Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

Riiiigth, No Republican or Democrat support, and that's all that gets elected these days. Sorry, I just don't see it happening. 

I didn't say it was happening. I said comparing Winfrey to Johnson was akin to comparing George Lucas to a successful YouTube-er. 

I am not sure what you mean by no Democrat support? Winfrey has helped campaign and raise money for Democrats. She played a large role in 2008 for Obama. 

[DanTrentfield]

She isn't exactly a high ranking member last I checked. I personally hate both parties for being block headed and blind but it's what gets elected.

 

[Ten oz]

 

Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama was one of the most widely covered and studied developments of the 2008 presidential campaign, as she has been described as the most influential woman in the world^[1][2][3]. Winfrey first endorsed Obama in September 2006 before he had even declared himself a candidate. In May 2007 Winfrey made her first endorsement of candidate Obama, and in December 2007, she made her first campaign appearances for him. Two economists estimate that Winfrey’s endorsement was worth over a million votes in the Democratic primary race^[4] and that without it, Obama would have lost the nomination.^[5] Then-Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich claimed that the endorsement was so significant in electing Obama president that he considered offering Obama's former seat in the Senate to Winfrey.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey's_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

Just now, DanTrentfield said:

She isn't exactly a high ranking member last I checked. I personally hate both parties for being block headed and blind but it's what gets elected.

 

I am simply criticizing the Dwayne Johnson comparison. Winfrey is on a very different level than the Rock. 

[DanTrentfield]

I stand corrected. She is. Well I'm not exactly in a rush for a president from either party. I want one that wishes to remove power from government not give the government more. I think basic things like the FBI and state governments and a congress and senate in addition to judicial branch is more than enough with two presidents being elected and given emergency powers when under serious threat of war or other crisis. Basically drum down power to no big fast decisions, and make it so that if anyone in the government practices anything other than what is in the people's interest they are arrested and charged with high treason, the two options if convicted being death or life in prison.

[EdEarl]

11 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

Riiiigth, No Republican or Democrat support, and that's all that gets elected these days. Sorry, I just don't see it happening. 

A party's support is illusion. The money is being spent by wealthy business owners whose business is bilking the public using the legal system.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

I'm not exactly in a rush for a president from either party. I want one that wishes to remove power from government not give the government more.

This is fine as a simplistic talking point, but until you step up and map these ideals on to a specific candidate that has a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning and activating them, then your voice will remain muted and the status quo permitted to persist, all while others who do move away from mere slogans have their priorities realized. 

[EdEarl]

13 minutes ago, DanTrentfield said:

Well I'm not exactly in a rush for a president from either party. I want one that wishes to remove power from government not give the government more.

The republicans are currently deregulating, which means removing power from the government. Is that what you want?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

Basically drum down power to no big fast decisions, and make it so that if anyone in the government practices anything other than what is in the people's interest they are arrested and charged with high treason, the two options if convicted being death or life in prison.

Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution, and that ain't it.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, EdEarl said:

The republicans are currently deregulating, which means removing power from the government. Is that what you want?

Are you sure?
Stephen Miller seems to want to remove power from the courts and hand it to the government.

 

 

And it seems that in recent years only Obama and Clinton actually got close to reducing government or maintaining spending rather than raising it.

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Chart1-Spending-Per-Capita-vero.png&imgrefurl=https://www.mercatus.org/publication/rise-capita-federal-spending&h=849&w=1170&tbnid=hrWrrxz1rLmcVM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=211&usg=__yBvla-rlHtDEfNuAOtiLz-gzF9U%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjt_4-X-9TYAhVFWBQKHY8tBO8Q9QEIODAA..i&docid=9yIyxFlk0yBOoM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt_4-X-9TYAhVFWBQKHY8tBO8Q9QEIODAA

The republicans say they want to do that, but they actually just transfer the money to corporations, rather than people.

There's a similar picture in the UK where the Right wing (Conservative) government berate the Left (Labour) for borrowing  too much, but in fact the   Tories borrowed more in the last  parliament than all Labour governments added  together;  ever.

