Which 2028 Presidential Candidate Would You Vote For?

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 1:39 PM

gohawks50 said:
If 77% of independents truly rejected everything associated with democratic socialism, then why do many of the policies AOC advocates—like lowering prescription drug costs, expanding access to health care, paid family leave, higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and infrastructure investment—often poll well individually? It seems many voters don't like the socialist label, but like policies and programs that have socialist aspects.

Do you think a candidate could get elected by opposing Medicare, Social Security, veterans' benefits, public libraries, the interstate highway system, and government disaster relief?

Most of those policies aren’t unique to democratic socialism.

Republicans support lowering prescription drug prices. Trump has several policies and actions specifically targeting prescription drug prices, including most favored nation pricing and TrumpRx.

Expanding access to healthcare isn’t the controversial part of what dem socialists support. The controversial part is the conversion of private insurance to a state-run Medicare for all structure that would require trillions in additional annual tax revenue to fund. And someone will have to pay for that.

Paid family leave sounds fine, but who is going to pay for it?

Higher taxes on ultra wealthy sounds easy enough. But Dems then turn around and propose tax increases on normal Americans. Examples include Biden and Harris’ stated goals of increasing taxes on people making $400k+ and Dems push to eliminate the SS contribution cap, which would raise taxes on people making $185K. These aren’t “ultra-wealthy” people, so these propagandized tax policies are completely disingenuous.

I don’t doubt some of these policies are popular. People like free stuff. People like when other people have to pay for it. But there are those of us who prefer individual responsibility and not depending on others to give us things. And those of us who will be footing the bill for all of these big government dreams that the dem socialists peddle.

So count me in the camp that will vehemently oppose this dem socialist movement. It is absolutely the wrong direction for the country. It will send us down an unsustainable path of government dependence. It’s dangerous.

gohawks50 · Tuesday at 2:14 PM

scotchtiger said:
Most of those policies aren’t unique to democratic socialism.

Republicans support lowering prescription drug prices. Trump has several policies and actions specifically targeting prescription drug prices, including most favored nation pricing and TrumpRx.

Expanding access to healthcare isn’t the controversial part of what dem socialists support. The controversial part is the conversion of private insurance to a state-run Medicare for all structure that would require trillions in additional annual tax revenue to fund. And someone will have to pay for that.

Paid family leave sounds fine, but who is going to pay for it?

Higher taxes on ultra wealthy sounds easy enough. But Dems then turn around and propose tax increases on normal Americans. Examples include Biden and Harris’ stated goals of increasing taxes on people making $400k+ and Dems push to eliminate the SS contribution cap, which would raise taxes on people making $185K. These aren’t “ultra-wealthy” people, so these propagandized tax policies are completely disingenuous.

I don’t doubt some of these policies are popular. People like free stuff. People like when other people have to pay for it. But there are those of us who prefer individual responsibility and not depending on others to give us things. And those of us who will be footing the bill for all of these big government dreams that the dem socialists peddle.

So count me in the camp that will vehemently oppose this dem socialist movement. It is absolutely the wrong direction for the country. It will send us down an unsustainable path of government dependence. It’s dangerous.

Is your point Republicans are socialists too? As far as paying for Medicare for All the US already pays more for healthcare than any other country. The way the money spent on healthcare is collected would change, but I seriously doubt the overall cost would be much more than the US spends now.

Do you consider yourself an independent?

Torbee · Tuesday at 2:20 PM

scotchtiger said:
Higher taxes on ultra wealthy sounds easy enough. But Dems then turn around and propose tax increases on normal Americans. Examples include Biden and Harris’ stated goals of increasing taxes on people making $400k+ and Dems push to eliminate the SS contribution cap, which would raise taxes on people making $185K. These aren’t “ultra-wealthy” people, so these propagandized tax policies are completely disingenuous.

I agree with you that making $185,000 isn't "ultra-wealthy." That is definitely upper-middle class at best.

That said, according to Census data, that is still only around 16% of households in America:

Total U.S. households: 132.74 million
Households earning $200,000 or more: 18.23 million
Households earning $150,000–$199,999: 12.83 million

Because $185,000 is 70% of the way through the $150,000–$200,000 bracket, a straightforward interpolation assigns about 30% of that bracket above $185,000:

18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million18.23\text{ million} +(0.30 \times 12.83\text{ million}) =22.08\text{ million}18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million
That equals 16.6% of all households, placing a $185,000 household income at approximately the 83rd or 84th percentile nationally.

