Ten oz

We only have Trump's word for it how successful his businesses even are. Trump is a brand and everything with his name on it isn't actually ran or owned by him. Many believe he is broke or has significantly less money than he claims and that is one of the reasons why he refuses to release his taxes.

Do you think in the current environment (post professional journalism news media) any candidate can win without a passionate support base and sellable narrative? In a climate where large portions of the population get their news from Facebook memes, Twitter, and site lacking any true journalistic authenticity like Breitbart maybe we'll known celebrity candidates are the best way to control messaging. Winfrey is simply too well known for those who opposed her to successfully rebrand her in the minds of many. She is also to well known for headlines to ignore. The millions upon millions of women and people in the black community whom have followed her for decades won't be susceptible to anti Oprah propaganda the same way they might a lesser known figure. It is possible that today, at time when print media is dead and news organizations have been scaling back for years, Winfrey is the perfect candidate. I am not sure though. I would need to actually see her announce and then make the case for herself.

So anyone who successfully is elected to the House, Senate, or Oval office is automatically "mainstream"?

Considering that real estate is a business Trump was born into and inherited it is fair to say Winfrey is far and away more successful than Trump. She is a legitimate rags to riches story and can honestly take 100% for her success. No million dollar loans from Daddy of multiple hundred million dollar inheritance. More over she is the wealthiest female (non-heiress) in the world. That doesn't necessarily qualify for for POTUS but is doesn't disqualify her either. I don't understand what a "mainstream Politician" is. Once one files the paperwork to run for Political office one officially becomes a politician. When does one become a "mainstream" Politician?

I don't disagree with this too much. That said in the current environment can a qualified lesser known person win? If Some like Kaine, Warren, Harris, or etc received the Democratic Nomination would they get even 10% the media coverage of a Winfrey? While coverage shouldn't matter we all know it does. Part of Trump's promise was that he would surround himself with smart people. I believe a lot of people assumed he would just be the face of the administration but other more competent people would be making most decisions. If Winfrey can follow through on that and actually appoint competent people she would be better than Trump. As mentioned in the OP being a celebrity in itself wasn't Trump's main disqualifier. Celebrity Trump's tag line was "you're fired" and he wasn't known to be someone that cared about anyone other than himself. Winfrey is a very different figure. One who is known for caring about people. To be clear I would support any number of Democrats over Winfrey. I rather see Biden or Warren as the nominee. I believe either Biden or Warren would do a better good. That said I don't know that I believe either Biden or Warren could get the same turn out. I don't believe Biden or Warren's core base of supporters would be as active, aggressive, and loud as Winfrey's. That is what has me conflicted. Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes but in general her base always felt lukewarm. The passion and veracity of a base matters just as the size does.

Those close to Oprah Winfrey indicate she is considering a presidential run in 2020. Winfrey herself has hinted at a run a couple times over the last year. What is everyone's thoughts on this? I don't completely know what to think. Some are lamenting the idea of yet another wealthy celebrity running for office. While I agree 100% that qualifications over fame should decide Elections we may currently exist in a climate where that might be impractical. Famous candidates with name recognition automatically receive more coverage. Media is for profit and will run the stories that generate the biggest numbers. Winfrey would receive billions is free airtime. Additionally I think it is unfair to lump Winfrey into the same classification as Trump purely because of her frame. Trump had long been known as a hot headed and narcissistic media figure who pedalled conspiracies. Trump's fame alone wasn't and isn't the reason people call him unfit. I big fear I have is a repeat of Sanders vs the DNC. Winfrey has millions of fans who have followed he career for decades. Her core audience are women and minorities. Those two groups are also the life blood of the Democratic party. Not treating Winfrey with respect could put off millions of Democratic voters who may not comeback just as many Sanders supporters didn't comeback. It is a potentially complicated situation. Winfrey may not be the most qualified but would eclipse cover during the Primary and that would fill her supporters with a sense that she deserves the nomination even if like Sanders she fails to win it.

Probably, however conceding such strengthens the arguments pushed by monolithic minded people. They deny all, concede nothing, and hold others accountable to the up most extent. Nuanced and self aware world views typically get stomped on by staunch positions. We see it all the time. Hillary Clinton apologized for her server, apologized for having pneumonia' and etc meanwhile Trump bold face lies damn near everyday and just double down when caught. Good guys finish last. In my opinion there needs to be more forceful push back. Five members of Trump's Presidential campaign have been indicted, 2 have already plead guilt, yet many top Democrats still are comfortable talking about why Clinton lost and all the mistakes they feels she then about Russia or impeachment. Why; because their base concedes error and the opposition doesn't. It is easier for Democrats to finger point each other than take the GOP on. I am not saying the left should engage in the same level of obfuscation as the GOP but I do think they need to become more comfortable calling BS out by name and not hedging every-time their is push back. The world can be a big scary place and acquiescing one way into leadership seldom ever works.

