With the 2024 election now over, I was just curious about who were the leading candidates for president in 2028. I realize different sites will have different odds, but the below is based upon the site that I pulled up first. Below are the Republicans with the best odds:
1. JD Vance - No surprise. Assuming the Trump second term is successful, I would be surprised if he wasn't the Republican candidate.
2. Ron DeSantis - He has the qualifications. By 2028, he will have served 2 full terms as governor of the third largest state. His re-election was by a margin over 20%. The usual criticism of governors running for president is lack of foreign affairs and military experience. However, DeSantis has foreign affairs experience from serving in Congress and military experience from serving in the Navy. The questions on him are whether he is charismatic enough and whether Republicans hold a grudge for challenging Trump in 2024.
3. Tulsi Gabbard - The former Congresswoman is expected to serve some major role in the Trump administration. She would be a great candidate at attracting independent and moderate voters in a general election. The question is how much does her prior voting record and stance on issues as a former Democrat turn off Republican voters.
Much more interesting are the Democrats with the best odds:
1. Michelle Obama - Unlike Hillary who was a senator for her first run and then secretary of state for her second run, Obama has no experience legitimately qualifying her to be President of the United States unless you count first lady and I don't. I think it's highly unlikely she runs. I hear she hates campaigning. I also think she enjoys her current popularity which would inevitably nose dive as soon as she became a candidate.
2. Gavin Newsom - I do think he runs and is maybe the candidate. He is governor of the largest states and is reasonably charismatic. His problem is that he's going to have to defend his terrible record as governor. Maybe he can convince Democrats, but Republicans and I think many Independents will hate it in the general election.
3. Hillary Clinton - LOL! She lost before and she's just gotten older. I would be very surprised if she actually attempted to run again.
4. Oprah Winfrey - She's very light on experience, although I'm sure Democrats will argue that being CEO of Harpo Productions and the Oprah Winfrey Network somehow qualifies her as a successful businessperson like Trump. I also just don't think that she'll run. I believe she only did what she did for the Harris campaign because of a $1 million payment to Harpo Productions, aka herself. If I was paid a million dollars, I would probably hold a town hall for Harris too.
5. Kamala Harris - LOL again! She had an embarrassing loss and she's going to run again!?!?!?!
6. Josh Shapiro - I think he would be one of the tougher opponents for the Republicans. The question is whether Democrats will nominate him given that he is Jewish and holds some moderate political positions. I find it interesting that he's so far down this list of candidates. He's less likely than Hillary and Harris?
7 (tie). AOC - LOL! Never mind that she's an idiot, she's so far to the left that she would lose the general election in a landslide if she was the candidate.
7 (tie) Tim Walz - I can't stop LOL'ing! He was the VP candidate on a very poor campaign and got destroyed in the VP debate.
7 (tie) Ivanka Trump - She was listed as a Democrat and I believe it's true that she is a registered Democrat. She seems to be trying to distance herself from Donald Trump this time around. Does that mean she has political aspirations as a Democrat or that she simply wants nothing to do with politics anymore? Would Democrats actually vote for a Trump? I seriously doubt it.
7 (tie). Gretchen Whitmer - I think she would be one of the better candidates for the Democrats. It's funny to see her this far down the list and having equal or lower odds than Hillary, Harris, Walz and AOC.
The Democrats have a very weak bench.
(11-12-2024, 08:05 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]With the 2024 election now over, I was just curious about who were the leading candidates for president in 2028. I realize different sites will have different odds, but the below is based upon the site that I pulled up first. Below are the Republicans with the best odds:
1. JD Vance - No surprise. Assuming the Trump second term is successful, I would be surprised if he wasn't the Republican candidate.
2. Ron DeSantis - He has the qualifications. By 2028, he will have served 2 full terms as governor of the third largest state. His re-election was by a margin over 20%. The usual criticism of governors running for president is lack of foreign affairs and military experience. However, DeSantis has foreign affairs experience from serving in Congress and military experience from serving in the Navy. The questions on him are whether he is charismatic enough and whether Republicans hold a grudge for challenging Trump in 2024.
