Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

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.  

Ten said, "I only persist because you inaccurately chose to pretend I was putting words in your mouth." I didn't repeat that; why are you complaining a second time?

Ten said, "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." Your opinion, not mine.

Ten said, "Participate in the discussion or stop posting in the thread." LMAO, OK, I'll either post or not post.

[iNow]

So, yeah... Oprah as a candidate. Let's stay on topic.

Anyone see a risk for her in the various wacky medical claims she's made in the past, and her association with the likes of "Dr" Oz and "Dr" Phil and related harebrained claims from other quacks to whom she's given a platform?

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, yeah... Oprah as a candidate. Let's stay on topic.

Anyone see a risk for her in the various wacky medical claims she's made in the past, and her association with the likes of "Dr" Oz and "Dr" Phil and related harebrained claims from other quacks to whom she's given a platform?

Can you give an example of a wacky medical claim? So we can have a basis of how wacky?

[DrP]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, yeah... Oprah as a candidate. Let's stay on topic.

Anyone see a risk for her in the various wacky medical claims she's made in the past, and her association with the likes of "Dr" Oz and "Dr" Phil and related harebrained claims from other quacks to whom she's given a platform?

At least she could give everyone a car as a campaign promise... that'd be popular!  

I still do not see the idea of making any celebrity the president as anything but an embarrassment.  It shows the sensationalist and emotional  mindset of the majority (enough to get them into power anyway) of the nation. I'd rather see a well trained/experienced politician who knows what they are doing.

Would you trust her to operate on you if you needed brain surgery? If not then why not?  Is it because she is black; or that she is a woman?

 

[Raider5678]

Just now, DrP said:

 Is it because she is black; or that she is a woman?

 

Amazing.

 

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Can you give an example of a wacky medical claim? So we can have a basis of how wacky?

It's more about who and what she's supported (and I already gave the examples of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil). More here: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's more about who and what she's supported (and I already gave the examples of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil). More here: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience

Part of the business of entertainment.

Dr.Oz prey's on the idea of convincing women they're fat and that they need to lose weight. And while I find that despicable, it happens all the time with the ad's on news sites that I see like "Lose 45 pounds in 20 days!" Ohpra is in the business of entertainment, and the weight loss advertisements might as well be a virtual goldmine of money. Why wouldn't she do so? It's a good(not moral, but profitable) business practice to take advantage of psychological conditions to sell stuff. Or in this case, get views.

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Why wouldn't she do so?

Integrity, and to avoid propagating bullshit. Now, per my actual question: Does her association with this nonsense introduce a risk to a potential candidacy? I suspect not, given so many hapless folks buy into this type of nonsense (see also: Goop from Gwenyth Paltrow)

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Integrity, and to avoid propagating bullshit. Now, per my actual question: Does her association with this nonsense introduce a risk to a potential candidacy? I suspect not, given so many hapless folks buy into this type of nonsense (see also: Goop from Gwenyth Paltrow)

I doubt it too.

As we've discussed, the majority of America will look at her fame and initial views(I.E. someone who never lies because she wrote an article about how lying for profit is horribly wrong) to form an opinion. It'd take more then "She supported Dr. Oz!" to take away her credibility and potential candidacy.

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, DrP said:

I still do not see the idea of making any celebrity the president as anything but an embarrassment.

Was Reagan an embarrassment? Well, OK. Occasionally!

Arnie was pretty good as The Gubernator.

I don't see why being successful in one role automatically precludes you from being successful at something else.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Was Reagan an embarrassment? Well, OK. Occasionally!

 

My teachers said Reagan was a horrible president was he not?

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

My teachers said Reagan was a horrible president was he not?

He was fairly right wing, even for a Republican. And he and Thatcher made a pretty appalling couple. But then I would think that, wouldn't I.

[DrP]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Arnie was pretty good as The Gubernator.

  I think Arnie would be awesome...  if he is aloud to run after Trump's administration - he is a foreigner after all..

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't see why being successful in one role automatically precludes you from being successful at something else.

neither do I - but I have to ask again....  would you trust her to undergo brain surgery on you? If not then why not?

 

[EdEarl]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, yeah... Oprah as a candidate. Let's stay on topic.

Anyone see a risk for her in the various wacky medical claims she's made in the past, and her association with the likes of "Dr" Oz and "Dr" Phil and related harebrained claims from other quacks to whom she's given a platform?

Sorry for the digression.

IMO the content of her show business is not as important as electing anyone who does not oppose climate change, screw people out of $1.5T, disassemble regulations, etc. I judge that a philanthropist will be better than a con man, even if she knows nothing about government. I think she would study the issues instead of tweeting "fake news."

