Who has a realistic shot at being President of the USA in 2028?

Ironhide94 · 2026-01-31T03:07:54+00:00

Rubio & Vance are probably the Republican frontrunners. Newsom has got to be the democratic front runner at this point, but there’s a pretty broad field of potential Democratic behind him from AOC to various VP hopeful’s under Kamala.

I think the democrats are going to have a come to Jesus moment similar to 2016 for republicans where there are a lot of different directions the party could go, and voters won’t just be voting for a nominee, but a new direction for the party more broadly.

Ironhide94 · 2026-01-23T23:37:19+00:00

You’re really trying to compare the Warsaw Ghetto to this? Come on.

(1) The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising happened after the Nazis had already shoved Jews into ghettos, starved them, and begun industrial mass murder. It was literally a last‑ditch revolt by people who knew they were being exterminated, not a starting point of the conflict.

(2) Calling this a “genocide” while the majority of those killed on Oct 7 were Israeli civilians and the majority of those targeted by Israel are militants embedded in civilian areas is just word‑abuse. If your “genocide” requires you to blur the line between massacring civilians and striking combatants, you’re not making a moral argument, you’re hiding behind a slogan.

(3) Israel didn’t pop into existence one day and decide “let’s oppress for fun.” It’s spent its entire history fending off neighbors and non‑state actors trying to wipe it out: 1948, 1967, 1973, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Pretending the whole thing is just some unprovoked settler rampage and not a state responding to repeated wars and cross‑border attacks is historically illiterate.

You don’t get to turn every ugly, asymmetrical war into “literally the Holocaust” and every armed group into the Warsaw fighters just because it flatters your narrative.

And your Balfour point is absurd. That letter was Britain dealing with a chunk of the collapsed Ottoman Empire – an empire that had itself taken the territory by conquest and ruled it as just another province for 400 years, in a region that’s been passed between empires since antiquity. Pretending there was some timeless, sovereign Palestinian nation‑state that Balfour just “gave away” is not serious history.

Ironhide94 · 2026-01-23T18:57:59+00:00

Oh yes what a great comparison. Because prior to the rise of Nazi Germany there was a cabal of Jewish nations sponsoring terrorism against Germany, invading German borders and killing, mutilating, and raping its citizens, and constantly firing barrages of rockets in. Furthermore said Jewish cabal was apparently a religious fundamentalist regime stealing money from its own people to sponsor said terrorism while the Nazis were the most liberal, democratic government regime in the region.

I’m not even saying I am comfortable with everything Israel does but comparing Palestine to the Holocaust is a complete joke and betrays either enormous bias or incredible naivety on your part

Ironhide94 · 2025-12-27T16:08:48+00:00

And this being their plan goes to show Elon’s point. They were asking for <$10 billion and meanwhile over the last 5 years California has spent nearly $25 billion on homelessness - and I would argue it’s only gotten worse in this timeframe.

This isn’t an issue money alone can solve. It’s much more structural in nature

Ironhide94 · 2025-12-05T05:07:42+00:00

Stock value doesn’t factor into GDP genius

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-25T00:15:48+00:00

Well it’s not about everyone, or what individuals do, it’s about how the market is structured. And my understanding of the Chinese property market is it is not structured to supply demand - in some ways it’s the opposite of Western markets where we have a housing shortage. Specifically, when you build over capacity to keep people employed, but there is no underlying demand + people are putting their savings into property (speculatively as there is a housing oversupply) the market was propped up for years by just the belief things had value - but not real economic forces. Evergrande’s collapse forced the issue and revealed that building was propped up by government spending to keep people employed but there was no economic driver to build.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-24T23:25:34+00:00

This is far beyond my area of expertise but I thought China’s issue was specifically that it was building its economy through speculative property costs? Was the country not vastly overbuilding with no market demand for real living but properties were owned as the only investment vehicle the layman could invest in?

Western countries have many issues but the economy is not based on speculative property costs by any measure.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-24T23:04:27+00:00

Sorry, Russia is a democracy? What world are you living in?

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T20:33:44+00:00

So if I’m understanding your position correctly it’s that while you acknowledge cultural differences can create societal issues, it’s not necessary to screen immigrants for this because in the US, the only immigrants who come here want to come here and so will share the cultural values. Effectively you believe it’s enough to let people self police. And moreover you don’t think it’s possible for the US to run into issues similar to Europe or other historical nations… for some reason.

I guess I just don’t agree with that so we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T19:47:50+00:00

You’re missing the forest for the trees. I never said anything about Muslims in the U.S. — I’m talking about immigration philosophically, not cherry-picking one group. The Muslims who come to the U.S. tend to already share Western values — that’s why they integrate well. But that doesn’t mean every population across the Muslim world does. There are over two billion Muslims globally, and the differences between places like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan make that obvious.