So it's not like that proposal by the Biden administration was super radical or would affect all that many Americans - 16% is a relatively small percentage of the entire country.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 2:51 PM

Torbee said:
I agree with you that making $185,000 isn't "ultra-wealthy." That is definitely upper-middle class at best.

That said, according to Census data, that is still only around 16% of households in America:

Total U.S. households: 132.74 million

Households earning $200,000 or more: 18.23 million

Households earning $150,000–$199,999: 12.83 million

Because $185,000 is 70% of the way through the $150,000–$200,000 bracket, a straightforward interpolation assigns about 30% of that bracket above $185,000:

18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million18.23\text{ million} +(0.30 \times 12.83\text{ million}) =22.08\text{ million}18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million
That equals 16.6% of all households, placing a $185,000 household income at approximately the 83rd or 84th percentile nationally.

So it's not like that proposal by the Biden administration was super radical or would affect all that many Americans - 16% is a relatively small percentage of the entire country.

Yea, but the propaganda talks about taxing billionaires and ultra-wealthy. It’s COMPLETELY disingenuous.

The propaganda also suggests these people don’t pay their “fair share.” It goes as far as citing Warren Buffet (rare wealth even among the billionaire class) paying a lower rate than his secretary. Then, flip the page and jack up taxes on the dentist with 3 kids down the street.

The reality is that the VAST majority of the 16% you cite is already paying their fair share. Many probably pay more than their fair share.

Now if we want to have a fact and math based discussion showing ACTUAL federal effective tax rates by income category to identify the soft spots in the tax code, let’s do it. But misleading the American people by citing a top 10 richest person as an example to justify tax increases on millions of families is just wrong.

The sad part is, a huge swath of the country is too dumb to realize it. Or they just don’t care as long as someone else is picking up the tab. Not sure which is worse.

PalmettoTiger1 · Tuesday at 2:52 PM

scotchtiger said:
Getting an early gauge from the board. This place obviously swung hard left post-invasion, so I’m curious where things stand as of now.

These are the top 2 candidate from each party per Kalshi odds. Who are you voting for out of this group?

yep this board is gone from 80/20 America first to 20/80 America first

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 2:53 PM

gohawks50 said:
Is your point Republicans are socialists too? As far as paying for Medicare for All the US already pays more for healthcare than any other country. The way the money spent on healthcare is collected would change, but I seriously doubt the overall cost would be much more than the US spends now.

Do you consider yourself an independent?

No.

How the money is collected is a pretty big change. The burden would shift substantially to certain people. As one who would be picking up the slack for the majority of the country, it’s an emphatic no from me.

Not to mention, with as screwed up as our government is, why the hell would I want them in charge of my healthcare?

Torbee · Tuesday at 2:54 PM

scotchtiger said:
The reality is that the VAST majority of the 16% you cite is already paying their fair share. Many probably pay more than their fair share.

I agree with this statement.

But again, you can definitely see how if something only affects 16% of the population, there is a VERY good chance it could be popular with the 84% it doesn't impact.

The real solution is to get both the middle and working class AND the upper middle class to realize that the multi-millionaires and billionaires are F.UCKING ALL OF THEM OVER and pitting them against each other.

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 2:54 PM

scotchtiger said:
Yea, but the propaganda talks about taxing billionaires and ultra-wealthy. It’s COMPLETELY disingenuous.

The propaganda also suggests these people don’t pay their “fair share.” It goes as far as citing Warren Buffet (rare wealth even among the billionaire class) paying a lower rate than his secretary. Then, flip the page and jack up taxes on the dentist with 3 kids down the street.

The reality is that the VAST majority of the 16% you cite is already paying their fair share. Many probably pay more than their fair share.

Now if we want to have a fact and math based discussion showing ACTUAL federal effective tax rates by income category to identify the soft spots in the tax code, let’s do it. But misleading the American people by citing a top 10 richest person as an example to justify tax increases on millions of families is just wrong.

The sad part is, a huge swath of the country is too dumb to realize it. Or they just don’t care as long as someone else is picking up the tab. Not sure which is worse.

Some of this is driven by differences in definitions. I'd agree that "$400k per year in income" doesn't qualify as "ultra wealthy" but the only way to not be rich with that kind of income is to be really bad with money. That's well beyond "middle class" in my book (and I'm guessing most people's) and raising taxes on them (and on me too, at a much lower income) would be totally fair game.

