Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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 Trumps business. 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.

2

She's gotten rich by selling books, hosting a television show, and acting.

I understand what you guy's are saying, but she's made her money out of the entertainment industry.

And while I definitely agree golf is considered a form of entertainment, it's not quite the same.

Ophra made her money by successfully running a network. Networks make money by selling ads.

It's a different business entirely.

And again, I understand she's made 3.8 billion dollars.

However, you also have to take into account HOW she made that money.

Granted, owning a network is a business.

 

But surely you agree it's a totally different business then what most business models are correct? Hotels, retail, food, etc. They're massively different from Television, Sports, and Entertainment. 

 

Also, Ed, Ten Oz, and Zapatos are really in my opinion the only ones who offered debate above name calling and fingerpointing.

I mean, look at Ranger.

It's clear that he did not want to further debate, he wanted to antagonize someone.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[CharonY]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

She's gotten rich by selling books, hosting a television show, and acting.

I understand what you guy's are saying, but she's made her money out of the entertainment industry.

And while I definitely agree golf is considered a form of entertainment, it's not quite the same.

Ophra made her money by successfully running a network. Networks make money by selling ads.

It's a different business entirely.

And again, I understand she's made 3.8 billion dollars.

However, you also have to take into account HOW she made that money.

Granted, owning a network is a business.

 

But surely you agree it's a totally different business then what most business models are correct? Hotels, retail, food, etc. They're massively different from Television, Sports, and Entertainment. 

 

Explain to me how running a successful entertainment business is less of an accomplishment than e.g. selling a brand and speculating with real estate? 

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I mean, look at Ranger.

It's clear that he did not want to further debate, he wanted to antagonize someone.

Bullshit. I pointed out where you are wrong,twice. Now I am doing it a third time, because childishly blaming me for something doesn't change the narrative you're trying to control.

 

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

She's gotten rich by selling books, hosting a television show, and acting.

I understand what you guy's are saying, but she's made her money out of the entertainment industry.

And while I definitely agree golf is considered a form of entertainment, it's not quite the same.

Ophra made her money by successfully running a network. Networks make money by selling ads.

It's a different business entirely.

And again, I understand she's made 3.8 billion dollars.

However, you also have to take into account HOW she made that money.

Granted, owning a network is a business.

 

But surely you agree it's a totally different business then what most business models are correct? Hotels, retail, food, etc. They're massively different from Television, Sports, and

Oh, I see. Five minutes on Google and now you are an expert on Oprah and educating us on what she really is huh?

She doesn't sell books. She advocates for authors and their issues. Yes, she has a talk show. Pushing the actor thing though, is no so much a career marker as it desperate for you to appear correct. It's weak.

 

[Raider5678]

Just now, CharonY said:

Explain to me how running a successful entertainment business is less of an accomplishment than e.g. selling a brand and speculating with real estate? 

It's not less of an accomplishment and I didn't say it was. If you read the post, you'll see that during the entire thing I only said that it was different, not that it was inferior. I made sure I did that on purpose so as not to discredit her accomplishment. 

 

However, which is the presidential office going to rely on more?

The entertainment industry, or the retail industry? The entertainment industry is 720.38 billion dollars, at just over 2.2 million workers.

The retail industry is 3.08 trillion dollars, at just over 15.8 million workers.

Both industries are valuable. However, the retail industry employs 7 times as many people.

So I'd say a president in the retail business is probably more helpful to the office of president than a president in the entertainment business.

However, I'd also say that using a candidate business credentials as a reason for their suitability for office is a bad idea.

Just because a candidate is rich, does not mean I think they'll make a good candidate for president.

 

Also, you have to note.

I do not consider Donal Trump fit for office. At all. However, I also don't consider her fit either. But just because I don't think she's fit doesn't mean I think he's fit for office.

NOR AM I SAYING that Donald Trump is in the retail business. I'm saying his business is closer to the retail business then the entertainment business.