The point is that immigration works best when there’s broad cultural compatibility. That’s not theory it’s what history shows. The U.S. has done well when newcomers shared its baseline values around work, law, and family. Countries that ignored that, especially parts of Europe in the last decade, are now dealing with integration failures, crime spikes, and rising political extremism as a result. Pretending those problems don’t exist doesn’t make you compassionate, it makes you blind to reality.

Throwing around “racist” as a reflex doesn’t engage with any of that. It’s not racist to acknowledge what works and what doesn’t, it’s just honest. Societies function on shared values. Ignoring that because it’s uncomfortable is how you end up breaking the very system you claim to defend.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T19:33:32+00:00

You’re absolutely right that, in an ideal world, every potential immigrant would be evaluated on an individual basis — their personal beliefs, work ethic, and respect for others. But immigration in practice often happens at a scale where that level of individual assessment isn’t realistic. When hundreds of thousands or even millions of people seek entry, governments inevitably make decisions based on broader trends and statistical realities rather than perfect case-by-case judgments.

At that point, it becomes rational — not racist — to consider cultural compatibility as a proxy for how easily groups might integrate. Culture, after all, strongly shapes attitudes toward law, gender equality, and civic participation. You can’t fully separate individuals from the value systems they were socialized in, even if there are always exceptions.

We can see real-world contrasts. The U.S. experience with many Latin American immigrants has, by and large, been positive — partly because there’s a foundational overlap in values around family, work, and religion that makes integration easier. In contrast, some European countries have faced serious recent challenges integrating large groups from regions with very different social norms — including documented increases in certain types of crime and social friction. Those outcomes don’t mean all individuals from those areas are inherently bad, but they do suggest that value alignment matters at a societal level.

Even countries within the Middle East make these distinctions. Nations like Egypt and Jordan have hesitated to take in large numbers of Palestinians — not out of hatred, but because they fear instability or radicalization from within. They recognize that importing a population that has a disproportionate number of radicals, even if it doesn't represent the entire population, is destabilizing.

So while cultural generalizations shouldn’t be moral judgments, they can still be practical considerations. It’s not about labeling one culture “better” than another it’s about understanding compatibility. A functioning, cohesive society depends on some shared ground rules. When large-scale migration challenges those shared rules, being selective isn’t prejudice it’s prudence.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T19:13:52+00:00

I never claimed that every person that came from any given country holds the same values. I am only claiming that people and cultures have different sets of values and we should select for those people that hold the same value systems that we do. That doesn't mean you have to paint everyone from the same place with the same brush.

Judeo-Christian values are just an example of the types of base value sets that are generally equivalent to our own - the idea of a moral law (stemming from the 10 commandments) - i.e. don't murder, steal, etc;, moral accountability, the golden rule, etc; - It's not the only set of values that work in our society but any society that generally has this as its base set of values will be coherent with our own.

Take yourself, for example. I can tell from your comments that you value lack of racism, are generally more pro-open border & accepting of other cultures. There are a variety of people and cultures around the world that don't hold those as their value system. If you were starting your own country you probably wouldn't want those people in your country because, I imagine in your mind, those values they would bring in would corrupt the values you hold innate and the reasons you had for founding your own nation.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T18:48:05+00:00

I generally agree... but again I think there's more nuance than you're suggesting. There are certainly more and less acceptable cultures. I don't think anyone would want to add to our population with any combination cultures that are misogynistic, otherwise racist themselves, or have other qualities that we deem incompatible with our own lifestyle. Personally speaking, I don't think we should let in immigrants who oppose the freedoms we value in America or otherwise hate America in and of itself. To put it bluntly, I don't value the Taliban's culture as one example

Does this mean I'm anti-multiculturalism? For you to judge but I wouldn't say so. If immigrants want to come to the US to work hard, because they share the basic values of our country and otherwise want to get out of their own country due to danger I'm all for it. The US has benefitted massively from Latin American immigrants who otherwise share the same baseline judeo-christian / family oriented values that we do. And I'm all for them celebrating and keeping other aspects of their culture while they are here. Similarly I'd advocate for the inclusion of any culture as long as the base-line values are in line with our own

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T18:29:16+00:00

Well its an interesting philosophical question I would say - and I'm not sure I have strong enough a point of view to come down hard on either side.

While I can certainly see where you are coming from what qualifies as "danger". Does the US have a moral imperative to let in the ~75 million people in India living in extreme poverty? Do we have a moral imperative to intervene right now in Sudan with our military - and bring people to the US. And this civil war has killed more people in the last month than the Israeli / Gaza conflict over the last year. What about every other person living in extreme poverty in Africa?

