wants to fight for. I'm not 100% sold on him, but from what I've seen, he has my support more than any other candidate.

One of the craziest things he's going to do, is make tax day a federal holiday, and make taxes fun by making it so that 1% of your tax money can be funneled to a project or organization (from a prepared list) of your choosing, as well as a general list of where your individual taxed money went. The IRS is also going to have a new opt-in program where the IRS will do your taxes for you, free of charge, and the IRS will also get a 50% increase in budget to get newer technology to make the taxation much more seamless for everyone.

Really depends on who he's running against.

Why do you not want anyone to vote? It's not like they're hurting you personally by voting, are they?

Better to be prepared early on user. We can fight against people who don't know what they're talking about with facts.

I chuckled a little.

Because the election is fraudulent and at this point it's tantamount to treason, just by participating.

he was running against a WOMEM and barely won. I doubt he even wants to be president anymore. He doesn't care about fixing america. He justs wanted attention and praise which is what he got

Trump all the way(want too see more idiots overreacting and losing it), but don't we have another board for political discourse?

SAGE

Attached: 1543493137374.jpg (472x656, 42K)

The popular vote is meaningless and affects nothing. It's pointless to discuss who you want to vote for.

Attached: 87f.jpg (3154x2493, 588K)

If any of them are anti gun and shit on working class slash flyover states they're not gonna win.
Electoral college is a thing.

You can make a case that the election is fraudulent, but you can't make the case that participating in it is tantamount to treason.

Treason is the act of giving aid/intelligence to a country we're currently at war at, which I don't think the average voter actually does.

I would also argue that if everyone votes for one person (Person A), and the establishment says Person B wins, then provided enough people realize that's bullshit, they can stage a civil war of sorts or something.

By choosing not to vote, you're just making the gap that much closer for the people in power to retain their positions.

Hillary Clinton was a shitty candidate who ran her campaign into the ground. I'd argue that Hillary Clinton doesn't care about fixing america either. All she cares about is keeping the status quo.

That lady is indeed a moron, haha. Also we do have another board for it, but I thought it would be much more fun to post it here, since I feel like more extreme people post on pol to some extent. That, and you're more my people anyways. If I had to choose to hang out with a random guy from r9k or a random guy from pol for a day, I'd pick the r9k poster.

Primary elections are much more competitive than general elections I think. Not as many people to persuade, and it does affect who is against who in the general election, which can be a game changer.

What do you mean by "shit on working class slash flyover states."?

1) Why haven't you posted this on Jow Forums instead?

2) Why didn't you include Warren on the list? She's the best one, both in terms of popularity (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders) and policy (with no exceptions).

Jow Forums owns Jow Forums, redditor
now fuck off

This.
Jow Forums is Indian territory, orange devils!

yang and gabbard don't have enough party support (could change in the next couple years). yang is getting practically no media coverage comparatively and will probably need a miracle
other interesting not-yet supported candidates include hickenlooper, abrams, cuomo, inslee, de blasio, buttigieg, maybe gillum (would have put ojeda here)
o'rourke and biden are up there with harris in the 'very probable' category for the time being but they're both weak candidates who will probably fall off. sanders still has some momentum from the last election but he's probably also going to fall off. booker is gaining a ton of media traction and is in the best spot of the highly progressive candidates. klobuchar and brown should also be considered significant contenders if only because they're such important party insiders
warren is a good candidate but is polling really poorly with minorities so it's unlikely she'll get the ticket over harris since the party will be wanting to compare demographic appeal

You do know that there is a huge overlap between Jow Forums and Jow Forums. right?

Attached: 1351396418349.jpg (596x900, 185K)

What did this boy mean by this?

Attached: Screenshot_20190126-110509_Clover.jpg (1080x727, 294K)

1. I hardly ever visited pol, and it's not like political discussions haven't been posted on r9k anyhow, so it's nothing extremely new.

