Kamala Harris might run for president in 2028

[Retro]

Harris said this in an interview on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on tomorrow, Sunday 26.10.25 at 09:00 on BBC1. It will be on iPlayer after that.

As much as I'd like to see her as president, I think she's a busted flush and shouldn't run. The Republicans must be pushed out of power at all costs, or Trumpism will continue and we can all see just how bad that is, so we need a candidate who's likely to win. Unfortunate to have to say this, but it should be a man too, as a female president is still unprecedented, so it would only hamper the Democrats' chances of getting into power.

People will know from my various comments in the Trump thread that I think the election really was rigged this time and that she actually won, so she and the Democrats should have investigated that when they had the chance shortly after when things just didn't look right, not just roll over like they did, and she's as guilty as the rest of them for this. It could technically still be investigated, the truth come out and the Democrats rightfully assume power and Trump finally stuck in jail, but yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Former US Vice-President Kamala Harris has told the BBC she may run again for the White House.

In her first UK interview, Harris said she would "possibly" be president one day and was confident there will be a woman in the White House in future.

Making her strongest suggestion to date that she will make another presidential bid in 2028 after losing to Donald Trump last year, Harris dismissed polls that put her as an outsider to become the Democrats' pick for the next election.

Speaking to Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Harris also turned her fire on her former rival, branding Trump a "tyrant", and said warnings she made about him on the campaign trail had been proved right.

Kamala Harris tells BBC she may run for president again

The former US vice-president made her strongest suggestion to date she will make another bid for the White House

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[AllThingsTech]

It’s great to see females in leadership positions. I think diversity is a turn on imo

 

[Hitcore]

I heard the news on the radio, that she might run again. I laughed for a full minute. Kamala Harris is the best the Democrats have to offer?
No wonder the Republicans won. Don't accuse me of being a Trumpian or anything, but I don't think this was rigged. Harris really did fell short, so much so that even someone as outrageous as Trump just sweeped it. Dems dropped the ball.
Let's fresh up our memories how strong of a running candidate Kamala was, Grade A Under A style, shall we! (warning: may contain comedy)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It’s great to see females in leadership positions

More comedy incoming! (sorry)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

>But Hitcore, it is all just comedy for you?

Politics, and American politics in particular? Abso-freakin'-lutely. Both the Democrats and the Republicans could do so much better. But time after time again both send the sketchiest, most questionable, and frankly most incompetent candidates they can find. Wanna know why? Plausible deniability. Because if things go south -- and rest assured, they will -- it's easier to find excuses. Kinda like how it was obvious for years that Joe Biden has dementia but it got flatout denied, until only very short after his presidency where they half-heartedly admitted that perhaps he was demented after all. Moreover, both candidates fit archetypes that speak to their voters. Let me rephrase that: the average voter pays more attention to how their ideological candidate appears than what policies they stand for and what they have achieved. Favor Kamala? Yay, she's a woman! And a woman of color at that! Hurray diversity! Favor Trump? Yay, he's has no time for liberal sensitivities! He don't take no shit! Hurray 'murrica! (*cough*and Israel*coughcough*)
Nobody cares what these two have done, both sides just voted for a certain candidate merely because they are not the other candidate. Not exactly a healthy basis for governance.
The last time the US had someone worth voting for was in the early 1960s, but then he got shot to death a few years later. Isn't it funny, by the way, how those who rather unite than divide often end up dead? (Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, JFK, Malcolm X). It's almost as if those who really are running things benefit from Divide & Conquer and won't tolerate those who inspire people to open their eyes.

>Alright smartypants, so who would you vote for then?

In an ideal world, someone who isn't afraid to go against their own party, if necessary. Someone balanced and who isn't influenced by party doctrine. Someone like John Fetterman comes to mind, who actually has accomplished things and has been through some shit, and came stronger out of it. That's the kind of person who is fit to be president, not some artificially made persona who reads off of a goddamn teleprompter and smiles nice.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But the Democrats will never allow Fetterman to run for president because he is too honest. He is more of a uniter than a divider (and we have established how those people tend to end up). And quite frankly he looks like Uncle Fester from The Addams Family, which makes him very unmarketable for the voters. That's unfortunately the world we live in.

So as it appears, the Democrats will probably once again toss in a DEI hire (my guess is AOC), and the Republicans someone who's also more about show than substance (likely JD Vance). Both traditionally serve their sponsors more than the people. So I'd end up voting neither Democrat nor Republican.

Spoiler

If I am correct that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and James David Vance are the ones to run in 2028, then the Republicans will win once again, for Kamala'esque shortcomings on AOC's side. Democrats will shout "rigged! rigged!" but the difference will be too great. You've heard it here first.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[AllThingsTech]

Female president of Ireland happened to have been elected today so never say never!!!

Catherine Connolly elected as president of Ireland

Catherine Connolly, an independent who was backed by the major left-wing parties, pledges to be "an inclusive president for all".

www.bbc.co.uk

Credit to @Retro for sharing this with me!

 

[Hitcore]

And so has Japan, recently. Good for them. I'm not saying that women can't be presidents, all I'm saying is that the Democrats aren't taking this the right way and focus on identity politics for the sake of it too much (and don't seem to learn from it).

 

[Retro]

I heard the news on the radio, that she might run again. I laughed for a full minute. Kamala Harris is the best the Democrats have to offer?
No wonder the Republicans won. Don't accuse me of being a Trumpian or anything, but I don't think this was rigged. Harris really did fell short, so much so that even someone as outrageous as Trump just sweeped it. Dems dropped the ball.

I do. Consider that there are seven critical states, called the swing states that determine the outcome of the election. Trump "won" them on razor thin margins: every single one. Kinda unlikely no? That's the first thing that struck me as off as it did various analysts. Normally a result that close would have a some you lose, some you win distribution, with a slim majority one way or the other overall, not this, just too unlikely. Other signs are the deep dive analysis of vote distributions that analysts have done showing just how skewed they are, strongly suggesting vote tampering. There's issues with the voting machines, many fake bomb scares in Democratic strongholds trying to put people off coming out to vote and more. There's also evidence of Russia meddling in the election in Trump's favour.

I made quite a few posts about all this in the Trump thread if you want to look some of them up and see for yourself. You'll have to go back a few pages though now and they were over a period of weeks too as the videos were made and I saw them.

So no, the likelihood of this election having been free and fair is pretty low.

So as it appears, the Democrats will probably once again toss in a DEI hire

Ummm, that's racist and insulting, ignoring that she got to where she is on merit and hard work, not her ethnicity or for political correctness reasons. You're trashing Harris's many achievements in life, including that she was an attorney general with that sweeping statement, which you can't do and sounds like your speaking from the Trump playbook as he's directly called her a DEI hire. She's not a DEI hire.

tbh, here and in other conversations, you come off quite right wing and don't really like to criticise Trump. That's ok, everyone's allowed their own opinion here and our @Geffers who is rabidly pro Trump against all logic remains welcome here and expresses his views as he has done. However, when significant factual errors are made, or hints towards racism or actual racism, I'm going to call them out.

I may have mentioned that I'm a little left of centre politically and recognise that there must be a balance of ideologies here for the best outcome for regular people like us and that criminal narcissist liar Trump certainly isn't the answer, as is it's proving now he's back in power.

To repeat what I said in my previous post:

As much as I'd like to see her as president, I think she's a busted flush and shouldn't run. The Republicans must be pushed out of power at all costs, or Trumpism will continue and we can all see just how bad that is, so we need a candidate who's likely to win. Unfortunate to have to say this, but it should be a man too, as a female president is still unprecedented, so it would only hamper the Democrats' chances of getting into power.

I'll add that it's best if they're white, too. Horrible to have to say that, but overall, the American electorate aren't fair minded or unbiased and racism is quite strong over there too, especially with the MAGA crowd, so to have the best chance of ousting the Republicans, it's best to have a white male go for president and one that's not too old, either. And to be clear, if Harris did go for it and actually won, I'd be delighted and believe she'd make a great president, perhaps not too different to Obama.

Moreover, both candidates fit archetypes that speak to their voters. Let me rephrase that: the average voter pays more attention to how their ideological candidate appears than what policies they stand for and what they have achieved.

More or less what I said above in a different way, so it's great to agree on this one. I just wish it wasn't true.

 

[Hitcore]

and don't really like to criticise Trump.

I've literally called him a child fucker a couple of pages back, given how he actively is burying the Epstein list by changing the law around it, which is about the most dubious and twisted shit anyone in power can do. For this alone he should be banished to a labor camp in the arctic. Also I have noted on several occasions how he is seemingly prioritizing Israel despite saying "America first". Yes, like yourself I think he is lying all the time. Those are not exactly declarations of approval. This however does not mean that the Democrats are always right with what they're doing. Both sides are monumental screwups and together they have turned politics in America into an absolute joke, widening gaps only further.

tbh, here and in other conversations, you come off quite right wing

I may have mentioned that I'm a little left of centre politically and

I can see why you say that, given the political shift. It's always the ones who describe themselves as "a little left" who say that.



The left has lost the plot. And this is exactly why the Democrats have been losing votes in recent years and will continue to lose.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Harris's many achievements in life, including that she was an attorney general

Oh yeah, let's see how that went.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Some nuances had to be made, but the above statements are mostly true.
Despite this, they thought it was a good idea to bring Kamala Harris forward as a presidential candidate. If not for her credentials, then what for?
Evidently I am not allowed to say this because Trump apparently has said this, which is automatically a disqualification, somehow.

If only the Democrats were as passionate about facing reality as they are as passionate about being anti-Trump, they'd actually whoop Republican ass on the regular, who themselves aren't exactly doing spectacular either.

 

[Retro]

I've literally called him a child fucker a couple of pages back, given how he actively is burying the Epstein list by changing the law around it, which is about the most dubious and twisted shit anyone in power can do. For this alone he should be banished to a labor camp in the arctic. Also I have noted on several occasions how he is seemingly prioritizing Israel despite saying "America first". Yes, like yourself I think he is lying all the time. Those are not exactly declarations of approval. This however does not mean that the Democrats are always right with what they're doing. Both sides are monumental screwups and together they have turned politics in America into an absolute joke, widening gaps only further.

Yes, you have said those things and I'm with you on that, but where's your criticism of him siding with Russia in the war with Ukraine for example? That travesty of a meeting with Zelensky in February when Vance especially, turned on him and Trump didn't stop him and also bullied him? There's so many other travesties that I've highlighted in the Trump thread over time, which should all be condemned, but I've seen you stay kinda neutral, which I find a bit odd. I remember when I asked you directly some time ago what you thought of him as you weren't saying anything and you're so active in other areas of the forum, you gave me an oblique answer rather than condemning him like I do, or at least being critical. That suggests to me that you support or approve of him in some way regarding his general behaviour and I haven't seen anything from yourself so far to suggest otherwise.

Again, I'm serious about that election being rigged, so please do look up those posts I've made about it, at least one or two, to get a feel for it. Maybe you still won't agree with it, but at least you'll be asserting from a positon of greater knowledge. Apologies, I'd link to one or two, but I'm not up for digging through the thread right now, so hope you don't mind doing this. Again, consider how unlikely it is for Trump to "win" all 7 swing states by thin margins. It's very suspicious.

Sure, the Dems have messed up too in various ways* and agreed Kamala wasn't the best candidate, simply because she dares to be female and black - shock! - in this fucked up world. So, she's not perfect, I'd like to see a political candidate who is. They should have prevented Biden from running again as it was becoming obvious that old age was unfortunately catching up with him. But, even with all that, among the electorate, it just takes someone to have a brain, critical thinking abilities, to see that they don't want Trump no matter what the other side is like. I mean, Trump is the same man who fomented an insurrection and should have been disqualified from running right there and then! I actually saw the whole thing live on CNN at the time and couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Heck, if I can see Trump for what he is from over here, why can't many American voters? Shows you how fucking stupid huge swathes of the voters are that the vote was close enough for Trump and his cronies to nudge it over the line in his favour. Just take one look at the MAGA cult to see how he's got them wrapped around his little finger. I have no respect for them, sorry.

Talking about critical thinking Republicans, our very own @Astro What is one such voter. He's said here in public, that he's Republican through and through and really dislikes the Dems, but he felt he had to hold his nose and vote Democrat this time as he saw the threat that Trump is, and he's been proved right. He's very articulate so you might like to debate him on this subject and I hope he's up for it too. Note that he strongly disagrees with me on the rigged election alas, but I forgive him.

btw, I only explained that I'm left of centre to help you better understand the context of where I'm coming from when we debate politics. It's nothing to do with the sign of the times or anything as you seem to think there. Am I right in saying that you're right wing, at least to some degree?

Finally, I want to stress that no matter how much we disagree on things, I'll never censor you, or anyone else who disagrees with me and you all remain just as welcome: open debate without fear is what this forum is all about! Of course, trolls and obvious troublemakers are another matter and I wouldn't allow them to get away with it and the difference between them and genuine debate is obvious.

* To clarify, I'm anti Trump much more than I'm pro Dems. It's just that between two evils, he's by far the worst and in fact, an illegitimate president, so would always cast my virtual vote for the Dems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

 

[Hitcore]

but I've seen you stay kinda neutral, which I find a bit odd. I remember when I asked you directly some time ago what you thought of him as you weren't saying anything

I didn't want to bring this up, but you betcha I do remember that. I thought it was odd and quite frankly it made me uncomfortable -- to be gauged politically from the get-go.
"Hi, welcome to NerdZone! You dislike Trump just as much as us, do ya? Dooo ya????"
You do that with all new users? It's off-putting and awkward, and it made me doubt whether I wanted to be here. However, you were so welcoming that I decided to ignore it, and stayed.

Now again I'm expected to hand in a checklist of stances of every single thing that has been happening. You know what, I refuse to. Undoubtedly this will be translated as approval of that orange fat bastard in one way or another, but I don't care. How is it that roughly 10% of all posts on this forum are dedicated to the Trump thread? Are you sure you wanna rename NerdZone to Old Skool Forums? How about the Anti Trump Forums? All else seems of secondary importance, numerically. I get it that some things need to be discussed, but the sheer volume of which this is done seems... obsessive. Perhaps that's why I didn't jump into every single issue.

Getting involved in these discussions was a mistake from my part. I should have refrained from it. Now I'm exactly where I didn't want to be in the beginning. It takes all the fun of being here away, no matter how much I try to meme'ify things. Perhaps the biggest joke of all is calling MAGA-tards a cult, while not realizing you're in one as well, just on the opposite end. Meanwhile I'm just in the middle going like:

 

[Astro What]

Sure, the Dems have messed up too in various ways* and agreed Kamala wasn't the best candidate, simply because she dares to be female and black - shock! - in this fucked up world.

Honestly.. that's not why she lost. In reality, she didn't know whether to be her own candidate or a mini-me of Biden. And that's what killed her as she didn't have time to decide and then present her position with clarity to the public. Most voters considered her a "Oh shit, Biden has lost it and everyone can see it so let's shove the next nearest person in power into his place" candidate.

Note that he strongly disagrees with me on the rigged election alas, but I forgive him.

No, I simply take the position that there has been no valid evidence presented by either side to support those statements. Show me solid evidence that is admissible in court and I have no issues with accepting that. Just because things are possible does not equate to them having occurred.
As for as disliking the Democrats. Nope. I tend to vote for whomever aligns with my centristic position on policy that impacts the nation as a whole.

Shows you how fucking stupid huge swathes of the voters are that the vote was close enough for Trump and his cronies to nudge it over the line in his favour.

Folks (especially in the modern GOP) apparently like a more modern version of P.T. Barnum.

Sadly, the nation has become one of occupants being told what to think instead of developing (and actually using) critical thinking skills. And that is present on both sides of the aisle.

 

[AllThingsTech]

I’m with @Astro What on this one - I’m more into logical reasoning than emotional reactions unlike @Retro appears to be…

 

[Retro]

Hardly "emotional". Have a look at some of those videos I posted in the Trump thread about this and see if you still think it was free and fair.

