Ten oz Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 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.
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 25 minutes ago, Ten oz said: 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. My opinion is that why Donald Trump wasn't anywhere near qualified enough, he's still 10 times more qualified than a pop singer. Additionally, we're being ridiculed for the election of someone totally unqualified. Imagine if we did it simply because they were a famous singer. That would be even worse. It doesn't matter the party they belong to when you get to that point. Trump at the very least knew the business of economics. Whether he was good at it or not he at least knew it. A pop singer? Come on. -1
zapatos Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: My opinion is that why Donald Trump wasn't anywhere near qualified enough, he's still 10 times more qualified than a pop singer. Additionally, we're being ridiculed for the election of someone totally unqualified. Imagine if we did it simply because they were a famous singer. That would be even worse. It doesn't matter the party they belong to when you get to that point. Trump at the very least knew the business of economics. Whether he was good at it or not he at least knew it. A pop singer? Come on. For the record, Oprah is not a pop singer. But to address the question, I guess I'd vote for her over Donald but that is not saying much. I think we've shown that people unqualified are not a good choice, whether we agree with their thoughts or not. No, I will not vote for Oprah. 1
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: A pop singer? Come on. Pop singer. WTF? Besides that, America isn't ready for a black woman president because it has not transcended misogyny, racism and hyper-partisanship.
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, zapatos said: For the record, Oprah is not a pop singer. My bad. I thought she was a singer. Actress* Also, one of her quotes: Surround yourself with only people who are going to lift you higher. Sounds familiar. Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right? -1
EdEarl Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Oprah is a business woman with a net worth over $3B. She is a philanthropist not known for telling lies. It's hard for me to imagine anyone who would do worse than Trump since I'm not running. I think she would do OK as president. 2
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Ummm.... she's not an actress either. 8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Actress*
EdEarl Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 She has appeared in several movies and TV shows. Yes, she is a pretty good actress. She started with talk shows, IIRC.
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Also, one of her quotes: Surround yourself with only people who are going to lift you higher. Sounds familiar. Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right? So even though you have no idea who she is, what she does or what she stands for, you have already decided she or any supporters are snobs? Edited January 9, 2018 by rangerx
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rangerx said: So even though you have no idea who she is, what she does or what she stands for, you have already decided she's or any supporters are snobs? Indoctrinated much? I'll ignore this. It's literally so far off from what anyone on here has even said, you're just looking to start a petty argument and throw a tantrum. Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Like Trump, she's been bankrupt. It seems some voters think that makes them sound businesspeople. Having said that, it's hard to imagine her doing a much worse job than Trump. 33 minutes ago, rangerx said: Besides that, America isn't ready for a black woman president because it has not transcended misogyny, racism and hyper-partisanship. Presumably, if we tell Raider than she's a white male, he won't bother to check 1 minute ago, Raider5678 said: I'll ignore this. It's always good to announce that you plan to ignore it when someone points out you did something dumb. That way nobody expects you to learn from the experience.
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Ignore all you like. However, you jumped into this thread (second comment) in total ignorance of the person, yet aloud stated she is not qualified for the job. Hyper-partisanship, by default. Period.
EdEarl Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Raider said, " Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right?" Some people are that way; others are not. Jimmy Carter said that Admiral H. Rickover had tricks to make people feel uncomfortable during interviews (e.g., shortening several legs on interviewee chair so it cannot sit level.) His purpose was to find people who could think under stress, and he liked Carter because Carter did not always agree.
