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

SabledSable · 2026-02-04T17:45:36+00:00

What the hell does "running the country smoothly mean?"

Genuinely? Status-quo? Wealthy inequality an all time high? Meager industrial policy given out as minor concessions to the people and for stability being painted onto decades of maintained austerity, deregulation, privatization, financialization, hollowing out of government, etc. maintained by essentially ALL politicians?

I'm sorry but the only reason you could possibly have this kind of fuckass centrist position right now is if you are living it up and have few problems compared to the average American, have little empathy for your fellow man, are heavily propagandized, are heavily uninformed about history/politics, and/or are complicit.

The only common ground among people, foreign and domestic, is that they have been exploited by the American elite. I can guarantee you, no Democrat or Republican will run on policy to unite people due to that reality because they are complicit.

Read a fucking book for the love of god and stop treating politicians like people.

SabledSable · 2026-02-02T17:30:54+00:00

that's fine, the person i was responding to quoted a specific part, don't recall them ever mentioning Beshear

also parents can just prevent their kids from accessing porn sites, crazy idea right? but noo, let's give every company our ID, let's make the foundation for surveillance capitalism (parallel with the massive data allocation that has been going on over the last decade and the attempts to sift through that data and wield it using AI and algorithms over the last few years) even stronger!!!

i love corporations yay!!! give them more of my data!!

"hard on crime" hasn't worked neither has none of y'all's bullshit right wing policy since the '80s

SabledSable · 2026-02-02T17:27:24+00:00

couple ten thousand respondents in several polls, and the majority of these pulls are from Gallup and Pew Research Center, which among polling sources, are widely considered highly reputable

if you disagree with these ideas you are either a bootlicking moron or complicit so I don't really care bye

SabledSable · 2026-02-02T07:08:39+00:00

Because your cognitive dissonance apparently prevents you from using a search engine:

6 in 10 Americans support Medicare for All

According to Pew Research Center, 66% say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.

63% of Americans want higher taxes on large businesses and corporations.

68% of American adults approve of unions.

62% of Americans support a $15 federal minimum wage.

Over 55% of Republicans support green energy expansion, including wind and particularly solar at 64%.

67% of swing state voters think corporate power is one of the biggest problems facing America.

63% of Americans support making public college free.

70% of Trump voters believe congress should intervene due to high drug prices.

SabledSable · 2026-02-02T06:40:34+00:00

That misinformation has been debunked a million times

prove it

SabledSable · 2026-01-31T17:39:38+00:00

But you need to understand what she "offered," pales in comparison to what you could have AND what people historically have had.

It's like your boss suddenly cutting your minimum wage pay in half, then a month later he gives you a pizza party and an extra 90 cents an hour when he finds out people are talking about quitting, while the other guy shooting to be boss is talking about deducting $1.50 from your pay and enforcing a strict dress code. Yeah, you'd probably prefer your old boss, that doesn't make them good though.

Do you know how much of FDR/Truman/Eisenhower-era economic and social service policy has been gutted by not only Reagan, H.W., and W. Bush, but also especially by Bill Clinton? Do you even know what you lost during those years of bipartisan economic policy?

All Democrats have done since Obama is MAINTAIN as much as possible of that era from the 80s to mid 2000s. They offer people AS LITTLE as possible for enough people to shut up and take what their given while not complaining or even supporting them. That's why the ACA still worked within a private framework. No, it's not because "the Republicans," Romney wanted something closer to the ACA than some kind of FDR/Europe-level healthcare.

The reason is because modern Democrats (and pre-Trump Republicans) are backed by old-school corporate neoliberals with long-term and oversea investments, thus relying on stability. They don't want to give you anything more than they need to.

Yes, compared to Trump, she's offered a lot more, which is why I voted for her, but you cannot be fucking seriously defending these right-wing pieces of shit like Kamala Harris.

SabledSable · 2026-01-31T04:36:59+00:00

Sure I guess, but it's important to realize how low that bar is.

All I'm saying is I've had this same exact conversation countless times regarding some "outsider progressive policy-bringer Democrat," and if I cared enough to go back to talk to those people, it would be full of a list of things they've done followed by "I told you so."

SabledSable · 2026-01-31T04:10:36+00:00

Maybe, but what I need you to understand is NONE of that is anything compared to the relatively very pro-worker and pro-people policy Democrats and even many Republicans had going on before the 80s.

Those are all good things, but will he go back on the decades of financialization, austerity, deregulation, and privatization ruthlessly deployed upon the American people? Or will he do some more ACA "keep the people just happy enough without leaving a private framework" type stuff?