Last night I saw a report about the melting tundra. Estimates place potential greenhouse gas release from the tundra at twice the amount amount already in the atmosphere. IMO anything that reduces fossil fuels use is ethical. I think Oprah would be far better than Trump in that regard.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

I have to ask again....  would you trust her to undergo brain surgery on you? If not then why not?

Not a valid comparison. Brain surgery requires very specific knowledge about very specific things and very specific background experience and practice. Leadership and the ability to direct others and coordinate a nation as an executive is much more abstract and open to much different styles and approaches.

[EdEarl]

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

  I think Arnie would be awesome...  if he is aloud to run after Trump's administration - he is a foreigner after all..

neither do I - but I have to ask again....  would you trust her to undergo brain surgery on you? If not then why not?

 

Is there any president whom you would have trusted to perform such surgery. This question is out of place in this discussion.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I still do not see the idea of making any celebrity the president as anything but an embarrassment.  It shows the sensationalist and emotional  mindset of the majority (enough to get them into power anyway) of the nation. I'd rather see a well trained/experienced politician who knows what they are doing.

1

We all would but Hillary was Trumped...

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Would you trust her to operate on you if you needed brain surgery? If not then why not?  Is it because she is black; or that she is a woman?

Brain surgery is a highly technical job which doesn't require having the ability to sell ideas, rally people around philosophies, campaign for party members, and etc, etc. A huge part of being POTUS is networking and campaigning. We can all agree it shouldn't be as big a part as it is but the reality is what it is. To become POTUS and be successful one must be able to appeal the large segments of society and promote a narrative people like. That skill is one celebrities are more uniquely experienced in than former lawyers or constitutional professors. So while someone like Winfrey doesn't have all the various experience and expertise one might wish a candidate for POTUS would have I think it is an overstatement to say she has none all together. 

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Integrity, and to avoid propagating bullshit. Now, per my actual question: Does her association with this nonsense introduce a risk to a potential candidacy? I suspect not, given so many hapless folks buy into this type of nonsense (see also: Goop from Gwenyth Paltrow)

If you ask should it be an impediment to candidacy I would say yes. However, if the question is will it be, I am far less sure about, considering the wacky nonsense perpetuated not only by Trump but also by quite a number of politicians ranging from misconceptions to outrageous claims in areas involving climate and medicine, for example.  One big issue for an actual candidate is also the extent of their political network. As seen in the Trump administration he hired quite a few businessmen with no or little relevant experience and/or folks that pledged loyalty to him. regardless of expertise.

An actual politician may have a larger network to draw people with actual administrative experience or at least have a more balanced pool. 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We all would but Hillary was Trumped...

Clinton spent 8yrs in the white House spearheading initiatives, then 8yrs in the Senate, and 4yrs as Sec of State. That is 20yrs of optimal experience which uniquely qualified her for POTUS. Rather than that being celebrated she was demagogue as to status qou and to much of a Washington insider to be trusted. So there seems to be some double standards within double standards a foot. Having all the qualifications in the world don't matter if you can't get the job. 

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

would you trust her to undergo brain surgery on you? If not then why not?

 

If she were suitably qualified and experienced, why not?

[iNow]

http://news.gallup.com/poll/225134/news-oprah-winfrey.aspx

Quote

Winfrey has been in the top 10 of Gallup's "Most Admired Woman" list every year since 1988. While Winfrey has never won the No. 1 spot outright, she came close in 2007, when 16% of Americans named her as the woman they most admired, with Hillary Clinton edging her out by two percentage points. 

<...>

It is unknown whether Winfrey is interested in pursuing the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. But if she were to run, Winfrey could quickly vault to the front of the pack based on her high name identification, regular appearances on the list of most admired women and her past high favorability ratings. 

 

[EdEarl]

It seems to me Washington is a cesspool of corrupt politicians who are colluding against "we the people." With few exceptions, Oprah is a better choice than most already swimming.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Clinton spent 8yrs in the white House spearheading initiatives, then 8yrs in the Senate, and 4yrs as Sec of State. That is 20yrs of optimal experience which uniquely qualified her for POTUS. Rather than that being celebrated she was demagogue as to status qou and to much of a Washington insider to be trusted. So there seems to be some double standards within double standards a foot. Having all the qualifications in the world don't matter if you can't get the job. 

4

That's politics, for good or bad... 

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

It seems to me Washington is a cesspool of corrupt politicians who are colluding against "we the people." With few exceptions, Oprah is a better choice than most already swimming.

However, you also have to note this is how Trump managed to convince some people to not vote for Hillary.

Hillary had less votes than Obama, so she lost votes. I think that's partially because Trump convinced some people she was corrupt simply because she had been in Washington already.