3. Tulsi Gabbard - The former Congresswoman is expected to serve some major role in the Trump administration. She would be a great candidate at attracting independent and moderate voters in a general election. The question is how much does her prior voting record and stance on issues as a former Democrat turn off Republican voters.
Much more interesting are the Democrats with the best odds:
1. Michelle Obama - Unlike Hillary who was a senator for her first run and then secretary of state for her second run, Obama has no experience legitimately qualifying her to be President of the United States unless you count first lady and I don't. I think it's highly unlikely she runs. I hear she hates campaigning. I also think she enjoys her current popularity which would inevitably nose dive as soon as she became a candidate.
2. Gavin Newsom - I do think he runs and is maybe the candidate. He is governor of the largest states and is reasonably charismatic. His problem is that he's going to have to defend his terrible record as governor. Maybe he can convince Democrats, but Republicans and I think many Independents will hate it in the general election.
3. Hillary Clinton - LOL! She lost before and she's just gotten older. I would be very surprised if she actually attempted to run again.
4. Oprah Winfrey - She's very light on experience, although I'm sure Democrats will argue that being CEO of Harpo Productions and the Oprah Winfrey Network somehow qualifies her as a successful businessperson like Trump. I also just don't think that she'll run. I believe she only did what she did for the Harris campaign because of a $1 million payment to Harpo Productions, aka herself. If I was paid a million dollars, I would probably hold a town hall for Harris too.
5. Kamala Harris - LOL again! She had an embarrassing loss and she's going to run again!?!?!?!
6. Josh Shapiro - I think he would be one of the tougher opponents for the Republicans. The question is whether Democrats will nominate him given that he is Jewish and holds some moderate political positions. I find it interesting that he's so far down this list of candidates. He's less likely than Hillary and Harris?
7 (tie). AOC - LOL! Never mind that she's an idiot, she's so far to the left that she would lose the general election in a landslide if she was the candidate.
7 (tie) Tim Walz - I can't stop LOL'ing! He was the VP candidate on a very poor campaign and got destroyed in the VP debate.
7 (tie) Ivanka Trump - She was listed as a Democrat and I believe it's true that she is a registered Democrat. She seems to be trying to distance herself from Donald Trump this time around. Does that mean she has political aspirations as a Democrat or that she simply wants nothing to do with politics anymore? Would Democrats actually vote for a Trump? I seriously doubt it.
7 (tie). Gretchen Whitmer - I think she would be one of the better candidates for the Democrats. It's funny to see her this far down the list and having equal or lower odds than Hillary, Harris, Walz and AOC.
The Democrats have a very weak bench.
8. Registered Democrat Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
9 (or 4?): Independent Matthew McConaughey
10: John Fetterman
The odds are zero for Michelle, Kamala, or Hillary. Newsom is definitely going to run, unless there is a major scandal in his life. Whitmer too. Newsom would probably beat her. The Democrat voters probably want Newsom this time. BUT the DNC is going to want to find an "opposite of Kamala" candidate and Newsom ain't it. They want a candidate who poor and lower middle class folks will like. Hence the three names I added
(11-12-2024, 08:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 08:05 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]With the 2024 election now over, I was just curious about who were the leading candidates for president in 2028. I realize different sites will have different odds, but the below is based upon the site that I pulled up first. Below are the Republicans with the best odds:
1. JD Vance - No surprise. Assuming the Trump second term is successful, I would be surprised if he wasn't the Republican candidate.
2. Ron DeSantis - He has the qualifications. By 2028, he will have served 2 full terms as governor of the third largest state. His re-election was by a margin over 20%. The usual criticism of governors running for president is lack of foreign affairs and military experience. However, DeSantis has foreign affairs experience from serving in Congress and military experience from serving in the Navy. The questions on him are whether he is charismatic enough and whether Republicans hold a grudge for challenging Trump in 2024.
3. Tulsi Gabbard - The former Congresswoman is expected to serve some major role in the Trump administration. She would be a great candidate at attracting independent and moderate voters in a general election. The question is how much does her prior voting record and stance on issues as a former Democrat turn off Republican voters.