Torbee · Tuesday at 2:55 PM

PalmettoTiger1 said:
yep this board has gone from 80/20 Trump first to 20/80 Actually America first

dpic73 · Tuesday at 2:58 PM

PalmettoTiger1 said:
yep this board is gone from 80/20 America first to 20/80 America first

It was far from 80/20 before the new posters came over - more like 50/50 or 60/40 Left.

gohawks50 · Tuesday at 3:10 PM

scotchtiger said:
No.

How the money is collected is a pretty big change. The burden would shift substantially to certain people. As one who would be picking up the slack for the majority of the country, it’s an emphatic no from me.

Not to mention, with as screwed up as our government is, why the hell would I want them in charge of my healthcare?

I assume you are talking about people who are insured through work as the certain people. Are you claiming those people pay nothing for their insurance now? Do you think maybe their wages would be higher if their company wasn't paying hundreds of dollars monthly to cover health insurance?

How would people like you be picking up the slack for the majority of the country? Seems to me more people would be contributing since everyone pays taxes one way or another.

I'm on Medicare and the government seems to be doing a good job taking care of my healthcare needs.

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Tuesday at 3:11 PM

Torbee said:
I agree with you that making $185,000 isn't "ultra-wealthy." That is definitely upper-middle class at best.

That said, according to Census data, that is still only around 16% of households in America:

Total U.S. households: 132.74 million

Households earning $200,000 or more: 18.23 million

Households earning $150,000–$199,999: 12.83 million

Because $185,000 is 70% of the way through the $150,000–$200,000 bracket, a straightforward interpolation assigns about 30% of that bracket above $185,000:

18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million18.23\text{ million} +(0.30 \times 12.83\text{ million}) =22.08\text{ million}18.23 million+(0.30×12.83 million)=22.08 million
That equals 16.6% of all households, placing a $185,000 household income at approximately the 83rd or 84th percentile nationally.

So it's not like that proposal by the Biden administration was super radical or would affect all that many Americans - 16% is a relatively small percentage of the entire country.

"Yeah, my wife makes dat paper, but, but, but, but ..."

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Tuesday at 3:12 PM

dpic73 said:
It was far from 80/20 before the new posters came over - more like 50/50 or 60/40 Left.

What's a women, you ******* homo?

baltimorened · Tuesday at 3:13 PM

LafayetteBear said:
Spoken like a committed MAGA acolyte. Independents don't like Social Security, Medicare, a 5-day work week or federal inspection of medicines, meats, mines, and mergers? (And that's just the M's.) Independents don't like federal regulation of our airwaves, or of air travel? At one time, ALL of those things were called "socialist," especially by Republicans.

I'm surprised that you haven't rolled out the words "communist" and "commie" more frequently of late, as that is MAGA World's new campaign "stragedy." Paint Democrats and RINO's as "commies." Good luck to you and your Orange Guru with that one.

well, I'm only repeating what the guy on CNN said....and I believe what independents don't like is the DSA platform, which includes small things like government takeover of business, eliminating the Senate and the president, amnesty for all illegals in the US, plus some other gems..you' trying to tell me your in favor of all those things?

I'm not sure if you're reading all my posts from this or other threads. I posted previously about compassionate conservatism and my support for programs like you referenced.

And, I doubt I've used the words commie or communist. Maybe I have, but I don't remember doing it.

Seems like these days your not interested in conversation just picking disagreements. Business, health, wife ok? under a lot of stress?

I don't have an orange guru...

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Tuesday at 3:19 PM

This is the phaggot @BelemNole believes should lead us.

baltimorened · Tuesday at 3:20 PM

LafayetteBear said:
1. Who manages the Chief of Staff? Who is ultimately responsible for those congressional offices? Rhetorical question, Farley.

2. I'm certainly not arguing that management experience is not useful. I'm arguing that it is not the most important criterion. If management experience was as important as you are apparently suggesting, then the major political parties would presumably have a history of scouting Fortune 500 executive suites for prospective presidential candidates, no?

no, most fortune 500 execs wouldn't take the pay cut.