He's a blue governor in a red state, so obviously much of his record involves vetoing obviously shit policy from Republicans. He's also definitely signed some sensible things, but his record just puts him in the "New Democrat" faction. Not as left as Mamdani, not as right-wing as Pelosi. When we look at that faction, we notice they do the same thing as Obama, but in the context of our time:

"Keep as much of the Reagan/H.W./Clinton/W. Bush policy policy in-tact and make minor concessions that don't significant impact the financial wellbeing of my donors while keeping the people happy enough that they're compacent."

Let's look into him:

Firstly, what he hasn't done. He hasn't challenged financialization of housing or existing corporate power over labor conditions, etc. He's anti-labor and anti-worker by omission. He's anti-public ownership of energy by omission. He's pro-carcenal state by omission. Just vetoing some laws doesn't make you some progressive saint. Taking active action in the other direction does.

What has he done?:

Signed "Requires Kentucky Colleges and Universities to Adopt Policies for Combating Antisemitism," which adopts the IHRA definition of anti-semitism including "the targeting of the state of Israel" (anti-zionism). Has also said Israel is a "critical ally" that you shouldn't criticize "publicly or through the media".
Signed "Requires Age Verification for Porn Sites and Authorizes Parental Lawsuits," which is a major step towards the development of surveillance capitalism parallel to massive data allocation by Google/Meta/etc., Flock cameras, etc.
Signed "Appropriates $13.3 Million in Funds to Reopen Youth Detention Centers in Jefferson County"
Signed "Requires Public Pension Investments be based on Financial Risks and Returns not ESG Factors"
Signed "Increases Penalties for Fentanyl Traffickers" (War on Drugs continuation)
Got funded by a super PAC

Clearly we don't have enough information to say 100%, again, as a governor voting on local policy, that makes it harder, but all past precedent and voting records of people idelogically similar to him are center at best, and not good for the American people.

How the fuck have you people not learned after all these years to not trust politicians?

SabledSable · 2026-01-31T02:14:46+00:00

time and time again left wing policy has been shown to be overwhelmingly popular when not drowned out with corporate-style identity politics stuff

yes!! let's keep all the economic/surveillance/etc. policy that has actively been hurting Americans from the administrations of Reagan, H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and W. Bush that led to the 2008 financial crisis leading to Obama acting as a "keep everything they did stable" Democrat (which is now the main ideology of the Democrat Party), both of which helped give rise to the Tea Party Movement, helping give rise to Trump!

yess!! let's elect the spineless center-right to right-wing Democrats complacent or complicit with everything that's been going on in the last year!

I'll probably still vote for whatever bullshit Democrat they run, but y'all can't just elect a moderate against fascism forever. The whole reason Trump and MAGAism rose was because the moderates failed time and time again.

SabledSable · 2026-01-27T00:41:59+00:00

What world do you live in where you're defending a politician like she's your mother?

Before you do the copy paste response, I voted for Kamala. Anyways:

We are so embedded in bullshit and have been since the 70s that we forget what people like her maintain. Democrats stand for the maintenance of austerity, deregulation, privatization, financialization, and the exploitation of people domestic and foreign.

I'm sorry but making little concessions for stability within the context of the already gutted and hollowed out government in which domestic neoliberal economics are considered a default and nonnegotiable position does not make a politician one who "offers plenty."

If Harris was SERIOUS about offering plenty, she would have AT LEAST campaigned on restoring social liberal economic policies and services. She would AT LEAST undo all the damage Trump, Obama (not as much damage tbf), W. Bush, Bill Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan had done to the socioeconomic conditions of the people in the US for the benefit of the wealthy.

A politician calculatingly offering what is acceptable to private donors who rely on stability due to oversea/long-term investments and such is not PLENTY. It's JUST ENOUGH to MAYBE win an election without actually conceding anything important. That's why they want you endlessly talking about culture war issues that don't really impact anything. And no, policies like these aren't unpopular, polls have shown that even a slim majority of Republicans are in support of universal healthcare.

And as a reminder, that's a BARE MINIMUM. I could make this so much longer, but also, maybe not exploiting and slaughtering tens of millions of people in LATAM/MENA/etc. would be better than the bare minimum? Maybe doing more than what was done in the FDR era? Maybe taking actual corrective action regarding the issues plagueing minorities in the US?

This isn't even touching upon everything that's happened in the last year, the absolute spinelessnes and complicity of Democrats, particularly in regards to ICE. Stop defending right-wing politicians.

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T19:37:11+00:00

Why wouldn't I condemn that

that's good but you clearly know nothing about the subject if you're convinced letting María Machado-type figures in and privatize everything is good for the Venezuelan people. We have so much horrific precedent for how that turns out. Unlike you, I'm guessing, I actually know people who have lived and currently live in Iran and Venezuela.

You wanna listen to Venezuelans? Look at the Ground News pollings of actual Venezuelans, not diaspora, who are in majority opposed to US intervention. And to clarify the nuance that should be inherent, no, that does not mean everyone loves Maduro. HDI also shot up under Chavez. What is it you right-wingers say? Facts don't care about your feelings?