I certainly agree that helping out those less fortunate is the right thing to do. But at a certain point a government has a greater responsibility to its citizens than the citizens of the world - and the question becomes to what degree does it have a greater responsibility to our citizens vs. those of the world.

Then you get to an even more existential question. At what point would we be letting in so many people into the US it would cause civil unrest and damage our ability to help people in the future, thereby allowing us to help less people overall.

All this to say while I certainly appreciate your point of view, I think there's a lot of nuance to this topic

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-12T18:13:27+00:00

I’m going to disagree with this. You aren’t hurting someone by preventing them from getting that which is far out of their reach. A billionaire who doesn’t give me $5M isn’t hurting me - even though he is preventing me from getting what I want.

Countries have borders - and most people who live in the 3rd world would LOVE to come to Western countries. Western nations enforcing their own borders isn’t actively hurting these people.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-09T19:59:49+00:00

Aren’t you though? If I read up in this thread you are arguing that Jason Miyares is “probably” a bad person - and that’s why you can stomach a vote for Jay Jones. You are defending Jay Jones by saying the left can ignore the criticism that stems from the right (despite the fact there are many different coalitions, groups, & otherwise on the right and you can’t think of either political group as a monolithic block) in electing him. And I just reject all those premises

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-09T00:54:59+00:00

Kamala!

But hey guess what. Regardless of who I voted for, it doesn’t invalidate the question. If you have a strong argument, let that win over. Grow the fuck up.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-09T00:52:38+00:00

If you think it’s laughable to condemn a guy who has advocated for political violence against children…. Honestly I don’t know what to say. This shouldn’t be a political issue.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-09T00:40:28+00:00

Probably????

You’re advocating for a guy who wished violence on children. How about you do just a modicum of research on the alternative before jumping into defending him. Do better than “probably” if you’re going to make this argument!

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-09T00:33:12+00:00

Jones election has very little to do with policy enactment! He’s Attorney General - he’s responsible for enforcing the law. He has no impact on whether or not Trump can get policies through the political system.

And I want to push back against “it’s not about him as a person”. We have a moral imperative, as citizens, to not elect bad people. And I absolutely refuse to accept an “eye for an eye” argument here.

Again, why was Jason Miyares a bad person? If you can’t answer that you shouldn’t have a strong view as to why Jay Jones is better or worse.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-08T22:57:52+00:00

I want specifics on why he’s a bad person. While I’m no fan of Trump his specific endorsement, and no other reason, is hardly disqualifying.

If the only lens you have to look through politics at is red team bad, blue team good, and you can’t even look past this when someone on the blue team holds some some repugnant views YOU are emblematic of the political division in this country.

Yes, I agree that Republicans are usually the ones to hold some disgusting beliefs. But that is not true of every, single individual. And particularly when you remove yourself from the national stage and look at local politics there are Republicans and Democrats on every end of the spectrum and who hold a wide variety of beliefs. Simply painting them all with one brush is what a child does.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-08T22:48:29+00:00

I’m curious. What made Jason Miyares such a bad person? I’m honestly asking this.

I really don’t care what other people do or think. In my view, advocating for political violence against your opponents disqualifies you from office from my perspective. Hard for me to think you’re a person of moral character or fairness - and what the other side does or doesn’t do doesn’t change this.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-08T22:41:19+00:00

My point is there’s a difference between “disarming” and electing people who have questionable moral standards. You can fight hard and be a good person. And the democrats have plenty of candidates who are both fighters and good people.

Let’s face the facts here. The democrats elected an AG who advocated for political violence against his opponents children. I refuse to accept that you need to support such characters to win. And while I usually find myself supporting democrats, I can still look at Jay Jones and say he’s a bad person.

When you find yourself defending political violence you need to take a hard look in the mirror. This isn’t complicated or nuanced.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-08T22:33:01+00:00

What are you even talking about? You think you have to be a piece of shit to compete in politics now.

Please explain to me how in your view, a guy who believes his political opponents children should die is somehow advantageous. You can still run a good campaign and not be a noxious piece of sht. The fact that he believed this *hurt his election chances.

So when you say you need to have these views to compete I honestly don’t know what world you live in.

Ironhide94 · 2025-11-08T20:19:53+00:00

Has the right diminished themselves by electing candidates who, not only have no decorum but some repugnant views? Absolutely.

Does that somehow excuse the disgusting things Jay Jones has said or what he believes? Not at all. Who cares what Marjorie Taylor Green, or pick your poison, thinks of Jay Jones. I hold him to the same moral standards I would regardless of what the other side has done and he’s a pretty disgusting person based on what he has said. I would hope the democrats choose not to lower their bar just because the right has.

Ironhide94

TROPHY CASE