So you need to look at what they actually do- rather than what they say they do.

[EdEarl]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Are you sure?

So you need to look at what they actually do- rather than what they say they do.

Sure as hell unhappy about the US Federal Government. Politics are corrupting.

Follow the money.

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The republicans say they want to do that, but they actually just transfer the money to corporations, rather than people

Yes, Republicans sell deregulation as limiting government overreach but reality the goal is to benefit large corporations that exploit resources. When it comes to what's going on in our bedrooms, law enforcements ability to shoot you dead in the street, the govt's ability to execute you, autonomous vehicles ability to kill, data collection, and on and on and on Republican have no problem with overreach. Things like the Patriot Act were written and signed into law by Republicans. It is currently Republicans attempting to crack down on states which have legalized marijuana. When Republicans talk about less govt it only applies a la carte to those things which they choose. 

14 hours ago, EdEarl said:

A party's support is illusion. The money is being spent by wealthy business owners whose business is bilking the public using the legal system.

You are ignoring the better in pursuit if the perfect. However you feel about Obama he was a better President Bush. Ensuring we select those whom are better is still important even if no one is perfect. The way the U.S. is set up Democracy is divided. Wyoming has 1/56th the population of Texas yet has equal representation in the Senate. A candidate can win 3 million more votes yet still lose. The constitution established these things. Candidates for office do not need to speak for everyone. They just need to speak for the correct pockets of people. Money in politics didn't create that. Outlaw all lobbyists and campaign contributions tomorrow and Trump would still be able to gin up support demonizing immigrants. Trump won 70% of the popular vote in Wyoming and West VA. Those weren't states where massive amounts of money were used to influence voters. They are mining states and Trump's promise to increase mining jobs resonated. 

Clinton's campaign raised 1.2 billion dollars  and Trump's campaign only raise 650 million dollars yet Trump won. In 2012 Romney raised a billion dollars and lost. While money in politics is bad it isn't absolute. The below links breaks down where Clinton and Trump yet raise and spent money:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Edited January 13, 2018 by Ten oz
Added link

[EdEarl]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yes, Republicans sell deregulation as limiting government overreach but reality the goal is to benefit large corporations that exploit resources. When it comes to what's going on in our bedrooms, law enforcements ability to shoot you dead in the street, the govt's ability to execute you, autonomous vehicles ability to kill, data collection, and on and on and on Republican have no problem with overreach. Things like the Patriot Act were written and signed into law by Republicans. It is currently Republicans attempting to crack down on states which have legalized marijuana. When Republicans talk about less govt it only applies a la carte to those things which they choose. 

You are ignoring the better in pursuit if the perfect. However you feel about Obama he was a better President Bush. Ensuring we select those whom are better is still important even if no one is perfect. The way the U.S. is set up Democracy is divided. Wyoming has 1/56th the population of Texas yet equal representation in the Senate. A candidate can win 3 million more votes yet still lose. The constitution established these things. Candidates for office do not need to speak for everyone. They just need to speak for the correct pockets of people. Money in politics didn't create that. Outlaw all lobbyists and campaign contributions tomorrow and Trump would still be able to gin up support demonizing immigrants. Trump won 70% of the popular vote in Wyoming and West VA. Those weren't states where massive amounts of money were used to influence voters. They are mining states and Trump's promise to increase mining jobs resonated. 

Clinton's campaign raised 1.2 billion dollars  and Trump's campaign only raise 650 million dollars yet Trump won. In 2012 Romney raised a billion dollars and lost. While money in politics is bad it isn't absolute. The below links breaks down where Clinton and Trump yet raise and spent money:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

No comment.

[Ten oz]

"Marist poll conducted for NPR and PBS NewsHour out Friday showed Winfrey topping Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent, while 11 percent of voters were undecided."

"The PCCC poll also tested Trump against Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The poll found that Warren, widely considered a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2020, would lead Trump by 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent, while 8 percent said they were unsure."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488#ampshare=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488

[Area54]

On 12/01/2018 at 6:19 PM, Phi for All said:

I don't see why not. Men created our political system to fit themselves, and it's horribly difficult for women in US politics to work within the "old boys club" atmosphere without bending to its structure. It can tend to create female patriarchs rather than a true matriarchal leader, and I think it would be refreshing to see how a strong woman would restructure our democracy to keep it vibrant and responsive to the will of the People. 

OTOH, Oprah had a bad experience with an early pregnancy, and never experienced motherhood. I keep picturing our first female POTUS as a fierce mother bear type, nurturing and protective, someone who will prioritize her cubs quite a bit higher than they have been for a long time.

I rather meant that you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that I agreed with you. It could damage your reputation.

 

[DanTrentfield]

 

On 1/12/2018 at 8:59 PM, swansont said:

Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution, and that ain't it.

Context. "In the people's interest" is for the general benefit of society in one way or another. Not in the people's interest is signing backroom deals to line your own pockets. 

 

I Guess I shouldn't have defined it improperly as "treason" but rather "misappropriation of power" which is defined as anything that is wholeheartedly in the interest of a company or business magnate, and not in any way an effort to better the nation as a whole. Course I see why this charge doesn't exist because then people point fingers and abuse the charge. 

[iNow]

http://abcn.ws/2FMlESv

Quote

Oprah's not alone: 16 potential Democratic 2020 candidates ask for advice

 

[Moontanman]

On 1/9/2018 at 1:43 PM, EdEarl said:

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.

She is a known purveyor of woo, she is so steeped in magical thinking it's stunning. She is IMHO instrumental in many of the problems facing our country, that being said, I'd vote for her before I'd vote for the HCIC...  

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

She is a known purveyor of woo, she is so steeped in magical thinking it's stunning. She is IMHO instrumental in many of the problems facing our country, that being said, I'd vote for her before I'd vote for the HCIC...  

Such as?

[iNow]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Such as?

I think he's referring to the way she has promoted purveyors of woo and nonsense, the most obvious being Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, but there have been others. She went through a phase where she really liked the pretend "medicines" out there like homeopathy that have turned out to do more harm than good.

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think he's referring to the way she has promoted purveyors of woo and nonsense, the most obvious being Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, but there have been others. She went through a phase where she really liked the pretend "medicines" out there like homeopathy that have turned out to do more harm than good.

Oprah also had a lot to do with promoting Jenny McCarthy's career, which was heavily involved in the anti-vaccination movement.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think he's referring to the way she has promoted purveyors of woo and nonsense, the most obvious being Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, but there have been others. She went through a phase where she really liked the pretend "medicines" out there like homeopathy that have turned out to do more harm than good.

Cheers. i thought it might be something like that. I only know that she's very famous in America and very rich. 

[EdEarl]

Celebrities have their lives exposed, and suffer lies. I have little evidence, sometimes hear and hope I don't repeat untruths.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Such as?

Yeah, what they said, she has also asserted some pretty disparaging remarks about atheism as well. 

41 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Celebrities have their lives exposed, and suffer lies. I have little evidence, sometimes hear and hope I don't repeat untruths.

Not lies, she does this on national TV nearly every day... 

[Ten oz]

If my whole life was public and I ran for office it would be very easy for a opponent criticise things I have done. What a Politician advocates for in real-time should be more heavily considered that what they may have done in decades past. Provided those actions of old are not prosecutable. Obama admittedly used drugs in his youth. He was still and excellent President in my opinion. 

If Oprah runs I will evaluate her message and policy ideas. I am nervous about her running because I believe they are millions if her fans which might take a Oprah or nothing position which may hurt Democratic turnout if she failed to win the nomination. That said if she has good ideas and rallies her fans around the party and not just herself than it could be a really good thing. 

[EdEarl]

I've no access to her shows, and when I did have access, I didn't watch her.

Politicians and actors have similar jobs, to make fantasy seem real.