Re: [OT] What's next for Kamala Harris?

On Nov 15, 2024 at 7:28:53 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 11/15/2024 8:32 PM, Rhino wrote:

  On 2024-11-15 8:11 PM, shawn wrote:

  On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:34:44 -0500, Rhino
  <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

  On 2024-11-15 6:15 PM, shawn wrote:

  On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:02:34 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
  wrote:
>

  On 11/15/2024 5:00 PM, Rhino wrote:

  On 2024-11-15 4:07 PM, moviePig wrote:

  On 11/15/2024 3:59 PM, Rhino wrote:

  Has anyone heard anything about what Harris is going to be doing
  after January 20, 2025?
>
  She's going to be out of a job. I know her husband is a successful
  lawyer so I'm sure they're not going to be homeless but I can't see
  her retiring either. That would be too much like an admission of
  failure or irrelevance.
>
  One commentator raised the possibility of her running AGAIN in 2028
  but that seems improbable in the extreme. She'd need a makeover
  of a
  lifetime to make her a viable candidate or even just a likeable
  non-
  viable candidate.
>
  I've heard that both MSNBC and CNN are for sale - or at least
  implementing severe salary cutbacks - so that lessens her chance of
  getting a lucrative gig there as a host or co-host. Besides, those
  would be something of a step down in status from having been VP
  and a
  presidential candidate of a major party. But maybe she'd swallow
  her
  pride and take a gig at ABC, CBS or NBC.
>
  I'm going to be VERY surprised if she doesn't get a book deal of
  some
  kind for her memoirs. I'm going to be astonished if it sells a
  lot of
  copies.
>
  I'm thinking the ideal job for her would be to be the host of a
  series of educational videos for elementary school age children.
  She
  is a master of talking to everyone as if they are 4 years old
  but she
  couldn't possibly teach at any level because she can't think on her
  feet or adapt to changing situations, which are common in teaching,
  so giving her hosting duties where every word is scripted would
  seem
  right up her alley.
>
  Failing that, maybe her old McDonalds could give her some shifts?

>
  Part of the reason Harris lost is that she's not interesting
  enough to
  warrant even this sort of grave-dancing, much less a book or TV
  slot.
>

>
  A bit of sour grapes? You guys chose her! Maybe you should pick your
  next candidate with criteria other than skin colour and gender....

>
  'Sour grapes'?  I think the applicable vernacular is 'dead horse'...
>

>
  Given the situation I'm not sure who would have been a better
  candidate. There wasn't time for the full on campaign that one would
  normally have if an incumbent isn't running. So falling back to the VP
  seems an obvious choice. It's not to do with her skin color or gender
  but her position as being the closest to the President.

>
  It's been well-established that the only reason she was the VP is her
  gender and skin colour: competence didn't figure into it all apparently.
>
  For the record, I feel strongly that she did NOT lose because of her
  gender and skin colour: not by a long shot. I think she might well have
  won handily if she'd demonstrated any competence as VP, let alone the
  Presidential candidate. But her unwillingness - or inability - to answer
  any of the questions put to her along with her inability to articulate
  policies or even specify anything she would do different to Biden soured
  a LOT of people on her, people who would normally have voted for her
  party. Add in the ludicrous demonization of Trump as a fascist and the
  embodiment of Hitler and you've got more than enough to turn off a lot
  of potential voters for the Democrats.

>
  The only calling Trump Hitler was J.D. Vance. So that should have
  turned off the Republicans if they really didn't want someone calling
  Trump Hitler or at least much like Hitler.

    Wow. Just wow.
    Have a look at this clip, especially starting at 3:45:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifTTFSQfqw [6 minutes]
    And yes, she said "fascist" as opposed to Hitler but if you ask the
  average American to list all the fascists they've learned about, I
  submit that the vast majority of them would list Hitler before Mussolini
  or Francisco Franco or any of the other fascists.
    Of course if you ask the average young person, especially a college
  student, you'll find that half the people alive today are fascists: they
  are like moviepig who admits he doesn't know what the word means but
  applies it to everyone he disagrees with.

>
You may recall me asking for your *preferred* broad name for a President
who attempts to overturn the election that deposed him.
>
Care to supply it now?

 Re-elected.