So the Manafort thing had nothing to do with principles.

Whatever. We don't have to guillotine all these people, but we don't have to make them POTUS either.

And "everyone" deserves a good defense is different than "every corporation" deserves a good defense. I know that's muddy legally, but I mean in reality.

Manafort is evil in my book but that's not why I wouldn't defend him.

Is that a “partisan belief” of yours?

No. I think he is just objectively evil. If that belief is partisan on its face, then I guess it is partisan.

Manafort just believes that other countries deserve representation and that it's ok whoever they are or whatever they've done as long as he gets paid a lot. Or is it wrong to represent some faction in The Ukraine because of something they do, but no matter what United Fruit is ok?

I guess the distinction there is that he BROKE THE LAW! That's the way lawyers think. Rule of law is holy and all.

Manafort would have been fine if he reported whatever he did. Nothing illegal = nothing immoral.

grizy, is it possible to do something that's illegal and good?

Oh well that's OK then.

Biglaw is where Howard Schultz’s 1% support comes from, it’s the “we’re amoral rich people who want to appear to care about something other than ourselves while sacrificing less than nothing” demographic.

As has been pointed out many times, you don't win moderates by endorsing "moderate" positions. People who are moderate don't actually hold wishy washy centristy positions. They hold "extreme" positions on both sides.

To counter this a bit, though, I've been thinking about labels lately in light of that WSJ poll and that WaPo article about AOC. The comments to the AOC article, in particular, made my eyes bug out. People were so eager to believe the AOC = unreasonable extremist thing that the most liked comments were all to the effect of "I'm a MODERATE Democrat and AOC needs to stand back and learn something from Nancy Pelosi!!!"... even though the article was literally about how Pelosi was siding with AOC.

So, yeah, I think it's true that people care at least somewhat about what a candidate represents from an ideological standpoint, even if they agree with the actual policies. There are still a LOT of people on the left who like to think of themselves as reasonable chin-stroking moderates -- the West Wing type that we talk about here so often. We like to think everyone carefully considers policy and then votes based on that, but they don't. People rely heavily on symbolism and cues from the media.

So I think the key is to (a) go for bold progressive ideas whenever possible, since moderates don't actually want moderate policies while (b) also avoiding extremist labels like sOcIaLisT.

If people under your quotes will tend to support Schultz than he will get way more than 1% support.

Lotta generalizations going on that would truly and rightfully upset people if they were applied to other groups of people.

i donated a dollar to Yang's campaign. Would be cool to see someone talking about UBI on the debate stage

Huh? You know people, at least wealthy people, get to choose their jobs.

If talking about UBI was a good idea, Bernie would be the first to know. But UBI is kinda like masturbating. It's fine to do it, but you don't talk about it during your job interview.

I think it's good to stick to the narrative that the rich are stealing from the rest of us. You don't want to take too much focus away from healthcare, raising the minimum wage, etc.

I agree with all of this, and I agree that mentioning UBI is a huge mistake for anyone seriously considering being the dem nominee. That's why Yang is perfect because he can get on the opening debate stage and mention it to a wide audience in his opening/closing statement

Inslee sounds pretty good.

I like Yang's ideas and think he's a smart guy, but it takes more than that to run a successful campaign and we have no clue how he performs on the trail. I don't want to roll the dice on someone who's never been elected to anything before.

hating Trump doesn't make you a good person.

me either. or are you saying that getting Yang on the debate stage is a risk because he could actually win the dem nomination? I hadn't really considered that a possibility at all, i'm pretty sure he might actually lose to Trump. I literally only donated the $1 because i think it'd be cool to see him make the first debate, which requires a donation from 65,000 diff people

I've donated $5 to every single one. For exactly this reason. I want to hear them all, not just the ones the media anoints as "worthy"

i dig it

How do you feel about the fact that your perception of lawyers is rooted in anti-Semitism propagated by others?

It is a very common trope--rich, Jewish lawyer who only cares about money.

I think this is especially the case because many rich "liberal" people hate Trump not because he is hateful and destructive and fundamentally evil, but rather they hate that he is undermining their narrative that the country is a meritocracy where the people with wealth and power have it because they are smart or hard working, or just generally deserving.

Jeff Merkley decides not to run. I'm disappointed, but it at least saves Trolly from having to update the spreadsheet again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d15_story.html