2. That was actually my fault. I made a mistake and left out Warren because I forgot she was running. If you scroll up you'll see I did mention her a little later on. I disagree that she's the best candidate though, but you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect you for it. May I ask what you like about her policies and voting record though?

Bernie didn't exactly get media coverage either, and he got pretty far, but I see your point.
Hickenlooper, abrams, cuomo, inslee, de blasio, buttigieg, and gillum are running? I didn't even know they announced.

I agree in that both Beto O' Rourke and Biden are weak candidates. Biden will start off strong, but the longer things last, the less support he'll have. Cory Booker is a joke though, and so is Klobuchar. Practically no one knows who Amy Klobuchar is, and Cory Booker is a corporate democrat on par with Julian Castro. He won't win against Trump (in my opinion).

Yes, but generally, I think most people focus on one board more than the other. Besides, I'm sure people will talk about the candidates for 2020 on pol anyhow. It's not hurting anyone if I make a post on r9k, I'm just spreading the word that there are candidates to consider. Whether or not you want to vote for Trump, Gabbard, or Castro is of no concern to me, so long as you know what you're voting for.

Who would have thought??? HAHAHAHA

Attached: 1548503249938.jpg (540x720, 33K)

most of them are expected to announce they're running imminently, it's more just a list of people to pay attention to. inslee announced awhile ago though. i agree booker and klobuchar aren't particularly strong candidates. keep in mind that a candidate being weak has hardly stopped this party from giving them the nod in the recent past, though
trump is also in a pretty precarious statistical position between not being popular in the first place + losing the support of longtime party loyalists, i think you're underrating the potential appeal of moderate candidates. dems are also going to be acutely aware they ran an absolutely dogshit campaign in 2016 and potentially overcompensate thru bipartisan appeal

Missclicked and you'd myself.
Or did i....

Attached: ff3.jpg (582x215, 13K)

>May I ask what you like about her policies and voting record though?

In broad strokes, I like that she is farther to the left than most other candidates, but still acknowledges the benefits of capitalism, moreso than someone like Sanders.
More specifically:
-CFPB was founded under her advice
-advocates higher taxes on the wealthy, and an "exit tax" to disincentivize the wealthy leaving
-opposition to reckless American warfare, e.g. Afghanistan and Syria (many other Democrats are not willing to take this stance, either due to militarism or anti-Trumpism)
-strong stance on campaign finance reform (proposed the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act)
-has supported single-payer healthcare since 2008
You can read more in-depth on this page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren

If Cory Booker or Klobuchar win the primary election, Trump is almost guaranteed to win. I'd argue that while you're correct on the first part, moderate candidates are not the way to go. You're not going to excite the majority of people if you're running someone like Hillary Clinton. The only thing they have going for them is identity politics. These corporate dems almost never get into the nitty gritty of where they stand on issues, and instead post ads where they show how their grandma had to work five jobs just to keep them safe and fed, and that now they're all blessed by being senators and are even on their way to become president. It's all bullshit.

If a republican has to choose between a republican, or a watered down democrat who's kind of like a republican, they'll vote republican almost guaranteed. Democrats on the other hand, will either stay home, or be more likely to split the vote since they're so similar.

The reason Trump won is because he ran on a populist anti-establishment message. Having a dude go on stage and talk about how the establishment is good and things are fine isn't going to cut it. You need someone who can not only make promises, but show what policies they actually want to put in place. Who can excite the people, and get them to stop whatever they're doing and to go and vote.

Outside of this little rant, why do you feel like bipartisan appeal and moderate dems have a better chance of winning. Give me your point of view please.

Agreed. Let's get a mussy in here and reverse some of this dem/lib/progressive degeneracy thats started to spill over the last few years. If were really lucky shell strip women of the right to vote and then give the presidency to a man like her culture and religion would require.

but where's the white male?