Much more interesting are the Democrats with the best odds:
1. Michelle Obama - Unlike Hillary who was a senator for her first run and then secretary of state for her second run, Obama has no experience legitimately qualifying her to be President of the United States unless you count first lady and I don't. I think it's highly unlikely she runs. I hear she hates campaigning. I also think she enjoys her current popularity which would inevitably nose dive as soon as she became a candidate.
2. Gavin Newsom - I do think he runs and is maybe the candidate. He is governor of the largest states and is reasonably charismatic. His problem is that he's going to have to defend his terrible record as governor. Maybe he can convince Democrats, but Republicans and I think many Independents will hate it in the general election.
3. Hillary Clinton - LOL! She lost before and she's just gotten older. I would be very surprised if she actually attempted to run again.
4. Oprah Winfrey - She's very light on experience, although I'm sure Democrats will argue that being CEO of Harpo Productions and the Oprah Winfrey Network somehow qualifies her as a successful businessperson like Trump. I also just don't think that she'll run. I believe she only did what she did for the Harris campaign because of a $1 million payment to Harpo Productions, aka herself. If I was paid a million dollars, I would probably hold a town hall for Harris too.
5. Kamala Harris - LOL again! She had an embarrassing loss and she's going to run again!?!?!?!
6. Josh Shapiro - I think he would be one of the tougher opponents for the Republicans. The question is whether Democrats will nominate him given that he is Jewish and holds some moderate political positions. I find it interesting that he's so far down this list of candidates. He's less likely than Hillary and Harris?
7 (tie). AOC - LOL! Never mind that she's an idiot, she's so far to the left that she would lose the general election in a landslide if she was the candidate.
7 (tie) Tim Walz - I can't stop LOL'ing! He was the VP candidate on a very poor campaign and got destroyed in the VP debate.
7 (tie) Ivanka Trump - She was listed as a Democrat and I believe it's true that she is a registered Democrat. She seems to be trying to distance herself from Donald Trump this time around. Does that mean she has political aspirations as a Democrat or that she simply wants nothing to do with politics anymore? Would Democrats actually vote for a Trump? I seriously doubt it.
7 (tie). Gretchen Whitmer - I think she would be one of the better candidates for the Democrats. It's funny to see her this far down the list and having equal or lower odds than Hillary, Harris, Walz and AOC.
The Democrats have a very weak bench.
8. Registered Democrat Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
9 (or 4?): Independent Matthew McConaughey
10: John Fetterman
The odds are zero for Michelle, Kamala, or Hillary. Newsom is definitely going to run, unless there is a major scandal in his life. Whitmer too. Newsom would probably beat her. The Democrat voters probably want Newsom this time. BUT the DNC is going to want to find an "opposite of Kamala" candidate and Newsom ain't it. They want a candidate who poor and lower middle class folks will like. Hence the three names I added
Possible take on the Dems there. Really comes down to who wins the behind the curtain power struggle that always occurs after a Presidential election loss no matter the party. Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, Soros and probably a few others will duke it out behind the scenes.
Surprised Trump is not on the list. Could find a loophole or pass legislation for a 3rd term.
I don't think Obama wants to dedicate 4-8 years in the political arena full time.
Waltz ----- OMG .... NO !!! The best thing about Waltz is the SNL skits.
The R's almost certainly will run Vance. There will be an upstart candidate challenging Vance. It won't be Ron. They are too similar. It won't be any current senator or governor. That lane is likely closed for now. The best scenario for the R's is another figure from the corporate world or entertainment world steps up to challenge Vance. It would give Vance a foil and a quest to win and whichever candidate who won would be that much stronger. The worst scenario is Don Jr or Eric challenges him. The Trump kid would probably lose but it would badly wound Vance's candidacy. Lots of the Trump coalition voters drop away.
(11-12-2024, 11:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The R's almost certainly will run Vance. There will be an upstart candidate challenging Vance. It won't be Ron. They are too similar. It won't be any current senator or governor. That lane is likely closed for now. The best scenario for the R's is another figure from the corporate world or entertainment world steps up to challenge Vance. It would give Vance a foil and a quest to win and whichever candidate who won would be that much stronger. The worst scenario is Don Jr or Eric challenges him. The Trump kid would probably lose but it would badly wound Vance's candidacy. Lots of the Trump coalition voters drop away.
Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
(11-12-2024, 11:39 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 11:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The R's almost certainly will run Vance. There will be an upstart candidate challenging Vance. It won't be Ron. They are too similar. It won't be any current senator or governor. That lane is likely closed for now. The best scenario for the R's is another figure from the corporate world or entertainment world steps up to challenge Vance. It would give Vance a foil and a quest to win and whichever candidate who won would be that much stronger. The worst scenario is Don Jr or Eric challenges him. The Trump kid would probably lose but it would badly wound Vance's candidacy. Lots of the Trump coalition voters drop away.
Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
No.
What's your prediction?
Donald Sr for life? No 2028 election?
(11-12-2024, 11:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 11:39 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
No.
What's your prediction?
Donald Sr for life? No 2028 election?
I predict 4 years of misery for you..
Possibly 8-12 years..
(11-12-2024, 11:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The R's almost certainly will run Vance. There will be an upstart candidate challenging Vance. It won't be Ron. They are too similar. It won't be any current senator or governor. That lane is likely closed for now. The best scenario for the R's is another figure from the corporate world or entertainment world steps up to challenge Vance. It would give Vance a foil and a quest to win and whichever candidate who won would be that much stronger. The worst scenario is Don Jr or Eric challenges him. The Trump kid would probably lose but it would badly wound Vance's candidacy. Lots of the Trump coalition voters drop away.
Both your takes on the future are as good as any. Projecting into the future 2-3 years and being accurate must have longer odds than winning the lottery 3 times in a row. I do agree a republican dark horse will distinguish themselves enough to be a possibility. The democrats have some large decisions to make on the direction of their party. That will determine the possible candidates. It is a safe bet to say whoever they are they will go through the primaries and not be "selected" just prior to the convention.
(11-12-2024, 11:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 11:39 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
No.
What's your prediction?
Donald Sr for life? No 2028 election?
Isn't that YOUR prediction? For the last four years you've been whining about Jan. 6th, telling us that Trump wants to be a dictator and led a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government. Why do you now believe he will peacefully relinquish power? Are you finally admitting you were wrong?
(11-13-2024, 08:05 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 11:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No.
What's your prediction?
Donald Sr for life? No 2028 election?
Isn't that YOUR prediction? For the last four years you've been whining about Jan. 6th, telling us that Trump wants to be a dictator and led a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government. Why do you now believe he will peacefully relinquish power? Are you finally admitting you were wrong?
Trump is 78 years old, and doesn't look like he's in great health. He's way overweight. And without that orange makeup, he looks pretty old.
He's not immortal.
(11-13-2024, 08:05 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2024, 11:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No.
What's your prediction?
Donald Sr for life? No 2028 election?
Isn't that YOUR prediction? For the last four years you've been whining about Jan. 6th, telling us that Trump wants to be a dictator and led a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government. Why do you now believe he will peacefully relinquish power? Are you finally admitting you were wrong?
That's still on the table. The Democrats and any minor party have a right to try to win control of Congress in 2026 and to replace him in 2028.
Trump let the 2018 cycle go with no interference at all but in the 2020 cycle he tried to use his foreign policy powers to spread lies about Biden. This was after he had tried to direct DoJ to spread lies about Biden and they had refused. It's likely that his next attorney general won't say no, if he asks. Will he ask? I suspect he won't, because he probably doesn't want to stay in office more than four years and he probably doesn't particularly care which party wins Congress in 2026 or the White House after he is gone. But what if the person he appoints to DoJ is so partisan that Trump doesn't have to ask? I guess we'll find out! Nothing we can do about it now.
(11-13-2024, 09:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 08:05 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that YOUR prediction? For the last four years you've been whining about Jan. 6th, telling us that Trump wants to be a dictator and led a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government. Why do you now believe he will peacefully relinquish power? Are you finally admitting you were wrong?
That's still on the table. The Democrats and any minor party have a right to try to win control of Congress in 2026 and to replace him in 2028.
Trump let the 2018 cycle go with no interference at all but in the 2020 cycle he tried to use his foreign policy powers to spread lies about Biden. This was after he had tried to direct DoJ to spread lies about Biden and they had refused. It's likely that his next attorney general won't say no, if he asks. Will he ask? I suspect he won't, because he probably doesn't want to stay in office more than four years and he probably doesn't particularly care which party wins Congress in 2026 or the White House after he is gone. But what if the person he appoints to DoJ is so partisan that Trump doesn't have to ask? I guess we'll find out! Nothing we can do about it now.
Where is that chicken cartoon of the chicken saying. ON NO He might do to us what we did to HIM. !!!! ...
(11-13-2024, 09:30 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 08:05 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that YOUR prediction? For the last four years you've been whining about Jan. 6th, telling us that Trump wants to be a dictator and led a violent insurrection in an attempt to overthrow the government. Why do you now believe he will peacefully relinquish power? Are you finally admitting you were wrong?
Trump is 78 years old, and doesn't look like he's in great health. He's way overweight. And without that orange makeup, he looks pretty old.
He's not immortal.
I don't think it's orange make-up I think it's too much time spent in a tanning bed, or at least self tanner. I say that because right around his eyes has always been more normal skin color and those who use tanning beds always use specific goggles to protect the eyes.
Regardless, it looks like he's not as orange as usual and he does look older without the 'tanned' skin. Plus, he's 8 years older than his previous win for the WH. I do wish the man would take better care of himself. Anyone leading the country doesn't need to be super athletic but eating nutrient dense food and getting some exercise is good for the mind and the body.
Who is the last POTUS, if any, to die of anything other than assasination while in active service? I'll have to look that up. None in modern history that I can think of right off hand.
Did someone say "make-up"?
![[Image: Syakl.jpg]](https://s11.gifyu.com/images/Syakl.jpg)
(11-13-2024, 09:57 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 09:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's still on the table. The Democrats and any minor party have a right to try to win control of Congress in 2026 and to replace him in 2028.
Trump let the 2018 cycle go with no interference at all but in the 2020 cycle he tried to use his foreign policy powers to spread lies about Biden. This was after he had tried to direct DoJ to spread lies about Biden and they had refused. It's likely that his next attorney general won't say no, if he asks. Will he ask? I suspect he won't, because he probably doesn't want to stay in office more than four years and he probably doesn't particularly care which party wins Congress in 2026 or the White House after he is gone. But what if the person he appoints to DoJ is so partisan that Trump doesn't have to ask? I guess we'll find out! Nothing we can do about it now.
Where is that chicken cartoon of the chicken saying. ON NO He might do to us what we did to HIM. !!!! ...
You should prosecute your opponents when there is clear evidence of crimes.
You should not prosecute your opponents when there is not.
Hope that helps, but I'm sure you don't actually want my help because you love your idol and think you're smarter than me.
(11-13-2024, 10:42 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 09:57 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Where is that chicken cartoon of the chicken saying. ON NO He might do to us what we did to HIM. !!!! ...
You should prosecute your opponents when there is clear evidence of crimes.
You should not prosecute your opponents when there is not.
Hope that helps, but I'm sure you don't actually want my help because you love your idol and think you're smarter than me.
LOL ... I already know anyone and everyone as long as they agree to you. Kind of like Obama when he said his door is open and everyone is welcome to come in, sit down and agree with him. Your the only one that said you know more than I do. Look back you will see it.
(11-13-2024, 10:53 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 10:42 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You should prosecute your opponents when there is clear evidence of crimes.
You should not prosecute your opponents when there is not.
Hope that helps, but I'm sure you don't actually want my help because you love your idol and think you're smarter than me.
LOL ... I already know anyone and everyone as long as they agree to you. Kind of like Obama when he said his door is open and everyone is welcome to come in, sit down and agree with him. Your the only one that said you know more than I do. Look back you will see it.
There's smarts, which is how quickly you can use new information to draw new conclusions, and knowledge, which is just a set of facts or processes that you have already memorized.
If I present you new information about Trump and his opponents, you simply reject it. You don't try to use it or compare it to anything you already have. Not very smart. Most people are smarter than that about most things. You're probably smarter than that about most things. But you love Trump and overestimate the quality of information you have about him due to this love.
Then you made the statement that Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to prosecute Biden is similar to something that a Democrat did to Trump at one time or another. This shows a lack of knowledge, in fact it shows knowledge of false information, which, smarter people realize is false and reject.
Overarching both of these is humility, basically the idea that another person might know more than you about something you already know something about. If you had a little bit more humility you would consider what I'm saying carefully and see if it actually makes sense.
Winger rejects what I say simply because he has spite for anyone who says things he doesn't like. You and Sneakers aren't that way. You don't have negative feelings towards me and you're generally polite. You just overestimate the quality of both the information you're fed and your ability to understand it, and along with that underestimate mine. These patterns were described by Dunning and Kruger in 1999.
(11-13-2024, 11:08 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 10:53 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL ... I already know anyone and everyone as long as they agree to you. Kind of like Obama when he said his door is open and everyone is welcome to come in, sit down and agree with him. Your the only one that said you know more than I do. Look back you will see it.
There's smarts, which is how quickly you can use new information to draw new conclusions, and knowledge, which is just a set of facts or processes that you have already memorized.
If I present you new information about Trump and his opponents, you simply reject it. You don't try to use it or compare it to anything you already have. Not very smart. Most people are smarter than that about most things. You're probably smarter than that about most things. But you love Trump and overestimate the quality of information you have about him due to this love.
Then you made the statement that Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to prosecute Biden is similar to something that a Democrat did to Trump at one time or another. This shows a lack of knowledge, in fact it shows knowledge of false information, which, smarter people realize is false and reject.
Overarching both of these is humility, basically the idea that another person might know more than you about something you already know something about. If you had a little bit more humility you would consider what I'm saying carefully and see if it actually makes sense.
Winger rejects what I say simply because he has spite for anyone who says things he doesn't like. You and Sneakers aren't that way. You don't have negative feelings towards me and you're generally polite. You just overestimate the quality of both the information you're fed and your ability to understand it, and along with that underestimate mine. These patterns were described by Dunning and Kruger in 1999.
I reject what you say because what you say is based off of emotion and feelings..
[BLEEP] your feelings.
(11-13-2024, 11:09 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2024, 11:08 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There's smarts, which is how quickly you can use new information to draw new conclusions, and knowledge, which is just a set of facts or processes that you have already memorized.
If I present you new information about Trump and his opponents, you simply reject it. You don't try to use it or compare it to anything you already have. Not very smart. Most people are smarter than that about most things. You're probably smarter than that about most things. But you love Trump and overestimate the quality of information you have about him due to this love.
Then you made the statement that Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to prosecute Biden is similar to something that a Democrat did to Trump at one time or another. This shows a lack of knowledge, in fact it shows knowledge of false information, which, smarter people realize is false and reject.
Overarching both of these is humility, basically the idea that another person might know more than you about something you already know something about. If you had a little bit more humility you would consider what I'm saying carefully and see if it actually makes sense.
Winger rejects what I say simply because he has spite for anyone who says things he doesn't like. You and Sneakers aren't that way. You don't have negative feelings towards me and you're generally polite. You just overestimate the quality of both the information you're fed and your ability to understand it, and along with that underestimate mine. These patterns were described by Dunning and Kruger in 1999.
I reject what you say because what you say is based off of emotion and feelings..
[BLEEP] your feelings.
You assume that anyone who hasn't come to share your particular brand of spite conservatism must be too devoted to immature soft-hearted feelings.
And then you feel additional spite against them because they're not dead inside like you.
Spite is not your friend. You feed it, and it just makes you feel more spite to more people who deserve it less and less.
So, really, [BLEEP] YOUR feelings, Winger. They aren't helping you or anyone else. You need to be saying to yourself, "[BLEEP] my feelings". Make it your new mantra. Make your Feelings Great Again.