 

 

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

She doesn't sell books. She advocates for authors and their issues. Yes, she has a talk show. Pushing the actor thing though, is no so much a career marker as it desperate for you to appear correct. It's weak.

2

She's written and sold 16 different books. She was an author. Regardless of the fact you don't trust me.

She's been in 26 different movies. She was an actor. Regardless of the fact you don't trust me.

Your facts are wrong, your argument is flawed, and this has proven nothing about my desperate attempt to appear correct.

 

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Bullshit. I pointed out where you are wrong,twice. Now I am doing it a third time, because childishly blaming me for something doesn't change the narrative you're trying to control.

2

No, you're attempting to hijack this thread to twist it into an argument involving name-calling and Trump blaming, and I refuse to let you do so.

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Explain to me how running a successful entertainment business is less of an accomplishment than e.g. selling a brand and speculating with real estate? 

One is run by a liberal and the other is run by a turncoat liberal.

I doubt Oprah stiffs her contractors as a means to profit or borrows/launders foreign funds to offset her operation.

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, you're attempting to hijack this thread to twist it into an argument involving name-calling and Trump blaming, and I refuse to let you do so.

Again, bullshit. I am calling you out for your opinion of Oprah's qualification for POTUS, whom you know NOTHING about.

You deflection fails, miserably.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Again, bullshit. I am calling you out for your opinion of Oprah's qualification for POTUS, whom you know NOTHING about.

You deflection fails, miserably.

 

Yet, you make so many opinions on topics you know absolutely nothing about, and it's okay for you.

 

Anyways, please cut it with the "You(Your*?) deflection fails, miserably." crap. 

This is a debate, not an argument between my teenage peers.

 

Additionally, upon further research, I haven't changed my mind on her.

Just because someone is rich and famous, should not decide if they're qualified for office. Obama was only worth a mere 12 million dollars. I think he was qualified. Regardless of if I agree with everything he did or not. He. Was. Qualified.

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[EdEarl]

I remember as a kid having heated discussions as, "Did," "Didn't," "Did," Didn't," etc.

LOL, I used to have the same discussions with my wife, but I stopped. Whatever, I did it.

Edited January 9, 2018 by EdEarl

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I remember as a kid having heated discussions as, "Did," "Didn't," "Did," Didn't," etc.

Exactly.

 

Also, do you agree with RangerX that I'm trying to derail this thread?

If so, I'll gladly leave.

If two people with more then 50 posts agree with him.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet, you make so many opinions on topics you know absolutely nothing about, and it's okay for you.

 

Anyways, please cut it with the "You(Your*?) deflection fails, miserably." crap. 

This is a debate, not an argument between my teenage peers.

This is a science forum. You must cite what you state. What opinions? What topics?

Blanket statements aren't worth the spit that utters it, unless you back it up with facts. Besides that, the statement in itself has NOTHING to do with this thread insomuch as your determination to derail it, by making this about me.

The irony of it all.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

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.

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. 

[EdEarl]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

I dislike mainstream politicians, both parties. I'm voting independent except for special circumstances such as the independent is known to be corrupt and/or ignorant.

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Explain to me how running a successful entertainment business is less of an accomplishment than e.g. selling a brand and speculating with real estate? 

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. 

3 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I dislike mainstream politicians, both parties. I'm voting independent except for special circumstances such as the independent is known to be corrupt and/or ignorant.

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? 

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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? 

When you enter the inner circles of a political party, and you're selected as the political nomination, for Congress, Senate, or President, I believe that's where I'd consider mainstream.

9 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I dislike mainstream politicians, both parties. I'm voting independent except for special circumstances such as the independent is known to be corrupt and/or ignorant.

I'll be running as an independent, because I agree with this.

[iNow]

Oprah is quite talented, has a great narrative, and is rather smart. She inspires people. She helps people. She's respected and even loved. I can see that turning into her being a good leader of the government. Lots before her have been great at the job despite lack of much previous experience.

I'm not sure either way. It's still way too early for me to offer a decision, but I can see it happening and I can also see her being good at it. Much of my choice will depend on what policies she supports and where she wants to take the country.