This is common among conservatives in my opinion. Single points or slogans shape entire world views. Trump won the primaries and national election using 140 characters at a time after all. Average people pay for products and thus pay for anything and everything which impacts a products price is simple . It is a short and easy to digest concept. Never mind is in both inaccurate and absent of important caveats. The fact U.S. made drugs sell in Canada at all is an important. When carrying on about taxes in the U.S. people often forget that the free market they are carrying on about is global. From Apple to Walmart all large corporations both buy and sell products globally. Not only that but they buy and sell from each others. Walmart doesn't build there own computers they buy them from industries that specialize in business solutions. Apple doesn't own their own fleet of truck they pay companies for distribution. Large companies pass costs on as they see fit exploiting regulations and and consumers bases around the world at their discretion. Plus not all companies deal in markets where they are selling to anything other than corporations. Boeing sells aircraft to govts around the world. Only a portion of their business deals with airlines like Southwest and Delta that cater to U.S. civilian consumers. How much average U.S. citizens pay to fly from Dallas to Las Vegas isn't a concern when Boeing is finalizing a $37 billion deal to sell 300 planes to China. General Electric supplies Boeing their jet turbines and got $3.5 billion out of that same deal. It is simply naive to believe that the corporate tax rate determines that cost of a consumer product. The iphone sells in 40 countries around the world and Apple has sold over a billion of them. Energy cost at an Apple plant in China impacts the iPhone's cost retail in the U.S. much at taxes do. Indeed!!! Govt money developed jet powered flight, computers, nuclear power, put satellites in orbit, and etc. Companies have profited into the trillions off of technology the govt created with tax dollars. People inaccurately give the free market credit for technology in the modern world but it is govt funded research and development that created supersonic flight, GPS, the internet, and so on.

Being any different isn't part of the equation; enjoying the spoils is. The U.S. govt spends billions of dollars building aircraft carriers and missile defense systems. More money on defense than the next several superpowers combined yet waitforufo is arguing that it is capitalism which has led to USA's global prominence. Military might is not a byproduct of capitalism. Free Markets did not defeat Nazi Germany in WW2 despite it being in their best interest to do so.

Everything isn't up for debate though. You may disagree with various conclusions but if you distort facts and ignore empirical evidence to get there it is a problem. You have the right to believe whatever you want but should be honest enough to acknowledge when those beliefs cannot be support by evidence. Billions of people believe in ghosts yet there is no evidence for ghost. Lots of people think a lot of things but that doesn't make all things thought equal. Where on earth is capitalism anything more than a component of govt policy? Capitalism is not absolute anywhere. It the U.S. we have between Medicare and the VA over 50 million people receive govt managed healthcare, we have over 50 million kids in public schools right now, public built transportation infrastructure, 60 million people receive Soc Sec, public funded criminal justice, and etc, etc, etc. It is the govt with public money that secures the treaties and trade deals that enable U.S. products to be sold around world and U.S. companies to obtain foreign resources. Pure Capitalism DOES NOT EXIST. Your question, which you claim no one can answer, makes no sense. If you believe that the levels of capitalism in the U.S. are best than you believe in is socializing numerous parts of society. It is govt spending that developed turbine engines, jet flight, satellites, the internet, nuclear power, and other technological achievements that currently drive society.

Exactly! Outcomes matter more than ideology.

The word "rich" doesn't appear in my post. I already addressed this. Perhaps you should just say what you have to say.

There is no direct connection between Olympic gold medals the quality of life. The benefits of winning are purely subjective. California hasn't had a NFL team win a Superbowl in decades does that mean people there would be better off in Massachusetts? I suppose if having a local winning NFL team is a top priority in your life the answer is yes. Winning is just a human construct. Everything is temporary. Everyone who lives dies and everything we think we own eventually will belong to numerous other people. West Germany and the USSR we're among world leaders in Olympic Gold medals yet neither even exist today. It is useful for individuals to do the best they can in life and friendly competition can be a positive motivator but beyond that I think the notion of winners and losers is a bit draconian. It excuses those who are selfish and favors greed over cooperation and mutual benefits.

