When will the US have its first SJW President?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well?

[Free Bird]

Muh wage gap

[Blue3]

Ronald Reagan

[Intell]

Obama borders on it but hopefully never.

[Mehmentum]

Presidents are coalition builders, not activists.  The SJW movement is almost necessarily an activist movement, seeking to shift what lies within the mainstream of the political spectrum.

In other words, the kind of person who's likely to be a SJW and the kind of person who's likely to be president are different.  In a scenario in which SJW views become mainstream, the self identified SJWs aren't as likely to become president as a bigger tent candidate who incorporates SJW views.

Anyway, at that point, I doubt most people who hold SJW views would call themselves SJWs.  Its quite possible that the term itself dies out, even if the movement lives on.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

*ahem*

Discuss with maps.

primary:

pat quinn 2751 delegates
hillary clinton 438 delegates

hillary clinton is so mad about being a loser again that she accepts the republican vp nomination

general election:

pat quinn/zoë quinn 538 EV*, 70% PV
jeb bush/hillary clinton 0 EV*, 29% PV
*all the gamergate creeps move to jokelahoma to try and win at least one state, but the electors decide to not be as awful as their voters.

(pat quinn resigns or dies a few years later)

[MATTROSE94]

Maybe Hillary Clinton?

[Mister Mets]

Social Justice Warriors wanted a woman to replace Andrew Jackson on the 20.

The Obama administration announced that a woman will be on the 10.

They're out SJWing the SJWs.

[bagelman]

Depends on what you mean by "SJW". Usually when I see the term it's referring to kids on tumblr who use terms like "cultural appropriation" and use custom pronouns. Such a person may eventually stand in 2032 at the earliest and they would lose for advocating legislated morality (under relatively neutral economic conditions).

A more broad definition of SJW may include Bernie Sanders, who claimed that the USA was originally founded on racist principles. See https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/ .

Problem is, a lot of SJWs in the first category oppose him for some reason. Frankly I think it's just because he's running against the potential first female president, not because of his stances on the issues. This is despite the fact that Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal centrist who is known to change her stances on the issues often. It makes sense that some democrats might support Clinton over Sanders because they might be more centrist, but when SJWs do the same their motive and arguments always feel more tribal.

Social Justice Warriors wanted a woman to replace Andrew Jackson on the 20.

The Obama administration announced that a woman will be on the 10.

They're out SJWing the SJWs.

Oh it's just so great that they're removing one of the founding fathers who made this country possible instead of a man of slaughtered native americans and opposed central banks in the first place.
 

[Figueira]

Presidents are coalition builders, not activists.  The SJW movement is almost necessarily an activist movement, seeking to shift what lies within the mainstream of the political spectrum.

In other words, the kind of person who's likely to be a SJW and the kind of person who's likely to be president are different.  In a scenario in which SJW views become mainstream, the self identified SJWs aren't as likely to become president as a bigger tent candidate who incorporates SJW views.

Anyway, at that point, I doubt most people who hold SJW views would call themselves SJWs.  Its quite possible that the term itself dies out, even if the movement lives on.

Nobody actually calls themselves an SJW except maybe BRTD. It's usually an insult towards people who aren't bigots. I'm often tempted to call myself one, but then I remember that people often don't understand the sarcasm that's built into the term.

As for the question, never, because "SJW" is a meaningless term.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Jonn Quincy Adams

[Mr. Illini]

Never, as SJWs are always outside of the mainstream of American politics. As the public comes around to their sentiments on certain issues, they move to other causes.

[TJ in Oregon]

Obama already is one, albeit a toned down one for the cameras.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Hopefully Never.

[ElectionsGuy]

Muh wage gap

Pretty much.

[RINO Tom]

See, this term confuses me.  I think the mistake a lot on the left make when saying things like abolishing slavery was "progressive" or "radical" or whatever is that it more or less equates "the left" of any issue in any given time period as the correct one, even if society isn't ready for it yet.  Sorry, but that's ridiculous.  For example, I would have ABSOLUTELY supported the infrastructure spending that was pushed by GOP Presidents such as Lincoln, Teddy and Eisenhower ... but that doesn't mean those were "liberal" things to do just because liberals support doing EVEN MORE than that today; that's absurd logic.  I think liberals' suggestions of increased public funding for things today have passed what is needed and sensible, so I no longer support "infrastructure" spending.  I really detest the revisionist application of the word "liberal."

So, I don't think "SJWs" existed in past times, honestly.  At least not in the BRTD fashion.  I understand SJWs to be people who are uncomfortable and restless unless they have a cause to complain about, therefore they will always find a new one, even when their just ones have already been accomplished and all that's left is pointless bull s _ it.  So, I hope never.

[smoltchanov]

Obama borders on it but hopefully never.

+1

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Jonn Quincy Adams

Interesting.  I see where you are going with this.  Being an outspoken abolitionist in the 1820's was indeed quite radical.  But he didn't really try to fundamentally change the system.

Actually, in a sort of extreme irony, maybe the arch-imperialist Teddy Roosevelt was the first? 

Lincoln is also a candidate, but considering he didn't come around until the country was ready to end slavery by force, he probably doesn't qualify.

I mainly say JQA because he notoriously alienated everybody he knew in his quest for progress, and ultimately failed.

[Extrabase500]

Obama already is one, albeit a toned down one for the cameras.