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: 1. Presumably, if we tell Raider than she's a white male, he won't bother to check 2. It's always good to announce that you plan to ignore it when someone points out you did something dumb. That way nobody expects you to learn from the experience. 1. My god, you're worse than half the idiots at my school. At the very least look and see I corrected myself and admitted my mistake. 2. At no point did I call her supporters snobs. But, when someone jumps out and says I did, and I say I'll ignore them for having no basis in reality, I"M the one that must learn. Additionally, I ignored it so that I could at least attempt to stop a very blatant hijacking of a thread. Rather than get into an argument. However, it appears hijacking is allowed as long as enough people get emotionally vested into it doesn't it? 5 minutes ago, EdEarl said: Raider said, " Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right?" Some people are that way; others are not. Jimmy Carter said that Admiral H. Rickover had tricks to make people feel uncomfortable during interviews (e.g., shortening several legs on interviewee chair so it cannot sit level.) His purpose was to find people who could think under stress, and he liked Carter because Carter did not always agree. Fair enough. However, that was in reference to the echo chambers that social media uses. http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ 6 minutes ago, rangerx said: Ignore all you like. However, you jumped into this thread (second comment) in total ignorance of the person, yet aloud stated she is not qualified for the job. Hyper-partisanship, by default. Period. My total ignorance of the person was the fact I knew she wasn't a politician. Therefore, in my mind, not qualified. What you call Hyper-partisanship, I call logic. Additionally, we've already gotten over the point that I was mistaken about her job. She was an actress, she is also a talk show host, which I basically equate to fairly close to actress in the sense it's on TV and people watch her. I'm sure you've never ever made a mistake about someone. Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Raider5678 said: 1. My god, you're worse than half the idiots at my school. At the very least look and see I corrected myself and admitted my mistake. Come off it. Anyone who reads the thread can see that (1)Two other people corrected you and that (2) even when you were told you were wrong about what she did you just guessed again and had to be corrected again. You didn't "correct yourself"- others had to do that for you.
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Sounds familiar. Either way, someone is always intelligent if they agree with you right? "Sounds familiar" means you are repeating an observed pattern. What is this pattern? Sychophants agree with Trumps idiocy... does that make them intelligent? Or is that standard only applied to liberals?
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Trump at the very least knew the business of economics. Really? When? Edited January 9, 2018 by John Cuthber
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: Come off it. Anyone who reads the thread can see that (1)Two other people corrected you and that (2) even when you were told you were wrong about what she did you just guessed again and had to be corrected again. You didn't "correct yourself"- others had to do that for you. Anyone who reads the thread also realizes you're wrong here. Because she was an actress. And you're getting worse. At which point is admitting you're wrong and changing what you said when someone corrects you considered bad?
EdEarl Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 Trump knows con games. He seems to avoid learning.
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said: Really? When? By the fact he owns businesses. Come on now, don't abandon all logical common sense. He is a businessman.
Raider5678 Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, rangerx said: "Sounds familiar" means you are repeating an observed pattern. What is this pattern? Sychophants agree with Trumps idiocy... does that make them intelligent? Or is that standard only applied to liberals? And I'm done with this thread. I'm glad to see it went from talking about Ophra to complaining about Trump and his supporters in less than a single page. 1
EdEarl Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 In fact, it seems to me that most US businessmen know little about business except cutting costs and bribing politicians. 1
rangerx Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: I'll ignore this. It's literally so far off from what anyone on here has even said, you're just looking to start a petty argument and throw a tantrum. Grow up. What you did was demonstrate for all the world to see, was the classic example of monolithic party adherence. You have no idea who Oprah is, yet rapidly and outwardly declared she was not qualified for the job, merely because she's not a conservative.
CharonY Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) Two thoughts. First she is a businesswoman and based on her upbringing I am more inclined to believe that she may be used to hard work (esp. considering the reports floating around how little time Trump actually spends in the office). Considering the considerable challenges she likely faced it does speak to some degree to her business acumen. However, there is no indication that this can in any way be translated into politics. In fact, the current administration is clearly an indicator that simply trying to run a government like a business does not work well. That being said, it would shift the presidential election to a live reality TV show (more so than it already is) which is somewhat worrisome. It would not be the first time that TV personalities held office but I consider it a poor decision nonetheless. 34 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Additionally, we've already gotten over the point that I was mistaken about her job. She was an actress, she is also a talk show host, which I basically equate to fairly close to actress in the sense it's on TV and people watch her. I think the point you are missing and what people try to tell you, perhaps not explicitly enough is that Winfrey has built a ~3 billion dollar empire, which roughly rivals Trump's . Characterizing her as an host or actress while calling Trump a business seemed like an attempt to diminish her abilities. I assume it was just mere ignorance on your behalf, though. Edited January 9, 2018 by CharonY
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now