Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[EdEarl]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

What you say is correct, but both parties are now funded by PACs and large donations..

[Ten oz]

Just now, EdEarl said:

What you say is correct, but both parties are now funded by PACs and large donations..

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. 

[EdEarl]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

I think your expectation of the Dems is considerably more than they will deliver. IMO there is little difference in the two parties. PACs are a corrupting force. Though I don't know how, I believe most appointees, politicians and closest supporters become rich while working for the government.

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

I'm not sure either. I think Oprah is terrific and would make a great president, but as I've said earlier America is not ready for her. Even though Obama was the first black POTUS, the sheer volume of racism piled on him was shameful, no less counter-productive to the entire country on the whole. Now America has an outwardly sexist, racist president emboldening his base, every Tom Dick and Harry racist would seize the opportunity to widen already impassible gaps.

She's kind-hearted and truthful. Sadly, not what America expects from it's leaders. Even the most bleeding hearts realize hard decisions are made at that level. The job is rife with no-win decisions and duplicity.

If I were Oprah, I'd keep on the current track being taken and not run. She's already, very powerful and influential in the public eye. Although the prospect of her as POTUS is certainly promising, says a lot about America in general and that's a good thing. However, the country needs to address it's shortcomings first, while the willingness to that end is still dubious.

Despite what the trolls say about my so-called hatred of conservatives, before Bush threw Condie Rice under the bus, I always thought she would have been an excellent Republican president. Not just because she's a woman and black, but an erudite and learned of world affairs. I mean really. She knew and warned Bush about Bin Laden before he did his thing. That's quite perceptive, if you ask me. Too bad it fell on deaf ears within her own party.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I think your expectation of the Dems is considerably more than they will deliver. IMO there is little difference in the two parties. PACs are a corrupting force. Though I don't know how, I believe most appointees, politicians and closest supporters become rich while working for the government.

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. 

[EdEarl]

17 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I think your expectation of the Dems is considerably more than they will deliver. IMO there is little difference in the two parties. PACs are a corrupting force. Though I don't know how, I believe most appointees, politicians and closest supporters become rich while working for the government.

I went to University in the late 60s and early 70s, using GI bill and working about 20 hours a week. I graduated with no debt. A person cannot do that now.

Stalin sent many PhDs to Siberian work camps, because he feared they would criticize him. When he needed them, he made secret cities they could not leave, but treated them well while they built weapons and space gear.

US oligarchs have priced education so high an average person cannot attend; thus eliminating criticism. Moreover, they manage government vocabulary. There is no such thing as climate change as far as the EPA can say. The constitution guarantees free speech, but politicians are trying to make the population ignorant and they would like to eliminate free speech.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

Hypothetical.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I'm not sure either. I think Oprah is terrific and would make a great president, but as I've said earlier America is not ready for her. Even though Obama was the first black POTUS, the sheer volume of racism piled on him was shameful, no less counter-productive to the entire country on the whole. Now America has an outwardly sexist, racist president emboldening his base, every Tom Dick and Harry racist would seize the opportunity to widen already impassible gaps.

She's kind-hearted and truthful. Sadly, not what America expects from it's leaders. Even the most bleeding hearts realize hard decisions are made at that level. The job is rife with no-win decisions and duplicity.

If I were Oprah, I'd keep on the current track being taken and not run. She's already, very powerful and influential in the public eye. Although the prospect of her as POTUS is certainly promising, says a lot about America in general and that's a good thing. However, the country needs to address it's shortcomings first, while the willingness to that end is still dubious.

Despite what the trolls say about my so-called hatred of conservatives, before Bush threw Condie Rice under the bus, I always thought she would have been an excellent Republican president. Not just because she's a woman and black, but an erudite and learned of world affairs. I mean really. She knew and warned Bush about Bin Laden before he did his thing. That's quite perceptive, if you ask me. Too bad it fell on deaf ears within her own party.

She is also a Christian by her own admission. 

 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

'm not sure either. I think Oprah is terrific and would make a great president, but as I've said earlier America is not ready for her. Even though Obama was the first black POTUS, the sheer volume of racism piled on him was shameful, no less counter-productive to the entire country on the whole. Now America has an outwardly sexist, racist president emboldening his base, every Tom Dick and Harry racist would seize the opportunity to widen already impassible gaps.

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. 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

Apparently except for me? I literally thought she was a singer until I googled her.

So 129,999,999 know who Winfrey is.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Hypothetical

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. 

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Apparently except for me? I literally thought she was a singer until I googled her.

So 129,999,999 know who Winfrey is.

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.

[EdEarl]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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 did not answer. You can assume, but don't put words in my mouth. Sooner or later the oligarchs would buy the answer they wanted. They are persistent regardless of how their policies affect the greater world. It is possible a Democratic juror could be bought or blackmailed.

They will attempt to use AI to their benefit at the expense of others. I hope we can stave off that attack.

Edited January 9, 2018 by EdEarl

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

By the fact he owns businesses.

Come on now, don't abandon all logical common sense.

He is a businessman.

 

What was said (and I questioned) was "Trump at the very least knew the business of economics."

Now you might try to claim that since he's a businessman, he knows the economics of business, but that's a different subject. That's why it's not abandoning all logical common sense to question it.

Also since he famously started out with a "small loan" of a million dollars from his dad and ended up bankrupt, repeatedly, I rather doubt he even understands that.

[Ten oz]

Just now, EdEarl said:

I did not answer. You can assume, but don't put words in my mouth. Sooner or later the oligarchs would buy the answer they wanted. They are persistent regardless of how their policies affect the greater world. It is possible a Democratic juror could be bought or blackmailed.

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. 

[EdEarl]

Just now, Ten oz said:

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. 

I didn't answer and you assumed my answer was "no." You should have assumed that I do not know.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought; a singer or actor would learn their words.
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/01/09/donald-trump-did-john-redwood-trying-sing-american-national-anthem/

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I didn't answer and you assumed my answer was "no." You should have assumed that I do not know

I asked you a question.

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

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.

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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.

1

I love your faith in me.

However, in all honesty, I replied first because I thought she actually was a pop singer like Beyonce. 

And with that, I wanted to make it adamant that I didn't believe a pop singer was qualified.  

I was just ignorant, not lying.

[EdEarl]

Just now, Ten oz said:

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.

One of my communication failures is to assume people think the way I do. In other words, I assumed you would take no answer as IDK. My bad.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I love your faith in me.

However, in all honesty, I replied first because I thought she actually was a pop singer like Beyonce. 

And with that, I wanted to make it adamant that I didn't believe a pop singer was qualified.  

I was just ignorant, not lying.

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). 

2 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

One of my communication failures is to assume people think the way I do. In other words, I assumed you would take no answer as IDK. My bad.

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.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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). 

5

I knew her face and fame.

I didn't know much else.

And I'm being honest.

My parents can't afford cable or Satellite, so we don't have the TV hooked up.

Typically we shop at discount grocery stores, like Hoovers which is a small grocery store owned by the Amish people in my community, so we don't have magazine isles either.

Most of the kids at my school talk about pop singers and who's banging who behind whos back, so it's not like I'd hear it from them.

And it's not exactly the type of thing I spend my free time looking up on youtube or anything.

So. Yeah. It's not that hard to believe really.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[EdEarl]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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 am not obligated to answer your question as you think it should be answered. Moreover, read over my replies for my reasons for saying IDK. Your persistence is beginning to annoy me. I'll not answer this line of questioning again.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And with that, I wanted to make it adamant that I didn't believe a pop singer was qualified.

That doesn't seem a very logical argument. (In general. If you were talking about a specific singer then maybe it could be justified. But you obviously aren't.) There is no reason why a singer shouldn't be qualified for politics, in general, or the presidency, in particular. You might as well argue that an actor isn't qualified.

Was Sonny Bono a bad politician? (I really have no idea!) Or Condoleeza Rice? Youssou N'Dour seems to have been fairly successful. And Martha Reeves and Gilberto Gil had brief stints in politics. I'm sure there are loads more. But we probably shouldn't mention Screaming Lord Sutch.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, EdEarl said:

I am not obligated to answer your question as you think it should be answered. Moreover, read over my replies for my reasons for saying IDK. Your persistence is beginning to annoy me. I'll not answer this line of questioning again.

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.  

[iNow]

If Oprah Winfrey, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren were all competing in the Democratic primary, who would you vote for to lead the ticket?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I knew her face and fame.

I didn't know much else.

And I'm being honest.

My parents can't afford cable or Satellite, so we don't have the TV hooked up.

Typically we shop at discount grocery stores, like Hoovers which is a small grocery store owned by the Amish people in my community, so we don't have magazine isles either.

Most of the kids at my school talk about pop singers and who's banging who behind whos back, so it's not like I'd hear it from them.

And it's not exactly the type of thing I spend my free time looking up on youtube or anything.

So. Yeah. It's not that hard to believe really.

 

 

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

Just now, iNow said:

If Oprah Winfrey, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren were all competing in the Democratic primary, who would you vote for to lead the ticket?

Warren, Harris, and Winfrey in that order.