The government is not like a corporation. You not only need some management acumen, but you need to have some understanding of how the government works - not in a book sense, but how things actually get done in Washington. That's one of the reasons, IMO, Trump gets himself into trouble. He doesn't know what can't be done. So he directs things as if he were a CEO and that's not part of the DC rulebook. Many of those things are the same ones that folks on the left criticize him for doing.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 4:17 PM

gohawks50 said:
I assume you are talking about people who are insured through work as the certain people. Are you claiming those people pay nothing for their insurance now? Do you think maybe their wages would be higher if their company wasn't paying hundreds of dollars monthly to cover health insurance?

How would people like you be picking up the slack for the majority of the country? Seems to me more people would be contributing since everyone pays taxes one way or another.

I'm on Medicare and the government seems to be doing a good job taking care of my healthcare needs.

Certain people = high earners. If the burden shifts from premiums to taxes, it automatically will be based on a % of income and also likely be very progressive. This would be a dramatic shift. The small percentage of us footing the majority of the bill for most of the country would be forced to contribute even more. No thank you.

dpic73 · Tuesday at 4:22 PM

scotchtiger said:
Certain people = high earners. If the burden shifts from premiums to taxes, it automatically will be based on a % of income and also likely be very progressive. This would be a dramatic shift. The small percentage of us footing the majority of the bill for most of the country would be forced to contribute even more. No thank you.

I don't want to get in the middle of an argument over taxes or derail this thread but you're making suppositions about what might happen, though you may have forgotten that in another thread, I posted a breakdown on the costs vs what you're paying now and it would actually come out cheaper for you. That's all I have to say about it.

gohawks50 · Tuesday at 4:37 PM

scotchtiger said:
Certain people = high earners. If the burden shifts from premiums to taxes, it automatically will be based on a % of income and also likely be very progressive. This would be a dramatic shift. The small percentage of us footing the majority of the bill for most of the country would be forced to contribute even more. No thank you.

You're assuming the only cost that matters is taxes. The reality is that we already help pay for each other's healthcare. Those with private insurance often pay higher premiums because hospitals have to recover the cost of treating uninsured patients somewhere, and taxpayers already fund Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, and other public programs. The comparison isn't "paying for others" versus "not paying for others." It's whether it's better to do it through today's patchwork of premiums, deductibles, copays, taxes, and cost-shifting—or through a different system that may be more efficient.

Torbee · Tuesday at 4:58 PM

gohawks50 said:
You're assuming the only cost that matters is taxes. The reality is that we already help pay for each other's healthcare. Those with private insurance often pay higher premiums because hospitals have to recover the cost of treating uninsured patients somewhere, and taxpayers already fund Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, and other public programs. The comparison isn't "paying for others" versus "not paying for others." It's whether it's better to do it through today's patchwork of premiums, deductibles, copays, taxes, and cost-shifting—or through a different system that may be more efficient.

These people somehow feel better paying middle men rather than the US government.

PalmettoTiger1 · Tuesday at 6:33 PM

aCEOuProbablyKnow said:
"Yeah, my wife makes dat paper, but, but, but, but ..."

$200,000.00 with family if 4 or more living middle class life style takes at least that much

More to live on upper edge

fatpiggy · Wednesday at 5:56 AM

fskillet · Wednesday at 7:04 AM

There’s another Eagleman Twitter account of an old doofus wearing wrap arounds?

Rifler · Wednesday at 8:09 AM

Torbee said:
These people somehow feel better paying middle men rather than the US government.

Torbee · Wednesday at 9:53 AM

Rifler said:

Real cut off your nose to spite your face position, but you be you.

tarheelbybirth1 · Wednesday at 10:29 AM

EvilMonkeyInTheCloset said:
So then who's forcing you to vote for them?.................

Fortunately you all still have time to manipulate the voting for better candidates.

If people honestly wanted to, in this country, you could have a man run as an Independent for President going by the name of Turd Ferguson, and to show what a f***ing farce our election process has become, garner enough people, as part of one massive troll job, to vote for him as President. And while he wouldn't be allowed to become President because our government wouldn't allow that regardless of how lopsided the voting would be, it would still send a significant message to our government that if you aren't going to give us serious candidates, then we aren't going to take your election seriously.....................

Food for thought.

Assuming Turd gathers enough votes to stymie the EC, that accomplishes nothing beyond handing the presidency to the party that wins the House. The winning party would be fully on board with that. They'd say THAT vote demonstrated the will of the people and it would be BAU.

If "people honestly wanted to", they could elect mayors and city councils and state reps and governors and federal representatives who spoke to their needs and then strived to meet them. What's for damn sure is that's not the GOP.

You want to send a message? Wipe this fascist iteration of the GOP off the map. At every level. Down to dog-catcher. Another party will rise to take its place... there will always be a second party. Make that party, the party of the people. And let the Dems know that can easily be their fate.

I won't hold my breath.

tarheelbybirth1 · Wednesday at 10:50 AM

scotchtiger said:
Most of those policies aren’t unique to democratic socialism.

Republicans support lowering prescription drug prices.

COMMUNISTS!!!

scotchtiger said:
Expanding access to healthcare isn’t the controversial part of what dem socialists support. The controversial part is the conversion of private insurance to a state-run Medicare for all structure that would require trillions in additional annual tax revenue to fund. And someone will have to pay for that.

According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of Employee Health Benefits (2025), the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2025 were $9325 for single coverage and $26,993 for family coverage.

That's money straight out of the employees' pockets. And that's the folks who have employer-sponsored health insurance. What about the family that doesn't? Do you think you're not paying for them now?

Quick question... you're in a car accident and your brand-new Maserati Levante is totaled. You haven't even made the first insurance payment! The other driver has no insurance and no assets worth going after. Who's paying for your car?

scotchtiger said:
Paid family leave sounds fine, but who is going to pay for it?

Everyone. Because having mentally and socially well-adjusted children... and parents... is good for everyone.

scotchtiger said:
Higher taxes on ultra wealthy sounds easy enough. But Dems then turn around and propose tax increases on normal Americans. Examples include Biden and Harris’ stated goals of increasing taxes on people making $400k+ and Dems push to eliminate the SS contribution cap, which would raise taxes on people making $185K. These aren’t “ultra-wealthy” people, so these propagandized tax policies are completely disingenuous.

Well, they're in the top 20% and lifting the SS cap wouldn't be a tax hike by percentage. They'd pay the same percentage as the person making half their income. Why should they get a tax cut just because they reached an arbitrary salary level?

scotchtiger said:
I don’t doubt some of these policies are popular. People like free stuff. People like when other people have to pay for it. But there are those of us who prefer individual responsibility and not depending on others to give us things. And those of us who will be footing the bill for all of these big government dreams that the dem socialists peddle.

So count me in the camp that will vehemently oppose this dem socialist movement. It is absolutely the wrong direction for the country. It will send us down an unsustainable path of government dependence. It’s dangerous.

You love the "free stuff" you get. It's the "free stuff" that others get that bothers you.

baltimorened · Wednesday at 11:32 AM

tarheelbybirth1 said:
COMMUNISTS!!!

According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation Survey of Employee Health Benefits (2025), the average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2025 were $9325 for single coverage and $26,993 for family coverage.

That's money straight out of the employees' pockets. And that's the folks who have employer-sponsored health insurance. What about the family that doesn't? Do you think you're not paying for them now?

Quick question... you're in a car accident and your brand-new Maserati Levante is totaled. You haven't even made the first insurance payment! The other driver has no insurance and no assets worth going after. Who's paying for your car?

Everyone. Because having mentally and socially well-adjusted children... and parents... is good for everyone.

Well, they're in the top 20% and lifting the SS cap wouldn't be a tax hike by percentage. They'd pay the same percentage as the person making half their income. Why should they get a tax cut just because they reached an arbitrary salary level?

You love the "free stuff" you get. It's the "free stuff" that others get that bothers you.

insofar as you last statement, If you're in the taxpayer class and you're paying 25-30% of your income in taxes and someone else is in the 0% tax bracket, and you get the same or less benefit than the other person, is yours "free" or did you just pay for the benefit for the other guy?

FLaw47 · Wednesday at 11:52 AM

baltimorened said:
insofar as you last statement, If you're in the taxpayer class and you're paying 25-30% of your income in taxes and someone else is in the 0% tax bracket, and you get the same or less benefit than the other person, is yours "free" or did you just pay for the benefit for the other guy?

I think all of us in the "taxpayer class" would be well served (and happier) to remember that there's more benefits in tax dollars than direct financial aid (e.g. medicaid, foodstamps, whatever). I imagine our lifestyles without that spend might look remarkably different.

Dadar · Wednesday at 1:26 PM

When you look at the choices in Maine, Lucy vs wtf

noleclone2 · Wednesday at 1:32 PM

Ossoff-Kelly 28

noleclone2 · Wednesday at 1:36 PM

scotchtiger said:
Reading comprehension guys. Top 2 per party per Kalshi odds.

FLaw47 · Wednesday at 1:54 PM

baltimorened · Wednesday at 3:04 PM

FLaw47 said:
I think all of us in the "taxpayer class" would be well served (and happier) to remember that there's more benefits in tax dollars than direct financial aid (e.g. medicaid, foodstamps, whatever). I imagine our lifestyles without that spend might look remarkably different.

Flaw, you're back....I agree 100% with your statement and I think those of use who are in the taxpayer class have a responsibility to provide assistance - long term to those who really need it, and short term to those just "down on their luck". Where the disagreement comes in is first in the fraud that comes from the taxpayer's funds and benefits neither of those I've identified, and from others who take advantage of the system long term. Problem is that we have just paid lip service to cleaning up the fraud, and haven't really come up with the equitable process to fairly determine who is down on their luck or just gaming the system.

FLaw47 · Wednesday at 3:41 PM

baltimorened said:
Flaw, you're back....I agree 100% with your statement and I think those of use who are in the taxpayer class have a responsibility to provide assistance - long term to those who really need it, and short term to those just "down on their luck". Where the disagreement comes in is first in the fraud that comes from the taxpayer's funds and benefits neither of those I've identified, and from others who take advantage of the system long term. Problem is that we have just paid lip service to cleaning up the fraud, and haven't really come up with the equitable process to fairly determine who is down on their luck or just gaming the system.

I'm all for eliminating fraud (though I'd wager there are instances where we'd disagree on what constitutes fraud). I just get bothered when people who don't receive direct financial assistance act like their tax dollars don't help them. You may not be the one needing to hear that, to be fair.

baltimorened · Wednesday at 3:44 PM

FLaw47 said:
I'm all for eliminating fraud (though I'd wager there are instances where we'd disagree on what constitutes fraud). I just get bothered when people who don't receive direct financial assistance act like their tax dollars don't help them. You may not be the one needing to hear that, to be fair.

Tax dollars help everyone. And most people would agree that our progressive system is fair. Some want more from high earners and there are pros and cons to that debate

Torbee · Wednesday at 4:02 PM

baltimorened said:
Tax dollars help everyone. And most people would agree that our progressive system is fair. Some want more from high earners and there are pros and cons to that debate

I think most rational people - and especially those of us in the middle to upper-middle class - just want it to be an ACTUALLY progressive system.

Right now the system rewards those at the very bottom - who don't pay taxes - and those at the very tip top who have lawyers/accountants/loopholes/shelters/dodges and other ways to avoid paying as high a percentage of their income as those of us who are working stiffs, corporate white collar workers, small business owners, plumbers, contractors, etc.

The middle is being squeezed dry while the top just keeps piling up more and more.

And the oligarchs have done a fantastic job pitting the bottom versus the middle while laughing their way to the bank.

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Wednesday at 4:06 PM

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Assuming Turd gathers enough votes to stymie the EC, that accomplishes nothing beyond handing the presidency to the party that wins the House. The winning party would be fully on board with that. They'd say THAT vote demonstrated the will of the people and it would be BAU.

If "people honestly wanted to", they could elect mayors and city councils and state reps and governors and federal representatives who spoke to their needs and then strived to meet them. What's for damn sure is that's not the GOP.

You want to send a message? Wipe this fascist iteration of the GOP off the map. At every level. Down to dog-catcher. Another party will rise to take its place... there will always be a second party. Make that party, the party of the people. And let the Dems know that can easily be their fate.

I won't hold my breath.

ABOLISH THE EC!

STACK DA COUrT!

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Wednesday at 4:08 PM

tarheelbybirth1 said:
You love the "free stuff" you get. It's the "free stuff" that others get that bothers you.

Illegal immigrants and the YNs on SNAP?

aCEOuProbablyKnow · Wednesday at 4:09 PM

noleclone2 said:
View attachment 1377161 View attachment 1377144

Ossoff-Kelly 28

@Flick

Which 2028 Presidential Candidate Would You Vote For?

Who are you voting for in 2028 out of this group?

JD Vance

Marco Rubio

Gavin Newsom

AOC

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Junior

Junior

All-American

Junior

All-American

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

Heisman

Junior

Junior

Junior