I dont vote in bourgeois elections

Attached: 0163A38A-4A1F-4CFD-B460-123D28CCD453.jpg (900x600, 130K)

elections aren't about exciting people for the most part. hillary and trump were the two least liked candidates in the history of this country's elections and voter turnout was only significant suppressed among young and black voters. both parties know people will begrudgingly vote for who they see as the lesser evil. identity politics make up the majority of your votes and the difference is made by moderates
on top of this the pendulum effect is getting so strong in this country that the incumbent advantage gets less significant every election
watered down democrats who are kind of like republicans are what party line democrats actually are. even obama was a militarist who encourages clandestine assassinations, passed executive orders to make demonstrating in front of govt buildings illegal, etc. democrats have been banking on the neoliberal platform for decades and even though it's not really working they're not showing any signs of stopping
trump run because he ran a smart campaign, focus-targetted close states that were most likely to flip, and badgering the media into lopsided coverage. i'll admit i don't follow popular opinions that closely, most of my income comes from election betting and the majority of what i look at is just statistics. i put a lot of money on a trump victory purely because of his campaign strategy (and hillary's mind-bogglingly shitty campaign strategy)
again going by stats most people consider themselves moderate and a lot of conservative boomers poll as dissatisfied with trump's lack of focus on the lower class

trump won because he ran a smart campaign*
also apologies for formatting like a mongoloid

That's good and all, but I kind of feel like she's lost her spark and motivation. Almost like she's morphing into a corporate democrat in an effort to keep her position. Now I could be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that many other people feel that way. I'll read the link, but I'm not sure how much I trust her.

Richard Ojeda was the closest to that, and he dropped out.

No worries on the formatting.

You might not be totally off. Also good job on guessing Trump would win. I thought he would win as well (but only by a slight lead.) Back to the point though, Obama isn't exactly an amazing leader. I personally like him as a person, but outside of that, he's just an okay president. He certainly could have done a lot of things better.

People did indeed vote for Hillary, some literally just because she was a woman, but you can't win a campaign if you never talk about where you stand on issues, then it doesn't matter if you're a young, attractive, minority woman who barely gets by through working three jobs a day, you still won't be able to stand up to someone who actually announces what their plans are. Identity politics only supplement your record and positions. Trump did run a very smart campaign though. Some of his ads were pretty effective, and while I personally don't think he knew too much policy wise, he was able to game the media and flip things back on his opponents in a way no one else was really able to do so.

Also a lot of people might consider themselves moderate, but that doesn't mean they actually are. A majority of the people want medicare for all/a single payer healthcare system, the same goes for raising taxes on the wealthy, but everyone just looks away from that and focuses on the less popular positions because the more popular ones with the public are not "media mainstream" or whatever you want to call it..

>not listing the queen
people.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-announces-run-for-president/

Oh boy, I remember that doujinshi. Fucking masterpiece

I really don't think she's a corporate Dem at all. At worst she's "out of touch" with common and/or young people. (See for example that whole instagram thing, the DNA test, or just her history in academia.) . There's no evidence in her policy that she supports corporations over the common person. If anything, she goes too far AGAINST corporations (for example, she's a little too protectionist for my liking when it comes to trade- that's probably the only policy I disagree with her on).

Yeah that was my bad. If you look a little later on though then you'll notice that I did mention her. I just sort of forgot she was running when I posted this thread. My bad user!

I will have to read this doujin later on then. Hopefully it lives up to the hype.

Yes I am

Meme magic is real

Attached: john-mcafee-hitbtc-760x400.png (760x400, 444K)

Another big, drawn out fight in the democratic primaries.

The corporatist dems prop up a zombo combo like Warren/Biden with Harris/Booker (It doesn't matter who they actually put up, they're all the same fucking blank Obama 2.0 personality).

Meanwhile, plucky, young, anime character Beto and his sensei Bernie will be flying around the country trying to gather the dragon balls and get enough of a coalition to defeat the corp dems. With the powers of teamwork, friendship, and a very special visit from the ghost of Vladimir Lenin, Bernie and Beto overcome the myriad obstacles in their way - until they discover a dark, reptilian secret hidden beneath the statue of liberty...

