The Trump succession battle: A choice between two unappealing candidates?
The US presidential election on November 7, 2028, is still over six years away, yet the speculation about Donald Trump's potential successors has already begun. The President, now 79, has hinted that he might run for a third term, sparking concerns about the constitutionality of such an action.
Among the likely contenders are JD Vance and Marco Rubio, two figures who have attracted significant attention due to their perceived loyalty to Trump and their own lackluster track records in high office. While neither candidate is particularly appealing, they represent the extreme wings of the Republican Party, with Vance embodying the bombastic, divisive style of Trump's base supporters, while Rubio represents a more nuanced yet still untrustworthy approach.
Vance, 41, has shown himself to be a highly polarizing figure, with a talent for courting controversy and using social media to spread inflammatory rhetoric. His early polling performances have been impressive, but it remains to be seen whether this translates into sustained support. Critics argue that Vance's language is often simplistic, lacking nuance, and his views on issues such as extrajudicial killings are alarming.
Rubio, 54, presents a slightly different profile, with a more reserved demeanor and a penchant for lecturing on foreign policy matters while still toeing the line set by Trump. His tenure as secretary of state has been marked by controversy, particularly over his handling of US involvement in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Rubio's views on security and human rights have also been called into question, as he advocates for policies that seem to prioritize Trump's personal interests over those of the broader international community.
The choice between these two candidates is often framed as a binary one: a pit bull versus a poodle. Both Vance and Rubio are woefully unprepared for the demands of statesmanship, with their primary focus seeming to be on advancing their own careers rather than serving the public good.
Ultimately, the US will have to settle for an uninspiring crop of candidates in 2028. The question is whether we can do better than this. It seems unlikely, but one must hold onto hope that someone, somewhere, will step up and provide a beacon of reason amidst the chaos.
The US presidential election on November 7, 2028, is still over six years away, yet the speculation about Donald Trump's potential successors has already begun. The President, now 79, has hinted that he might run for a third term, sparking concerns about the constitutionality of such an action.
Among the likely contenders are JD Vance and Marco Rubio, two figures who have attracted significant attention due to their perceived loyalty to Trump and their own lackluster track records in high office. While neither candidate is particularly appealing, they represent the extreme wings of the Republican Party, with Vance embodying the bombastic, divisive style of Trump's base supporters, while Rubio represents a more nuanced yet still untrustworthy approach.
Vance, 41, has shown himself to be a highly polarizing figure, with a talent for courting controversy and using social media to spread inflammatory rhetoric. His early polling performances have been impressive, but it remains to be seen whether this translates into sustained support. Critics argue that Vance's language is often simplistic, lacking nuance, and his views on issues such as extrajudicial killings are alarming.
Rubio, 54, presents a slightly different profile, with a more reserved demeanor and a penchant for lecturing on foreign policy matters while still toeing the line set by Trump. His tenure as secretary of state has been marked by controversy, particularly over his handling of US involvement in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Rubio's views on security and human rights have also been called into question, as he advocates for policies that seem to prioritize Trump's personal interests over those of the broader international community.
The choice between these two candidates is often framed as a binary one: a pit bull versus a poodle. Both Vance and Rubio are woefully unprepared for the demands of statesmanship, with their primary focus seeming to be on advancing their own careers rather than serving the public good.
Ultimately, the US will have to settle for an uninspiring crop of candidates in 2028. The question is whether we can do better than this. It seems unlikely, but one must hold onto hope that someone, somewhere, will step up and provide a beacon of reason amidst the chaos.
... I mean what's the criteria for running in the primary when all you're doing is regurgitating Trump's talking points? It's not like they've got any actual policy chops to speak of... Vance is way too divisive for my taste and Rubio just seems like a mini-Trump wannabe... can't we do better than this? 
I need someone who's gonna stand up for the country, not just pander to the base 
. But at the same time, you can tell he's got some genuine passion for his views 
. And Marco Rubio just seems so... safe? Like he's trying too hard to play it cool 
. I mean, what happened to him during that whole Venezuela/Nicaragua thing? 
Still, I guess you gotta give him credit - at least he's trying to speak up on some big issues 
.
. What about all the other awesome candidates out there? Are they just too young? Too unknown? 
. Fingers crossed someone amazing comes along! 
. honestly, i think its even worse than us having to choose between two candidates who are basically the yin and yang of trump's personality - JD Vance is like the loudmouthed cousin at a family reunion, while marco rubio is more like the annoying friend who always has to explain everything to you 
. newsflash: neither of them sounds remotely qualified to run the country. what happened to all the decent republicans who actually care about issues and aren't just sycophants? 
" ]
but you know what's even more concerning? that we're already settling for these options in 6 years 
it feels like no one's pushing the boundaries or offering anything new. and with the state of politics right now, i'm not holding my breath for a miracle candidate to come out of nowhere... maybe i'm just being too pessimistic 
. JD Vance is like a real-life caricature of Trump's worst traits - all bombast and no substance. And Marco Rubio? Forget about it, he's got more spin than a news anchor on a Sunday night 
. I mean, who wants to vote for someone who thinks lecturing on foreign policy is gonna solve anything? 
. I think we need someone with a more nuanced understanding of complex issues and the ability to put the interests of the country above personal ambitions 
. It's not too much to ask for a candidate who can engage in meaningful dialogue without resorting to simplistic solutions or divisive rhetoric 
. The fact that we're even having this conversation is telling – it speaks to the state of our politics and the lack of strong, visionary leaders willing to take on the tough challenges facing our nation 
... JD Vance is just too extreme for me, he's all about stirring up drama and playing to the base, it gets so old 
. And Rubio? Forget about it, his handling of foreign policy has been all over the place - it's like he can't even get that part right