I'm also reminded that I'm getting old when interacting online with someone who doesn't really know who Oprah is. Maybe I should start scoping out some retirement homes.

[EdEarl]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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? 

Oops. By mainstream I mean taking large donations, especially via PACs, and usually already holding an office as either a Dem or Rep.

Edited January 9, 2018 by EdEarl

[Ten oz]

50 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

When you enter the inner circles of a political party, and you're selected as the political nomination, for Congress, Senate, or President, I believe that's where I'd consider mainstream.

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

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

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

I pretty much meant what Ed's definition was.

[Ten oz]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Oprah is quite talented, has a great narrative, and is rather smart. She inspires people. She helps people. She's respected and even loved. I can see that turning into her being a good leader of the government. Lots before her have been great at the job despite lack of much previous experience.

I'm not sure either way. It's still way too early for me to offer a decision, but I can see it happening and I can also see her being good at it. Much of my choice will depend on what policies she supports and where she wants to take the country.

I'm also reminded that I'm getting old when interacting online with someone who doesn't really know who Oprah is. Maybe I should start scoping out some retirement homes.

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. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But surely you agree it's a totally different business then what most business models are correct? Hotels, retail, food, etc. They're massively different from Television, Sports, and Entertainment. 

Oh, bud, you're just wrong on this one. Trump ran his real estate business into the ground a few times, and it was only his reality TV shows (Entertainment) that kept his brand name in the spotlight. Trying to say Oprah's business credits are massively different from Trump's is a non-starter.

[EdEarl]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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

My definition includes taking large donations, especially PAC money. Their being supported by either of the two parties probably means they are mainstream. Although, my definition is a guideline not a rule.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I pretty much meant what Ed's definition was.

 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Oh, bud, you're just wrong on this one. Trump ran his real estate business into the ground a few times, and it was only his reality TV shows (Entertainment) that kept his brand name in the spotlight. Trying to say Oprah's business credits are massively different from Trump's is a non-starter.

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. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not less of an accomplishment and I didn't say it was. If you read the post, you'll see that during the entire thing I only said that it was different, not that it was inferior. I made sure I did that on purpose so as not to discredit her accomplishment. 

If it is only different but not inferior, then what was the relevance? You have been stressing that it is entirely different  and it is a fair assumption that there some kind of reasoning that makes that information relevant. I simply cannot tell what it is. You have brought up workers. Do you mean that an the workforce in an industry is somewhat relevant to the discussion? If so, how? To be clear, I fail to see why you think that the difference in business structure actually adds to the discussion and  it really was only kicked off because you started off mentioning that she was an actress rather than a business owner. If the overall conclusion is that both are unsuitable, which seems to be an emergent consensus, it does not seem to be relevant, either.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

My definition includes taking large donations, especially PAC money. Their being supported by either of the two parties probably means they are mainstream. Although, my definition is a guideline not a rule.

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. 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you think in the current environment (post professional journalism news media) any candidate can win without a passionate support base and sellable narrative?

No. We're so polarized that all elections are close, on a knifes edge. Bush Gore had to go to SCOTUS for decision. HRC and DJT were vastly different on popular vote, but had electoral college decide. It's too close. Only something like 30% of the country votes. The districts are screwed up. It's all about getting a few more hundred people worked up enough to show up, and a passionate base is prerequisite at this point.

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

n 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.

I think it's always kinda been this way, at least for President. Even the founders were worried the president would just be based on popularity, and that's largely what's happened. We just have newer avenues to see what our neighbors think now and new methods of grouping ourselves with like minded folks.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No. We're so polarized that all elections are close, on a knifes edge. Bush Gore had to go to SCOTUS for decision. HRC and DJT were vastly different on popular vote, but had electoral college decide. It's too close. Only something like 30% of the country votes. The districts are screwed up. It's all about getting a few more hundred people worked up enough to show up, and a passionate base is prerequisite at this point.

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