MEANWHILE, IN WHITE TRUMP TOWER

October 2020. A turtle's shadow in the door of the oval office. Pence unplugs from mother, and kicks Trump's spray tan machine to rouse him. McConnell is dressed like a vampire; actually his normal attire, but he can wear it without fear on Halloween. He walks in and pushes his sword-cane into Trump's chest, maintaining frosty eye contact. "We're stuck together, so don't fuck this up."

The Republicans have put all their eggs in this loud orange basket. Backpedaling and denouncing what Trump has done is no longer an option, as it'd lose them the support of that 35% Trump supporter bedrock. The Republicans need Trump's coalition, and Trump needs their legal machinery for protection from the courts.

Trump grasps McConnel's sword, blood streaming down his hands. "Don't dare threaten me, turtle. You have nobody else. You are mine. Now, don't you have some more judges to appoint for us?" McConnell snarls, easing back his sword. "The sooner you realize our relationship is a symbiotic one rather than parasitic, the better. This ship will sink soon if you don't." Trump snorts, returning to the spray-tan machine. Pence stares down at Trump, silently chiding himself for not just initiating the lizard takeover when he and Barack had the chance.

Attached: E7yTH01.png (606x557, 418K)

Nigger they couldn't win against fucking Trump when playing the woman card, you think they have even a slight chance with that shit?

For all the issues I have with her as a person, Warren's the one I support the most out of the people running thus far, for the reasons listed. Though unlike that poster, Bernie is who I'm really gunning for.

Tulsi Gabbard has some good positions, but I don't support her. She's pro-Medicare-For-All and anti-regime change (which is wonderful), but also pro-War on Terror, open to using torture, and pro-Israel/anti-BDS (which granted, is true of all the candidates to one degree or another, but moreso with her than with Sanders or Warren). I also think that she'll be attacked really aggressively during the primary for meeting with Assad (which I wasn't against, but I know plenty of liberals were), which will hurt her chances.

>election thread
>no mention of John McAfee
I'm prepared to vote for this madman, how about you?

Attached: 20130928__0929mcafee1.jpg (600x403, 19K)

Anyone but Trump and I'd be happy. But I won't hold my breath.

I'm that poster, here are the reasons I would pick Warren over Bernie.
1. Warren identifies as a capitalist, and can articulate and defend the benefits of capitalism. Not only is this the correct position, but it helps her craft better regulations in a capitalist system that don't cancel out its benefits. Most of her ideas are very hard to argue against from a capitalist position without being disingenuous.

2. Bernie wants to make college tuition-free... While this is definitely a lot better than many of the other ways we use money, I think its fundamentally problematic. For a lot of careers, college is a hoop corporations expect you to jump through to demonstrate your ability. If the public writes a blank check for college, then more corporations will be willing to force their employees to jump through those hoops, with no benefit to the employees. Corporations win, employees and public loses. I'm supportive of education, but Bernie's approach is ham-fisted and enhances the more toxic elements of our current education system.

3. Sanders has expressed sympathy for a jobs guarantee program. This would be a disaster, because some people are, for various reasons, not employable and would actually represent a cost to their employer (engaging in destructive behavior on the job, doing drugs, etc.)

I would still totally support Bernie if he won the general, and he is the 2nd best in the primary pool as far as I know. But I think Warren is better.

I would prefer another republican but I suppose their all scared shitless after last time.

Gillibrand is a miss
Don't know Yang
don't know Kamala Harris well enough
Tulsi gabbard is a definite miss
dont know julian castro.

I don't know or want any of these candidates honestly. Politics.

Maybe I'll vote Libertarian... Again. Doesn't fucking matter who I vote for, I live in Portland.

Attached: archer.png (500x303, 87K)

You're clearly a shill of some kind or a pol fag stiring up trouble. Sick copypasta tho

It's a bold move cotton, let's see if it pays off.

I'm going to write in my dad because he's the only person I've ever seen successfully run anything in my life.