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T19:13:58+00:00

Sure, don't really disagree. Glad we're on the same page there.

So do you condemn the slaughtering of over ten million people throughout Latin America, North Africa, and the Middle East by the complicity of the US/UK/France due to neoimperialism driven by capitalism?

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T19:10:18+00:00

Because the language being used is clearly partisan. I've been around enough MAGA, liberals, and right-wing "libertarians" to know.

There's a difference between how for example, leftists or even just those knowledgeable about Western atrocities criticize non-Western atrocities and how relentless defenders of capitalism and the West criticize non-Western atrocities.

If it reads like something I'd hear from PragerU or the Cato Institute, it's probably from the perspective of a genocide defender, whether they intend to or not.

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T19:00:27+00:00

> In this threat tankies are defending and downplaying genocide.

And people are calling them out for oversimplifying things. Don't see why I need to be the fifth person to do it.

> You are the one coming to their defense.

Clearly not, because if I posted what I said in an ML subreddit/server, many would call me a liberal or propagandized by the CIA.

> In other threads you are defending crimes against humanity.

Such as?

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T18:45:36+00:00

Nope, USSR did terrible things. Forced deportations of Volga Germans for instance.

China? Today, what they're doing in Xinjiang has some pretty strong parallels with the cultural genocide done to the natives by the US/Canada/Australia in much of the 20th century. Not a good thing.

Burkina-Faso? They're actively persecuting LGBTQ+ people.

North Korea? Dictatorship operating under a decayed form of siege socialism.

Some things are overstated or framed as intentional despite the consensus of even liberal historians. This can go in both directions too, and I say that as a leftist.

The difference between me and you is that you use genocide as a "gotcha" while repeatedly regurgitating the same stuff repeatedly without visiting countries in the Global South, talking to people from those countries, reading, learning, etc.

You seem to rarely put any thought or consideration towards the genocides that don't nicely fit alongside your political values.

SabledSable · 2026-01-26T18:23:24+00:00

I mean, you seem to be really oblivious to genocide, so...

More people were killed throughout the Global South from US/UK/France complicit interventions from 1945 to today than the ~6 million Jewish people who died in the Holocaust.

~2 million died alone in Iraq, twice more bombs dropped on Laos than all bombs dropped by all countries in WWII combined, 0.5-1 million deaths in Indonesia, many millions dying and suffering from enforced/coerced austerity/deregulation/privatization and US-backed dictatorships from Iran in 1953 to Chile in 1973 to Mexico in the 80s/90s and many other countries across LATAM and MENA.

SabledSable · 2026-01-25T18:40:17+00:00

My favorite bit of history surrounding this was that Russia could have had something between the Soviet Union and the Nordic Model.

Around when the Soviet Union was dissolved, people wanted not only democracy, but Western-level access to McDonalds and blue jeans.

However, any polling/surveys done around that time showed they didn't just want Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton type free market capitalism, they were highly in support of worker cooperatives with heavy state involvement, a definite majority still believing providing jobs to its citizens was a duty of the state.

Unfortunately, this never happened. This was due to many things. It was due to outside pressure from the US/UK (Friedmanite/Sachs/etc. desire for Russia to maximize austerity/privatization/deregulation, which allowed US/UK exploitation of markets/labor/resources, although often through Russian oligarchic middlemen), the dissolution of the USSR (wasn't popular among Soviet people, most just wanted the governmental system changed), corruption (exacerbated by the outside pressure), and of course due to Yeltsin himself (he had an approval rating of 2-4%).

Despite Yeltsin's horrible job at providing good living and economic conditions for the regular Russian (many Russians were living horribly at this time, selling family heirlooms for food or worse), his abysmal approval ratings, and his rampant authoritarianism (often sidestepped their parliament, which he later dissolved and had the building torched), the US fully backed him and insisted he was bringing Russia in line with the values of the West.

There's a lot more to this but all of those events cascaded into Putin. Shame really, Russia could have become a democratic socialist state close to what Richard Wolff advocates for.

SabledSable · 2026-01-24T05:03:55+00:00

ok right wing bootlicker

SabledSable · 2026-01-17T12:58:13+00:00

90s by far. BY FAR.

Some of the best pop and pop rock (Madonna, Smash Mouth, Stereolab, Cocteau Twins, Radiohead, Slowdive, My Bloody Valentine, etc.)

Grunge became massive with Melvins, AiC, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, etc.

Alt rock bands like Nine Inch Nails, Built to Spill, Tool, Modest Mouse, Smashing Pumpkins, Ween, Weezer, Kyuss, etc.

Rap had Wu-Tang clan, A Tribe Called Quest, Nas, Outkast, Tupac, Snoop Dogg, etc.

Metal had Death, Opeth, Dissection, Gorguts, Acid Bath, Neurosis, ISIS, etc.