@Raider5678 we can debate about the advantages of population size and what not but that really misses my point. A country being a world leader is a purely subjective thing. It is just an ambiguous title based on national priorities which does not speak to the the lives being lived by individuals. For many here in the U.S. being #1 in the world in undefined terms is important. So important we (U.S.) refuse to look around the world for examples of what works (diet, education, healthcare, etc) because that would imply we had equals. It is not a helpful attitude. States and cities even do it to each other. Despite the economic success in California numerous less economically successful states insist they are the heartland or real Americans. It is just a childish way to think and prevents people from identifying which things in society and culture could benefit from change.

Actually he is. Trump is a registered Republican party member. That is an indisputable fact. You can carry on about they way you think he behaves compared to whomever in the past but none of that changes anything. Trump is a Republican and only Republicans in Congress have been supporting his policies.

Quality of life is tough to measure because a lot of it is relative but the U.S. isn't in the top 10 nations for quality of life: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life More easily measured is life expectancy which is important as I think most of us would prefer a long life over a shorter one. Again the U.S. isn't in the top 10: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/world-health-statistics-2014/en/ Then there is the way people feel about their lives. Among the happiest nations surveyed the U.S. is again not in the top 10: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/2016-worlds-happiest-countries/ If people in the U.S. aren't any happier, don't have a better quality of life, and aren't living any longer than those in places like Canada than what is the perk of a world leadership title? Yes, our military is mighty and Finland's isn't but what appreciable benefit is that providing the average person?

And your sales tax proposal wouldn't be? The corporations you don't think should pay taxes aren't.

When the argument is about rights the right's position is that corporations are people. Businesses have the right to lobby the govt, finance campaign propaganda during elections, refuse service based on religious beliefs, and etc. Yet when it comes to taxation corporations cease to be people and become some sort of deity totem manifestation whose best interest is automatically aligned with that of the nation.

Why shouldn't a business pay taxes? Do businesses not use public funded services? Uber and FedEx benefit directly from roads, streets lights, police & fire departments, and etc just like common citizens do. Business lobby the govt. Why should businesses be able to use public funded services for free?

Money can get more than one vote but is not guaranteed to do so. The candidate with the most most still loses more often than does the candidate with the most votes. In order of precedence a vote is still greater than money in terms of support. Either way though in reference to someone saying they have not supported a President since Reagan is a false statement less they have abstained from voting and in this case Butch has in fact claimed he has abstained. Paris accord is a non-binding agreement to try.There are no actual enforceable restrictions or penalties involved. Other than insulting our established allies pulling out of it changes nothing. It cost this country country (USA) much as it cost you to say hello way passing people on the street. The Travel Ban was deemed unconstitutional in court and has been rewritten a few times it order to get temporary versions of in place. Can you even explain to us what the current version on place is at this moment? Assuming to understand that U.S. business (Apple, Boeing, Caterpillar, Microsoft, etc) do trillions of dollars globally around the world and than money directly impact our (USA) own economy please explain why it is a good thing to have have proactive leadership position with the United Nation? Only time will tell if the tax bill achieve any of it promises. Considering the fact that politicians and regulators are still scrambling to complete the language for implementation of the changes you would be lying if you claimed you fully understood what all those changes were. At this point you are just stated that you approve of the notion of tax cuts in general and that the details of those cuts doesn't matter.

Clinton raised a lot of money in 2016 but lost because she needed more votes in specific key areas. Campaign money is used to whip up votes and not vice versa.

Giving a Politician a vote is the greatest form of support one can give them.

You haven't voted since Reagan?

Correct, In 2020 Trump will still be the GOP's candidate win or lose which make 2024 the first national election where the GOP will be able to pretend Trump was never really their guy. Same game they played with Bush. Post 9/11 and through the 2004 election many argued that it was unpatriotic to criticize Bush at all because he was a wartime President and things like 9/11 and Katrina were simple beyond anything any President could have been prepared for. Come 06' and 07' the rats started jumping ship and claiming they never really supported Bush and that Bush was never authentically Republican.

Republicans attempt to thread the thinnest of needles. From Roy Moore to Todd Akin Republican ranks are filled with divisive politicians who ignore reason and appeal to tribalism yet the party apologists continue to argue that those individuals represent themselves and at the heart of the party is some greater conservative idea. Bush was a traitor to it, Palin never represented it, and Trump is just a apparition yet over and over the trend continues. In 2024, which will either be the year Trump terms out or the first election post a 2020 Trump revolt, Republicans will undoubtedly be arguing that Trump was never really one of them.