 

[Retro]

@Hitcore Woah, easy tiger, no need to take such umbrage and ragequit! I was just curious about your views on Trump and instead of feeling offended and awkward, you perhaps should take it as as a complement that I actually give a damn, because I'm interested and respect your views - think back to all our private chats for plenty of evidence of this. No, I don't ask everyone. You seem to have missed the bit in my last post where I said I welcome everyone regardless of views and that of course, includes you.

I see you haven't taken back your Harris was a DEI hire comment which is objectively wrong and straight out of the Trump propaganda playbook as he's literally stated it on Truth Social. I guess that still means you think she is, then? Apologies if me challenging you on this offends you, but that's just normal conversation when you or anyone says something that's objectively wrong.

And no, I'm not a "reverse MAGA" as you so insultingly and ridiculously put it when there's so much objective evidence of Trump's lying, cheating and general criminality. By that measure, you could put @Astro What in the same category as he's pretty anti-Trump too, for the same reasons as me. It's calling the bastard out, that's what it is and I don't mince my words, as you can see. Why does that upset you so much? We should be on the same side, no?

I see you don't want to give me a straight answer on where you stand on Trump and that's your prerogative, but it's a shame and it's suggestive, for sure. It would also help to know if you're generally right wing because you appear to be, so that I can understand your comments and viewpoints within a better context and hence understand better you're coming from, even if we disagree. It's all just part of getting to know someone is all, no biggie.

that orange fat bastard

The Retro approvez. The Tangerine Toddler is another good one.

Yes, that Trump thread took off like a rocket and that's unsurprising when it comes to him as he's so controversial. It's the ultimate evergreen thread, isn't it? Having said that, there hasn't been as much stuff that I want to report and comment on in that thread lately. If others want to do so, then they're welcome to as that thread is open to all, including you. If you don't want to, that's fine, too.

Oh, but you know why I'm renaming the forum to Old Skool Forums: because of the software that it uses, nothing at all to do with Trump. I could delete that thread and it would make no difference to this.

Getting involved in these discussions was a mistake from my part. I should have refrained from it. Now I'm exactly where I didn't want to be in the beginning.

Why a mistake, what's the harm?

I hope that smoking cat is CGI...

 

[Retro]

Honestly.. that's not why she lost. In reality, she didn't know whether to be her own candidate or a mini-me of Biden. And that's what killed her as she didn't have time to decide and then present her position with clarity to the public. Most voters considered her a "Oh shit, Biden has lost it and everyone can see it so let's shove the next nearest person in power into his place" candidate.

She made some mistakes for sure and it really didn't help her cause. She also didn't have a lot of time to make an impression either - around 3 months? - which also didn't help. Still, I don't think that excuses people for being dumb enough to vote for him, as I explained in post 8. It should have been, "hell no, anyone but Trump!"

No, I simply take the position that there has been no valid evidence presented by either side to support those statements. Show me solid evidence that is admissible in court and I have no issues with accepting that. Just because things are possible does not equate to them having occurred.
As for as disliking the Democrats. Nope. I tend to vote for whomever aligns with my centristic position on policy that impacts the nation as a whole.

There's plenty of evidence that warrants further investigation as I've said on several occasions which then might well reveal solid evidence enough for a court and I documented some of it in the Trump thread. That it hasn't changed your mind is your prerogative, but I don't think you're thinking critically here. I'm not saying that to offend you, just how it looks to me.

Folks (especially in the modern GOP) apparently like a more modern version of P.T. Barnum.

Sadly, the nation has become one of occupants being told what to think instead of developing (and actually using) critical thinking skills. And that is present on both sides of the aisle.

I think we agree on this one, but darn it, you made me look up PT Barnum! I knew the name, but little else.

Here's an article on him, for the curious:

P. T. Barnum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AllThingsTech]

Yes, you have said those things and I'm with you on that, but where's your criticism of him siding with Russia in the war with Ukraine for example? That travesty of a meeting with Zelensky in February when Vance especially, turned on him and Trump didn't stop him and also bullied him? There's so many other travesties that I've highlighted in the Trump thread over time, which should all be condemned, but I've seen you stay kinda neutral, which I find a bit odd. I remember when I asked you directly some time ago what you thought of him as you weren't saying anything and you're so active in other areas of the forum, you gave me an oblique answer rather than condemning him like I do, or at least being critical. That suggests to me that you support or approve of him in some way regarding his general behaviour and I haven't seen anything from yourself so far to suggest otherwise.

Again, I'm serious about that election being rigged, so please do look up those posts I've made about it, at least one or two, to get a feel for it. Maybe you still won't agree with it, but at least you'll be asserting from a positon of greater knowledge. Apologies, I'd link to one or two, but I'm not up for digging through the thread right now, so hope you don't mind doing this. Again, consider how unlikely it is for Trump to "win" all 7 swing states by thin margins. It's very suspicious.

Sure, the Dems have messed up too in various ways* and agreed Kamala wasn't the best candidate, simply because she dares to be female and black - shock! - in this fucked up world. So, she's not perfect, I'd like to see a political candidate who is. They should have prevented Biden from running again as it was becoming obvious that old age was unfortunately catching up with him. But, even with all that, among the electorate, it just takes someone to have a brain, critical thinking abilities, to see that they don't want Trump no matter what the other side is like. I mean, Trump is the same man who fomented an insurrection and should have been disqualified from running right there and then! I actually saw the whole thing live on CNN at the time and couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Heck, if I can see Trump for what he is from over here, why can't many American voters? Shows you how fucking stupid huge swathes of the voters are that the vote was close enough for Trump and his cronies to nudge it over the line in his favour. Just take one look at the MAGA cult to see how he's got them wrapped around his little finger. I have no respect for them, sorry.

Talking about critical thinking Republicans, our very own @Astro What is one such voter. He's said here in public, that he's Republican through and through and really dislikes the Dems, but he felt he had to hold his nose and vote Democrat this time as he saw the threat that Trump is, and he's been proved right. He's very articulate so you might like to debate him on this subject and I hope he's up for

Hardly "emotional". Have a look at some of those videos I posted in the Trump thread about this and see if you still think it was free and fair.

Imo politics is always emotional, irrespective of what side you’re in.

 

[Retro]

Sure, but it doesn't prevent one from being objective, which is what you were saying about me and that's just plain wrong.

 

[AllThingsTech]

Have you considered that the Democrats possibly just didn’t sell themselves very well?

 

[Astro What]

Still, I don't think that excuses people for being dumb enough to vote for him, as I explained in post 8. It should have been, "hell no, anyone but Trump!"

Shoulda/Woulda/Coulda comes into play. The fact is.. his stance was thought to be known. She was actually an unknown quantity that gave no great push for those in the middle to vote for her. She did not have adequate time to decide what she wanted to be much less relay that to the public. She was seen as a "gotta have someone" fill-in since the Democrats let Biden dodder along for as long as they did and he let pride get in his way. There is a reason for the old saying of "Pride goeth before a fall".

There's plenty of evidence that warrants further investigation as I've said on several occasions which then might well reveal solid evidence enough for a court and I documented some of it in the Trump thread.

What I have seen hasn't been evidence. It's been supposition and declarations of "it could be true" type patterns. Of course, being in law enforcement as long as I was has me realizing that what some think is evidence really isn't. And I do look at it critically... and if folks want to waste their time investigating smoke & mirrors claims, more power to them. They might actually find something - but I seriously doubt it.

I think we agree on this one, but darn it, you made me look up PT Barnum! I knew the name, but little else.

He's most famously associated with the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute". Some say that is a misattribution but it is generally associated with his name.
He's also known for "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right" which fits Trump perfectly.

 

[Retro]

Have you considered that the Democrats possibly just didn’t sell themselves very well?

I don't think you've understood what I've said and I've already answered this in this thread. Anyway, I tagged you in this post.

The Trump thread

A good compromise my ass. Zelensky's constantly prevented from defending his country properly by tying one hand behind his back by not giving him the necessary weaponry to destroy Russia's war factories, like those Tomahawk missiles. Hence, this damned war just drags on and on and on as Russia...

nerdzone.uk