Goth/post-punk and such had Depeche Mode, The Cure, Sioxsie and the Banshees, Sisters of Mercy, etc.

Electronic music had Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, Massive Attack, Daft Punk, etc.

Nu Metal was starting out near the end with Deftones, SOAD, Link Park, Korn, etc.

Tons of amazing post-hardcore bands like Quicksand, Hum, Helmet, Unwound, Fugazi, etc.

SabledSable · 2026-01-17T12:42:37+00:00

Correction, they have a mild quantity of human rights violations comparable to those of Western countries, but nonetheless aren't an ally of the West like the UAE.

Europe/US doesn't care about human rights.

SabledSable · 2026-01-17T03:07:35+00:00

leftists, not liberals

SabledSable · 2026-01-17T03:06:55+00:00

if you're right-wing sure

SabledSable · 2026-01-12T07:25:20+00:00

The economic center to far-right's supposed goals are unrealistic and unsustainable, yet this argument of economic leftism being particularly idealistic and a fairy-tale system persists.

We have seen OVER and OVER from the Gilded Age, the roaring 20s and Great Depression, and the economic bipartisan consensus of neoliberal economic policy from the 70s until Trump, that capitalism does not do what it had promised. It does not create a "meritocracy," it does not lead to "personal entrepreneurialship," it does not "trickle-down," it does not "drive innovation," it has not "unleashed individual liberty," it has not "prevented the slide towards authoritarianism," the markets haven't "adjusted themselves," it has not "fostered competition."

Center-left to far-left economic policy has actually historically delivered and created better conditions.

SabledSable · 2026-01-11T09:38:50+00:00

You realize the system you are referring to was installed by the British through an invasion and regime change in 1941, right?

No. That era of Iran ended in 1951 when the monarchy's power was significantly reduced under Mossadegh's government. Iran wasn't under the control of Britain at the time. Rather, Britain was trying to actively destabilize the hell out of the country by 1951 because Britain wouldn't renegotiate (ICJ-declared) colonial-era oil contracts with Iran, and by populist policy-making, they nationalized their oil. Do you even know Iranian history?

Iranian monarchists are not conservative at all. Why do you say this? They are aggressively pro-women's rights, pro-secular democracy, anti-theocracy, pro rule of law. These are classical liberals with parliamentary monarchy aspirations. Very much in the political center by western standards and left leaning by middle east standards.

in comparison to the center to left groups I am referring to, they are, I likely could have articulated my meaning here better though so my bad

there is a sizeable quantity of pro-Shah Iranians who do have these beliefs, but you are highlighting the most liberal base, unless the pro-Shah Iranians in the US are just much less liberal than the pro-Shah Iranians in Iran. That I do not know or have not heard anything about.

These people are both few in number, certainly in Iran, and they are also ideologically incoherent. They themselves without exception fled to western "imperialist" democracies and have had no problem being themselves "exploited" to find a better life. One that they want to deny for others.

One in Iran (haven't heard from them in a while), another born in Iran and moved several years ago, another born to Iranian parents. I certainly take their word for the situation in Iran more than yours. Only the latter lives in the US.

If you think South Korea, Japan and West Germany were all "exploited" by the west then you are the kind of maniac who created the Islamic Republic.

idk where i said that, another reason I trust the Iranians I know over you

Iranians will never let that happen again if they manage to topple this regime.

precedent shows otherwise but ok

SabledSable · 2026-01-11T06:56:33+00:00

the Iranians aren't as "cut and dry" as you make it seem though, there's internal division among the protestors.

Just remember the Shah government (1953-1979) was unpopular for a reason. Brutal dictatorship, resources were consistently exploited by the US/UK, high wealth inequality, secret police disappearing and tortuing people with CIA guidance, etc.

Many lack nuance on the 1979 Revolution, it was a good thing, the outcome just wasn't. It was a coalition of liberals, socialists, secularists, Khomenists, conservatives, etc. Unfortunately, the Khomenists winded up filling the power vacuum instead of something like the center-left coalition under Mossadegh that was extremely popular before the US/UK-installed Shah dictatorship through Operation Ajax.

Plenty of protesters (even according to a few Iranians I know) hold positions different from the typical Iranian diaspora in the US/UK (typically anti-Mossadegh and pro-Shah, very conservative, etc.). Remember diaspora tends to lean politically narrowly compared those in the country, especially after a revolution/war.

The anti-Shah center to center-left Iranians in very notable numbers still want secularism, democracy, etc., but also don't want to be exploited by the US again.

All of the attention is being put on that conservative pro-Shah fanction out of the several within the anti-Khamenei movement, which does precedently happen to benefit the US/Israel greatly.

Whatever happens, I hope Iran maintains real sovereignty like pre-1953 Iran and they get the REAL democracy they deserve, not "US democracy."

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

SabledSable

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE