Ten oz

I am not arguing you are wrong with regards to "public service". Rather I am saying that "public service" isn't anymore relevant experience than other things are. Lack of high level military experience was your disqualifier for Bush's military service when I mentioned it which sort of conflates relevant experience with public service. His service was public service but not the type you felt was relevant in preparing one to be POTUS; so you are attaching relevance to public service. All I am arguing is that relevant experience and public service are not interchangeable or equal. Bush had as much relevant experience in general as Obama or Clinton. I am not arguing he had more or less public service.

I am not saying you are wrong. Rather that the qualifiers are questionable. Obama was only in the Senate for 4yrs and prior to that worked in politics at the local level. It could be argued that his experience in the IL legislature was no more relevant to the work Bush had done working for his old man and behind the scenes in TX politics. Both Bush and Obama have a failed house bud under their belts. Bill Clinton was a Governor for more individual years and a Attorney General for 2 yrs but had no additional experience. I think Clinton, Bush, Obama all had relatively similar experience levels some would and could argue for one more than the others.

Bush was the Governor of the countries 2nd largest state for 5yrs. That job involved making policy or passing laws, or dealing with constitutional issues. Bush not totally inexperienced and he filled his cabinet with very experienced people. He had one of the more experienced cabinets of my life time. I don't think it is fair to lump him in with Trump as a no political experience Business person who became POTUS. I agree Bush was a bad President. I don't think any amount of experience would have change that. Bush simply wasn't smart enough to do it.

That seems like a leap. Black communities in New Orleans are very different than one in San Francisco: size, income, education, access to healthcare, and etc. When I have time It will see it I can find region stats. I believe I had seen some in the past which indicated the midwest having significantly higher rates but I could be mistaken.

Bush' actually had a lot of political experience and some service. Asterisk next to it or not he did service in the military, unsuccessfully ran for a house seat, helped manage his fathers campaign, and was a Governor. Bush was terrible for a few reasons. Firstly he had competing voices within his party which translated to competing voice in his cabinet and wasn't smart enough to navigate it, events like 9/11 made everything worse, and the bottom falling out on decades of Conservative economic dogma. Bush didn't have the brain power to deal with what was going on but I actually think most he was well intention-ed. Bush did want to work where he could across the isle but wasn't smart enough to figure out how and his base was too aggressively opposed. I think 00'-08' would have been tough for any one. Had Gore won on 00' he would have been hung out to dry after 9/11. Don't misunderstand though ; Bush was stupid and terrible. My point is merely that Bush had the standard level of experience we see in most politicians. #4 - not threaten nuclear war via twitter

It is well known Kennedy had health issues and sexual escapades which were hidden from the public. In 1992 (3yrs after leaving office) Ronald Reagan was interviewed by the special counsel investigating Iran Contra and during that interview Reagan could even remember who his Sec of State had been because his mental state was no deteriorated. From Washington's dentures to FDR hiding his disabilities history is full of Presidents with various compromised situations. Winfrey's history as a business person isn't automatically disqualifying. It doesn't automatically mean she would be unable. When you say "must have experienced politicians" what does that mean; Roy Moore was experienced. Roy Moore had been elected to the bench in AL 3 separate times. Sarah Palin was formerly a Mayor of a city and Governor of a state do you feel she is qualified? Being POTUS isn't akin to being a Plumber, Olympic athlete, or any of the other jobs you listed. There are specific testable skills required for one to become those things. I would trust a narcissistic, chauvinist, who believed in UFOs and Bigfoot to perform plumbing at my home provided they were licensed because a plumbers dispossession and world view is irrelevant.

Humility and cooperation are essential to being an effective President in the U.S.. There are people who have worked at the State Department for decades, Justice Department for decades, Senate, education, health, commerce, and etc, etc. A President must lean on people's expertise and not just demand everything they think be treated as gospel. Additionally the President is merely the head of a 3 branch system nationally and their are many other local governments beyond that. People hyper focus on who the President is yet many of the things which most directly impact individuals throughout their daily life are things decided by state legislators, county boards, and etc. The President of the U.S. was never meant to be comprable to a king or dictator. Congress is required by the Constitution to do things like pass budgets and declare wars, not POTUS. If Winfrey ran and is the type to recruit intelligent people to help manage the administration I think it would be fine. My issue with Trump isn't that he personally doesn't have all the answers but rather he doesn't seem to care about answers and has surrounded himself by Generals who had previously forced to retire over various unsuitability issues, family members without govt experience, and bigots. Had Trump tapped Kasich for VP, Romney for Sec of State, McCain for Sec of Defense, etc, etc, and actually listened to them and let them do their jobs I would sleep much better at night. POTUS is a package deal in my opinion. Under Obama I was comfortable with people like Susan Rice, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Holder, etc helping to make tough decisions. If as President Winfrey tapped people like Warren, Sanders, Booker, Kaine, Gillibrand, and etc to help her lead and she was willing to listen to them I think she'd be just fine.

The 40k number jumps out at me as interesting. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area but have lived in Boise ID, San Diego, Newport News VA (just a year), and currently call Washington DC home. 40K would make one living in Boise ID or Newport News VA upper middle class yet someone living in CA or DC poor. It is a tough nut to crack and we almost/probably need to look at each case relative to the average income and cost of living within the region where the suicide takes place. Have you seen any studies which indicate areas of the country with higher or lower rates?

Yet another issue campaign finance alone doesn't address. It would take a whole series of changes to campaign laws, broadcasting laws, cyber security enforcement, and etc to get us moving in the right direction. None of those changes can happen till people who actually would like to make such changes get elected and they will have to campaign and compete with the rules as they are today.

The game have changed. Mega donor money to buy TV commercials or Radio ads doesn't cut anymore. Being viral is a requirement. Campaign finance reform can't fix that.

How much did Trump spend to get 24/7 coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and etc? Even today the coverage is endless. The Daily Show did a hilarious (in my opinion) bit about how inescapable Trump's tweets are which ring very true:

I think the Ship has set sail and is well beyond the horizon. One of the stunning things about 2016 for me was that way media willingly gave Trump billions in free air time. PACs, mega donors, and etc normally frame the discussion around money in politics but it was media (social and news) which gave Trump billions in 2016. Our media is for profit and in 2016 they aired whatever got the most eye balls, period, with zero consideration for the impact on the election. Clinton actually raised more money than Trump but Trump didn't need money to buy things like air time because media gave it to him for free in trade for ratings. I would vote for a Warren/Harris ticket in a heartbeat. That said Warren cannot compete with Trump's ability to get headlines. Warren would be on her heals playing defense throughout the campaign. Most people do not follow politics. They are huge portions of the population which simply do not have the interest or attention span to follow Warren's thought out and detailed approach to governance. I actually think words like governance and democracy make a lot of people eyes role up in their heads. People don't want good governance they want leadership. They don't want democracy they want to win. In this environment I don't think Warren is the best candidate if being the best includes the ability to win. In my opinion Biden is the only Democrat with a large enough profile and aggressive enough personalty demand anything is the small ballpark of equal time from the media.

Clinton spent 8yrs in the white House spearheading initiatives, then 8yrs in the Senate, and 4yrs as Sec of State. That is 20yrs of optimal experience which uniquely qualified her for POTUS. Rather than that being celebrated she was demagogue as to status qou and to much of a Washington insider to be trusted. So there seems to be some double standards within double standards a foot. Having all the qualifications in the world don't matter if you can't get the job.

Brain surgery is a highly technical job which doesn't require having the ability to sell ideas, rally people around philosophies, campaign for party members, and etc, etc. A huge part of being POTUS is networking and campaigning. We can all agree it shouldn't be as big a part as it is but the reality is what it is. To become POTUS and be successful one must be able to appeal the large segments of society and promote a narrative people like. That skill is one celebrities are more uniquely experienced in than former lawyers or constitutional professors. So while someone like Winfrey doesn't have all the various experience and expertise one might wish a candidate for POTUS would have I think it is an overstatement to say she has none all together.

Which is more than many people can say about people like Warren, Harris, Kaine, and etc which was the point referenced earlier. Warren, Harris, and Winfrey in that order.

I only persist because you inaccurately chose to pretend I was putting words in your mouth. If you are going to ignore basic questions that challenge your assertions I see no reason for you to make the assertions in the first place. Participate in the discussion or stop posting in the thread.

This is some Mandela Effect level stuff, lol. No way you weren't aware who Oprah Winfrey was. If you have every walked down a magazine isle at a store you have see her, if you have ever sat of your couch and channel surfed you have seen her, and etc. At most it is possible you knew her face and fame but not her too much else. Even then, just knowing her face and fame, is way beyond what the average person knows about Warren or Harris (no, neither Warren or Harris sing). IDK to an question asking for your opinion isn't rather lazy. You could take a second and think about it. Less you feel the question is too complicated in which case you could explain that and provide me the chance to rephrase it.

I asked you a question. The question mark at the end means I am asking. The original question of what you believe regarding the SCOTUS vote for corporate person-hood was asking for your opinion and you don't seem to be willing to share it for some reason.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked a question. That is why I put a question mark at the end and not a period. Please feel free to answer they question anytime.

Right, that is why it was phrased "do you believe". We are talking expectations after all. I assume your respond means your answer is no? In which case we actually have the same expectations of the Democrat party. I didn't respond to those earlier post because to be honest with you I do not believe you are being honest. I think it was a bit of fun on your part to enter the conversation dismissively by purposely pretending she was a singer and then doubling down by asking if she was an actor. It is something you easily could have googled if you were serious. Additionally if you didn't know who she was why were you the first and most active person in the thread? Sorry, but I do not believe you.

If Clinton had Obama's turnout numbers is key cities like Milwaukee, Detriot, Philadelphia, and Cleveland she'd be President today. It is Winfrey that helped Obama campaign in those areas. In 08' she was Obama's earliest, strongest, and most well known advocate. She would possibly out perform his number in many communities. 130 million people or so will vote in 2020. Of that 130 million all 130 knows who Winfrey is. Of that same 130 how many know who Warren is, know who Harris is, even know who Biden is? Let's not forget we live in a country where the average person struggles to name the vice president.

Do you believe the current state of corporate personhood would be as it is today had SCOTUS been 5-4 Democratic appointed rather than 5-4 Republican appointed? I believe it is a tactic of the right to lower the opinion of both parties to create apathy. Republicans like when voter turnout is low. They like to notion that both parties are the same and all politicians are terrible. It is the right that advocate the very position.

Once Republicans pushed it through Democrats sort of had no choice. Like I don't like Trump's tax cuts but I am not going to quit my job to avoid receiving them. Easiest way to dial it back in to elect Democrats who actually agree with you and want to do something about.

Hard for me to imagine Oprah Winfrey wouldn't get larger percentages of key demographics to show up.

It wasn't 2 parties that made PAC money possible. Wasn't 2 parties that argued corporations are people. Seems you are holding the actions of one Party against both parties.