Can I write your dad in too? Mine is a deadbeat that hit my mom and ran away.

Also my mom kinda deserved it.

Attached: borntofeel.jpg (724x844, 110K)

Andrew Yang is interesting if not for that UBI shit, because that's never going to happen. I feel like he stands no chance just because of that.

I don't know man 'm reading over these candidates right now and I'm really like this Tulsi chick

Attached: Screen-shot-2014-06-03-at-8.05.05-AM.png (568x385, 98K)

>I don't know
yea you don't know jsut don't fucknig vote please for the love of god

rolling s ssd jh db joy gs wm kde GMC city

I don't vote because government is a sham.

Attached: pepecap.jpg (640x616, 35K)

>never voted and never will

why do you guys even bother? bi-partisan politics have fucked the country into a pointless loop, politics in general are pretty useless to practice in if all the power you have is a single vote among a sea of easily swayed retards and mongrels

Attached: 1545695179889.jpg (840x925, 316K)

>1. Warren identifies as a capitalist...Most of her ideas are very hard to argue against from a capitalist position without being disingenuous.

This is actually my core disagreement with her. I support market socialism over capitalism, i.e. the transition away from corporate hierarchies owned by outside shareholders and towards worker-owned businesses with profit-sharing and democratic decision-making (either directly or through leaders elected by the companies' workers) which compete with each other in a market economy (as opposed to traditional socialists who want the market mechanism abolished). While I support the kind of regulations Warren is pushing, I believe there's a limit to how much they can accomplish compared to worker-ownership, which I believe serves as a natural check on the excesses of capitalism such as monopolization and worker exploitation (for an example of this, compare the turnover rate of Publix, the largest worker co-op in America, to the retail industry average). I do quite like Warren's bill to require 40% of the Board of Directors of large companies be elected by their workers, but I don't feel it goes far enough. Bernie on the other hand has introduced bills to provide grants to worker co-ops and foster their growth, which is one of the reasons I prefer him.

you don't vote because you're retarded user

Ran out of space to address each point you made:

>For a lot of careers, college is a hoop corporations expect you to jump through to demonstrate your ability. If the public writes a blank check for college, then more corporations will be willing to force their employees to jump through those hoops, with no benefit to the employees.
I would argue it has more to do with eroding labor rights and automation destroying most unskilled labor positions while making the ones that remain too low-paying to live on. Likewise, I think the growth of worker-owned businesses will help counter this trend.

I do issues with the job guarantee bill myself, particularly that the descriptions of it that I've read make caring for the elderly/sick/disabled a core job option as though it's something anyone could do. I'd definitely like to see some changes to it.

Either way, I do like Warren overall. My feelings towards her as basically the same as yours towards Bernie.

theres an entire board for politics and you fucking annoying faggots keep posting this shit here. fuck. off.

IF NOBODY VOTES THERE'LL BE NO GOVERNMENT, BRING BACK THE OLD WAYS BROTHERS, I WANNA LIVE IN THE FOREST AND TRADE SALT AND GRAIN FOR OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES FOREVER

Attached: 1542783700405.png (158x179, 43K)

While I'm here, I'd also like to add that we're in a uniquely good position to foster the growth of worker co-ops: a lot of baby boomers who own small businesses are reaching retirement age with no-one to hand their businesses over to. If we funded programs which helped the owners sell them to their employees, we could keep a lot of small businesses alive.

Trump will win.
There will be an assassination attempted against him.
If it fails, no war for 4 more years.
If it succeeds, you will see a full scale land invasion of the United States before the end of 2021.

Attached: mask.gif (500x281, 495K)

>IF NOBODY VOTES THERE'LL BE NO GOVERNMENT
Something tells me that's not realistically how it would go down

This is 0 IQ thinking. Land invasion of America, even if every other nation on Earth grouped up together, would go about as smoothly as punching a bowl of glass shards, battery acid, and salt.

nobody voted before there was government you know.
it was people with money that wanted to impose rules that started it all