Pros: Inspirational, informed, closer to enlightenment than the rest of us.
Cons: We don’t need another cult leader as a President. Also, she’s a bit of a war monger. Yes, that’s what I said. She wants a Dept. of Peace but believes we should have invaded several countries that we didn’t. This includes Syria, which she thinks we should have bombed for semantic reasons (President Obama said the words ‘red line’). She also talks about how to manipulate the public into supporting wars she likes (show them pics of children dying, etc.).
Pro: Probably the smartest person ever to run for president (an actual ‘stable genius’ haha)
Con: Believes that incarcerated people should be stripped of their right to vote, a bizarrely Ill-informed position for the smartest candidate in history.
Cons: In the history of his 20 or so attempts to run for president, only about 14 people have ever voted for him. Reputed to be a foreign policy genius but has some pretty moronic ideas, like dividing Iraq up by ethnicity. Voted to invade Iraq even though the entire world knew it was wrong. How a person acts in the future is generally predicted by how they’ve acted in the past.
Pro: She was so great in the Bill Barr hearing on Capital Hill that she made us all want her to run for President.
Con: Although she’s done a decent job of explaining away some of her troubling record as a prosecutor, saying that she hadn’t anticipated how her efforts would be enforced in different districts, it’s still a troubling record, including incarcerating the low-income parents of habitually truant students.
Pros: He was basically a super hero as Mayor of Newark – rescuing disabled puppies from Nazis, or something like that (I don’t have time to look up the details). He’s taken a leading role in the Senate on important issues like criminal justice reform.
Con: He’s a bit too much into the rhetoric of working with Republicans, like they will suddenly become reasonable and un-obstructionist when the second Black president is elected.
Pros: Contrary to media portrayal, she is not an incrementalist – her policies are progressive and detailed, things like family leave, minimum wage, workers on corporate boards…. She’s the only candidate to substantially move beyond slogans to present actual plans.
Cons: She sometimes speaks in tired, old political clichés, sounding like every Democratic candidate who’s given a speech in the past 50 years. And, of course, the pretending to be Native American thing.
Pros: Consistent, lifelong principles and advocacy. Authentic; refuses to comb his hair.
Cons: His rhetoric tends toward the superficial, with oft-repeated catch phrases, like “political revolution,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “the 1%” etc., without presenting compelling underlying arguments.
Pros: His positions are unambiguously the most progressive of the candidates. He’s really into peace and freedom.
Con: He appears to be insane.
Pros: Excels at getting legislation passed.
Cons: Apparently oppressive toward her staff. She seems to be onboard with the CIA torturing people. She was instrumental in allowing schools to count pizza sauce as a “vegetable,’ in order to protect the frozen pizza industry. She has a mixed record on military interventionism.
Pros: Humanizes immigration. Seems pretty pro-peace on foreign policy.
Cons: His Vanity Fair cover piece revealed him to be somewhat of a doofus.
Pros: Wants to make the first two years of higher education free.
Cons: Only wants the first two years of higher education to be free.
Pros: He has the best politics, the best arguments for his politics. He came up with the Dept. of Peace. All of the progressive positions that are now mainstreamed by the Democrats running for President were things he advocated and was ridiculed for in 2004 and 2008.
Con: He’s not running for President.
So many candidates…. I have to take a break! I’ll be back to add the others, if they don’t drop out by then.
Click here to go somewhere else: