A Little Too Early 2028 Presidential Election Thread

[Shaka]

The midterm ball is tee'd up for the Democrats and all they have to do is swing easy and get it on or near the fairway. Of course Gavin Newsome is helping them to shank the ball into the trees. Also not helping is all the Democrat politicians and their Karen minions freaking out about the Men's Hockey Team, their desire to party with Kash, and their forthcoming visit to the White House. Incredibly bad takes on that one.

[dabrockster]

"I'm no better than you. I'm a 960 SAT guy"

Cmon, I hate Newsom, but listening to the whole quote wasn't anything like people are pretending to be outraged about.

He is seriously out of touch with any normal person.

It was self-defecating and the conservatives pounced. His response isn't helping his persona as a person of higher intelligence and is ready to run the country. I mean. He just announced a fund to help illegal immigrants in the amount of 35 million while his current deficit is in the range of 2-billion. Yes, it is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the deficit, but optics are bad...

[Jeff Lebowski]

"I'm no better than you. I'm a 960 SAT guy"

Cmon, I hate Newsom, but listening to the whole quote wasn't anything like people are pretending to be outraged about.

He is seriously out of touch with any normal person.

I’ve watched a lot of clips, and I’m not understanding the context you’re talking about here. Help me understand.

And I don’t buy for one second that he is some dyslexic low IQ goofball.

Embedded Tweet

[tooblue]

I’ve watched a lot of clips, and I’m not understanding the context you’re talking about here. Help me understand.

And I don’t buy for one second that he is some dyslexic low IQ goofball.

Embedded Tweet

Dyslexia is far more complex than the common misconception of simply reading or writing letters backward etc. I think Newsom needs to be more careful how he describes whatever challenge he may face due to dyslexia, but we also should be careful to not qualify what he is saying as suggesting he is a low IQ goofball.

Full disclosure: I am dyslexic. I have an MFA and PhD. I have spent a good part of my lifetime learning to read in manner consistent with what is considered "academic ability." I can devour fiction and novels, though I am one of those people that reads the last chapter first, because it helps me understand (and I find it quite joyful to read this way) the story as it is being plotted out. Now that I have been well trained I prefer to read research and about science.

[dabrockster]

Gavin hitting the news with quotes again. This time, Calling Israel an "Apartheid State". It's a bold tactic.. We'll see if it plays out for him..



Newsom Compares Israel to ‘Apartheid State,’ Questions Military Support

The California governor, seen as a likely presidential candidate, made comments that reflect a shift in the Democratic Party.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat widely seen as a likely presidential candidate, delivered sharp criticism of Israel this week, suggesting that the U.S. should reconsider its military support for the country, which he compared to an apartheid state.

Mr. Newsom’s comments reflect a stark shift in the Democratic Party, which in recent years has grown critical of Israel. While past party leaders were largely united in support of the U.S. ally, many prominent Democrats have taken a more combative stance.

He said earlier in the discussion that some “are talking about it appropriately as sort of an apartheid state,” a charge Israel has strongly and repeatedly denied.

Public opinion polls have shown declining support for Israel among the American public, a trend that is especially stark among Democrats. While the center of gravity in the party has shifted, some remain staunch Israel supporters, creating a heated internal debate playing out in this year’s congressional primaries.

Mr. Newsom has for years been a firm supporter of Israel — flying there shortly after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, to meet with Israeli leaders and families of those who had been kidnapped or killed. But he has recently shifted his stance somewhat, emphasizing areas where he is breaking from the Israeli government and its allies.

He recently said he “never will” accept money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group that has become a dividing line among Democrats. While AIPAC’s super PAC has so far gotten involved only in federal races, it has drawn criticism for spending heavily in Democratic primaries.

Mr. Newsom’s comments show how support for Israel continues to be a divisive matter for the Democratic Party and will likely play a major role in the party’s 2028 presidential primary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/u...smid=url-share

[Northwestcoug]

A problem for 2028 and beyond? Probably not, since the needs/wants of the majority of people align with those of billionaires, right? Right?

The Times analysis found that 300 billionaires and their immediate family members donated more than $3 billion — 19 percent of all contributions — in federal elections in 2024, either directly or through political action committees.

Five presidential elections ago, before the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that lifted many remaining campaign finance restrictions, the share of billionaire spending was almost zero — 0.3 percent, to be precise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/u...ributions.html

[USUC]

A problem for 2028 and beyond? Probably not, since the needs/wants of the majority of people align with those of billionaires, right? Right?



https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/u...ributions.html

Not really a problem because the majority of Americans aren't Bernie bros who have a deranged vendetta against successful entrepreneurs and businesses.

[Northwestcoug]

Not really a problem because the majority of Americans aren't Bernie bros who have a deranged vendetta against successful entrepreneurs and businesses.

I do not share your faith in an electorate's ability to be unswayed by money pouring into campaigns by billionaires who have reasons to try to influence those campaigns.

[Maximus]

Not really a problem because the majority of Americans aren't Bernie bros who have a deranged vendetta against successful entrepreneurs and businesses.

lol do you think the rich care about you?

[USUC]

lol do you think the rich care about you?

It doesn't matter if they care about me or not. They either provide a product that is beneficial and thrive, or don't and fail. It isn't a zero sum game where billionaires existence means they hold up dollars others now can't access.

[frank ryan]

It doesn't matter if they care about me or not. They either provide a product that is beneficial and thrive, or don't and fail. It isn't a zero sum game where billionaires existence means they hold up dollars others now can't access.

I resent their outsized influence. I mistrust some of them as well.
Peter Thiel and Elon Musk among them.
I am all about rewards people who create products and businesses that do well.

[Northwestcoug]

It doesn't matter if they care about me or not. They either provide a product that is beneficial and thrive, or don't and fail. It isn't a zero sum game where billionaires existence means they hold up dollars others now can't access.

You're aware of my political inclinations and maybe my admitted lack of financial chops. But I would really like someone to explain this 'not a zero sum game' argument when used with billionaires argument to me. Like maybe there isn't a sequestered finite amount of wealth that we're all picking at. But it isn't 100% false either right? The share of wealth owned by billionaires is growing at a faster pace than ever. Wealth can be measured; if not finite now certainly it will become so at some point.

I'm not trying to be a commie here, I promise. But if billionaires own a large amount of the world's wealth theoretically it's not available for poorer people. And if their proportion of wealth markedly increases (an 80% increase since 2020 if I'm not mistaken), even in a world where additional wealth is created doesn't that make it harder for others to obtain wealth? Doesn't it practically approach a zero sum game?

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're aware of my political inclinations and maybe my admitted lack of financial chops. But I would really like someone to explain this 'not a zero sum game' argument when used with billionaires argument to me. Like maybe there isn't a sequestered finite amount of wealth that we're all picking at. But it isn't 100% false either right? The share of wealth owned by billionaires is growing at a faster pace than ever. Wealth can be measured; if not finite now certainly it will become so at some point.

I'm not trying to be a commie here, I promise. But if billionaires own a large amount of the world's wealth theoretically it's not available for poorer people. And if their proportion of wealth markedly increases (an 80% increase since 2020 if I'm not mistaken), even in a world where additional wealth is created doesn't that make it harder for others to obtain wealth? Doesn't it practically approach a zero sum game?

How does one person having more money than you prohibit you from making more money?

[Northwestcoug]

How does one person having more money than you prohibit you from making more money?

If wealth can be measured, doesn't it become finite at some point? If not explicitly, at least conceptually?

If the ultra-rich continue to own more of the measured wealth, doesn't it become harder for the rest of the population to own more wealth?

[Jeff Lebowski]

If wealth can be measured, doesn't it become finite at some point? If not explicitly, at least conceptually?

If the ultra-rich continue to own more of the measured wealth, doesn't it become harder for the rest of the population to own more wealth?

No, it isn't finite. Inventing a new gadget, building a new company, developing new software, all create new wealth. That is how the economy grows.