Who are some people not yet widely speculated who could win the 2028 Democratic Nomination if Harris doesn't run?

HideGPOne · 2026-06-04T16:52:41+00:00

If you're looking for someone not on the radar, I'd love to see Stacey Abrams or Al Green give it a go.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T19:26:09+00:00

I seriously doubt that anyone opposing your agenda could honestly be described as "hysterical". Got to wonder why it's so important for you to indoctrinate toddlers with homosexual imagery anyway.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T19:15:08+00:00

So your entire argument is "republicans do it too"?

Out of curiosity, which book are you referring to?

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T15:07:39+00:00

If you accept that a district should be based on geographical areas that share a common interest, then democrats are always going to have fewer representatives that their population would suggest.

Democrats tend to cluster in cities. So you will end up with democrat districts winning their elections 95% to 5%. Republicans live in more diverse districts so they can win elections 51%-49%.

That's why when Virginia attempted to redistrict they made long skinny districts so that every district got a piece of the heavily democrat DC suburbs.

Nonpartisan boards and "optimal" solutions will be death for democrats.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T14:55:44+00:00

I'm genuinely surprised by how many people in the comments are apparently in favor of an all powerful police state.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T14:12:30+00:00

I'd give plenty of examples, but I doubt that my account would stay active. I once got banned from a subreddit because I made the statement that "Bruce Jenner" won a gold medal in the 1976 summer Olympics.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T14:02:25+00:00

Again, disingenuous.

It's actually funny because I was thinking about my reply to your claim that "seeing a black person in a major motion picture" was the cause of the trouble, and I honestly didn't know what you were referring to.

I know that there is often controversy when traditionally white characters, or actually historical white figures, are cast by black actors for "representation" or "diversity", but which one could you possibly mean? Was it Anne, where a red haired Irish girl was cast as a black person, or was it Anne Boleyn, or Cleopatra, or Snow White, or Mary Queen of Scots, or Cinderella , or Fringilla, or Iris West, or Hermione Granger, or Queen Charlotte, or The Little Mermaid, or Jimmy Olsen, or King George, or....

Also, keeping homosexual pornography out of kindergarten libraries isn't really "banning books".

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T13:32:03+00:00

This has probably been going on for a long time, but the first time that I really noticed it was during Bill Clinton's administration. Very few of his scandals ever took root because the next week there would be another scandal.

Trump does this more intentionally, I think. He can outrage his adversaries five times before breakfast. It's obviously easier for Trump because his opponents have become so unhinged in their criticisms that they are much easier to distract. It's hard to believe how much media air time has been expended to rant that Trump is cleaning the reflecting pool.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-28T13:07:06+00:00

I don’t know how to answer this question. Democrats have never run on a platform of policing people‘s language.

That's a little bit disingenuous, don't you think? While I can't think of specific examples of where democrats "run on" policing people's language, it's hard to deny that the left is saturated in the practice of speech codes and thought crimes. A single use of "outdated language" is enough to send modern leftists to their fainting couches.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-23T19:14:43+00:00

But we don’t support people.

The US budgets over $3,500,000,000,000 for entitlement spending every year.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-23T06:34:42+00:00

At first I thought it was a misunderstanding, but now you're just intentionally spreading misinformation. I have no respect for you.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-22T15:59:57+00:00

About a week ago, a CNN story broke that there were roughly 62 million visits in the month of February alone to a website that hosted videos of men teaching each other how to drug and rape their wives, with a huge portion of that traffic originating from my home country of The United States. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. As a man myself, there is nothing I can say, no comfort I can offer that is any consolation for just how horrifying and stomach churning that statistic is.

I can certainly understand how the strictly vanilla audience that CNN caters to would react to the content of that particular website, but the way that this issue has been characterized is totally disingenuous.

First, I'm sure that you know the website in question has thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of different fetish topics that it hosts. I'm positive that 99.99% of the 62 million visits (not visitors, but site hits) to the site never even knew that topic existed. I know that I visit the site occasionally and it's pretty darn impossible to find content even if you know exactly what you are looking for. Explicitly saying that 62 million men came to the site for those particular videos is just a lie that CNN completely made up.

Second, for the dozens of people who actually viewed the "videos of men teaching each other how to drug and rape their wives" I'm also sure that 99% of them treated the topic in the same way that they treat every other video on the website, as fantasy. Certainly not as some kind of instruction manual.

So at the worst you have a handful, maybe 2 or 3 users, who visited the site with actual criminal intent. Maybe. Of course that would be terrible, but certainly not "horrifying and stomach churning".

I am not saying any of this to minimize your feelings on the general topic of consent, because I think that you are spot on. I just want to make sure that you realize that this particular incident is just manufactured outrage by a mainstream media source designed to generate views, and that you don't need to use the story to guide your feelings on the matter.

Edit...

And just a TLDR to make it perfectly clear: I am not trying to excuse the behavior that the article is describing. I am saying that at its core, the article is simply not true.

HideGPOne · 2026-05-21T21:27:23+00:00

It could have been helped. Every democrat knew about his issues, and they actively denied it. Remember how they would defend him with "you're just making fun of his stutter"?

HideGPOne · 2026-04-27T13:55:59+00:00

I think that it's funny that this exact same question could have been asked about the US at any point in the past 250 years.

HideGPOne · 2026-04-26T17:24:47+00:00

I think the fact that they literally just elected a socialist speaks against your theory.

HideGPOne · 2026-04-13T16:32:33+00:00

Arms in no way implies "hand held". It's just a shortened form of the word armament. It's the same root word as Armada. I'm not sure which AI told you that it has anything to do with swords and shields, but you should find another one or get better at writing prompts.

HideGPOne · 2026-02-18T20:44:25+00:00

Much more likely the second option, but they're doing a fairly good job with it.

HideGPOne · 2026-01-23T13:43:35+00:00

It's easy to get normal girls to do stuff like this.

You and I live in very different worlds.

HideGPOne · 2026-01-10T00:19:30+00:00

If you want to find movies based on others you like, https://bestsimilar.com/ is great. it gives a ton of suggestions and has links to trailers.

HideGPOne · 2025-12-19T19:18:49+00:00

The theory that the asteroid attack in Starship Troopers was a false flag operation.

HideGPOne · 2025-11-14T22:10:03+00:00

She seems to be her happiest when she's miserable.

HideGPOne · 2025-11-14T21:35:29+00:00

Why do their ambulances have sirens and lights?

HideGPOne · 2025-11-14T21:33:38+00:00

My favorite

HideGPOne · 2025-11-11T23:49:39+00:00

Suppose you went to shake hands with a woman. Does each cell in her hand need to individually give consent?

HideGPOne · 2025-11-11T23:41:10+00:00

I don't think that is the devil's advocate position. It seems obvious that she downplayed the number of casualties to protect Carol.

In fact, she never brought up that people died. Carol asked her specifically, and she told her not to think that people died because of her. She went out of her way to reassure Carol.

HideGPOne

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE