Oprah 2020

angrysoba said:
Donald Trump doesn’t make decisions about who is eligible for presidency. Rupert Murdoch is not eligible, however, and that is only one of many reasons why he might not have run for president. You cannot use the fact that he is a media owner rather than president of the United States as conclusive proof that selling newspapers is more influential than being the POTUS.
Click to expand...
Selling newspapers...and being owner and master-and-commander of Fox Network, among others. He is HIGHLY influential, both in the USA and globally. That was his stated goal decades ago. He changed his citizenship from Australian to US solely so he COULD buy up and influence US media channels.

The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter if a highly influential person like Murdoch (and there are others) is an American citizen or not. Influence at that level is not confined by nationality or citizenship.

Actually, I am a little bewildered by some of the awestruck tones in which Rupert Murdoch is spoken of, almost as if he were some supreme puppet master rather than just a useful person to keep onside. Is there any way of quantifying how influential he is?
Click to expand...
He's a grubby liar and cheat, and fits with the Donny style of operation like a glove. The difference is Rupert is cunning as a ****-house rat, while Donny is as cunning as a house-rat ****.
 
Well this thread lasted about two and a half pages longer than I would have figured before degrading into nothing but whataboutism.

What's important is we got there eventually.
 
I really, really, really hope Oprah doesn't decide to run. That could be disastrous, because if she did run, I just know she'd have a good chance of snatching the democratic nomination. Then you'd have either the woo-in-chief or the mentally-challenged-narcissist-in-chief as a choice for the next president.

If Bernie Sanders runs, he has a good chance of nabbing the nomination (though the democratic establishment will do all they can to avoid that), and I suspect that Oprah could be the one candidate who could beat Sanders.

And her policy positions are anyone's guess - she could get a huge chunk of votes just from her follower base who are likely to be as rabid and unyielding in supporting her no matter what, as the core Trump supporters are in supporting him, whatever he does.

It'd be tragic to see the US presidency turn into a revolving door for the most popular TV figures.

Oprah might be an improvement on Trump, but that's faint praise. Pretty much any random person off the street would be an improvement on Trump.

If the democrats end up putting up Oprah, then it seriously might be better for the country if the democrats lose again, even if it means another four years of Trump. Just because the democrats need to FINALLY learn the message that they can't win, if they don't adopt progressive causes, and if they don't ween themselves off the corporate money-teat.
 
Swordfishtrombone said:
I really, really, really hope Oprah doesn't decide to run. That could be disastrous, because if she did run, I just know she'd have a good chance of snatching the democratic nomination. Then you'd have either the woo-in-chief or the mentally-challenged-narcissist-in-chief as a choice for the next president.

If Bernie Sanders runs, he has a good chance of nabbing the nomination (though the democratic establishment will do all they can to avoid that), and I suspect that Oprah could be the one candidate who could beat Sanders.

And her policy positions are anyone's guess - she could get a huge chunk of votes just from her follower base who are likely to be as rabid and unyielding in supporting her no matter what, as the core Trump supporters are in supporting him, whatever he does.

It'd be tragic to see the US presidency turn into a revolving door for the most popular TV figures.

Oprah might be an improvement on Trump, but that's faint praise. Pretty much any random person off the street would be an improvement on Trump.

If the democrats end up putting up Oprah, then it seriously might be better for the country if the democrats lose again, even if it means another four years of Trump. Just because the democrats need to FINALLY learn the message that they can't win, if they don't adopt progressive causes, and if they don't ween themselves off the corporate money-teat.
Click to expand...

Find another progressive. 'Cuz Bernie can't win. He couldn't win in '16 against the worst candidate the Party could find. He'll be approaching 80 in 2020. The cute grampa socialist-lite thing will have worn thin.
 
Every president has believed in woo and been the woo-in-chief. In the early 60s the country had to debate if one candidate's brand of woo was permitted compared to the mainstream brand of woo.
 
A recent webcomic advocated, instead of Oprah, running Rosie O'Donnell in 2020. The reasoning was that, once she and Trump kill each other on live TV, both parties can nominate people who are actually qualified for the position.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Find another progressive. 'Cuz Bernie can't win. He couldn't win in '16 against the worst candidate the Party could find. He'll be approaching 80 in 2020. The cute grampa socialist-lite thing will have worn thin.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Bernie, the Dem primary was rigged in favor of established candidates with super delegates and what not. Other than that you are right, He'll be 80 and he really didn't come close to beating a terrible candidate.
 
Mumbles said:
That's nice. If she wants to enter politics (and from the sound of things, she does not), she can run for congress, or perhaps mayor of a city or town. "President" is not an appropriate entry point. I can both respect the fact that she's a self-made billionaire who created a highly successful business, and still recognize what her lane is.
Click to expand...
This.

Notable, and arguably successful, actors-turned-politicians Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Sonny Bono all worked on their political and public service chops before moving up to higher offices. Oprah is infinitely more capable than Trump but neither one has the experience to do the job.
 
ahhell said:
In fairness to Bernie, the Dem primary was rigged in favor of established candidates with super delegates and what not.
Click to expand...
Ah, jesus christ on a pogo stick.... not this bunk again.

No, the primary was not 'rigged' against Sanders.

- Super Delegates were not a factor, since Hillary won the majority of regular delegates too. Super delegates can change their votes prior to the convention, and had Sanders actually won a majority of the regular delegates many/most super delegates would have switched their votes (as they did when Obama won against Hillary)

- The primaries themselves are handled at the state level, so even if many top Democrats at the federal level preferred Hillary, it would not affect the way the state primaries were run. So you can ignore any complaints about "the Democrat's emails" or how the executives of the Democratic party wanted Hillary to win

- The number of debates (another common complaint among BernieBros) was pretty much in line with previous election campaigns

Yes, Sanders lost. He was someone who spent most of his political career as an independent, and he lost the nomination for the Democratic party to someone who was a long time Democrat. Perhaps if Sanders wanted a better chance at winning the nomination he should have, you know, actually joined the Democrats a long time ago and made more of an effort to help/influence the party as a whole, rather than spending years criticizing them, then swooping in at the last minute as some sort of messiah.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Find another progressive. 'Cuz Bernie can't win. He couldn't win in '16 against the worst candidate the Party could find. He'll be approaching 80 in 2020. The cute grampa socialist-lite thing will have worn thin.
Click to expand...
And even if Sanders did win the nomination, he'd probably go down to defeat against whomever the Republicans nominate. The GOP has a ton of ammunition to use against Sanders, everything from his self-labeling as a socialist (still a no-no in much of the U.S.), his honeymoon in Russia (hard for the democrats to complain about Trump getting help from Russia if their candidate actually visited Russia when it was still the "red menace"), and reports of him at a rally in latin america where they were chanting "death to America".
 
ahhell said:
In fairness to Bernie, the Dem primary was rigged in favor of established candidates with super delegates and what not. Other than that you are right, He'll be 80 and he really didn't come close to beating a terrible candidate.
Click to expand...

Not this nonsense, again.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Every president has believed in woo and been the woo-in-chief. In the early 60s the country had to debate if one candidate's brand of woo was permitted compared to the mainstream brand of woo.
Click to expand...
It may be true that all candiates have at least claimed a belief in god (perhaps the most common type of woo), although its possible that at least some are doing so for political reasons rather than true beliefs.

Belief in god is annoying, but its fairly easy to temper that with a respect for freedom of religion.

On the other had, other types of woo can be more dangerous. For example, Trump's claims that global warming is a hoax, and that has had a significant impact in both his policy decisions (e.g. withdrawing from the Paris agreement) and his political appointments.

Thanks to Oprah, some rather questionable junk-science promoters have gotten more exposure than they should. (For example, she interviewed anti-vaccine nut Jenny McCarthy on her show, and various psychics have been featured on her show.) The question is, if Oprah does somehow become a viable presidential candidate, would she be willing to listen to qualified scientists when it comes time to actually setting policy. It would be a hope of mine that if she did run for president, we would find out that her forays into junk science were a result of either an attempt to get ratings, or just a lack of interaction with the right people.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience
 
Yeggster said:
If Oprah runs ... Donald trump likely will have a second term in office.
Click to expand...

I still think this is likely, regardless of who the Democratic Party choose. If there isn't a recession between now and 2020 and if President Trump chooses to, and/or is able to, stand then IMO he has a better than 50/50 chance of winning. :(
 
Segnosaur said:
It may be true that all candiates have at least claimed a belief in god (perhaps the most common type of woo), although its possible that at least some are doing so for political reasons rather than true beliefs.

Belief in god is annoying, but its fairly easy to temper that with a respect for freedom of religion.

On the other had, other types of woo can be more dangerous. For example, Trump's claims that global warming is a hoax, and that has had a significant impact in both his policy decisions (e.g. withdrawing from the Paris agreement) and his political appointments.

Thanks to Oprah, some rather questionable junk-science promoters have gotten more exposure than they should. (For example, she interviewed anti-vaccine nut Jenny McCarthy on her show, and various psychics have been featured on her show.) The question is, if Oprah does somehow become a viable presidential candidate, would she be willing to listen to qualified scientists when it comes time to actually setting policy. It would be a hope of mine that if she did run for president, we would find out that her forays into junk science were a result of either an attempt to get ratings, or just a lack of interaction with the right people.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience
Click to expand...

The effects of religion are far worse than anything committed by anti vaxxers.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The effects of religion are far worse than anything committed by anti vaxxers.
Click to expand...
We are talking specifically about the president themselves.

Yes, religion leads to problems... global wars, bigotry, attacks against evolution education, etc. But those are general problems regarding religion as a whole, and its less a problem when you are talking about the president themselves.

Obama claimed to be christian, yet he didn't push for creationism in schools, he didn't condemn homosexuals or gay marriage, nor did he attempt to limit or denigrate other religions. Your average citizen's lives would not have changed even if Obama had been an atheist. Why? Because he seemed to have a grasp on the concept that religion is a personal issue. It seems he recognized the idea of separation of church and state.

I'd prefer the president to be an atheist. (Heck, I'd prefer it if everyone was). But since we're not going to get that, a president who is religious but recognizes that their beliefs shouldn't affect their policies is preferable to someone who believes in junk science (e.g. global warming is a hoax, vaccines cause autism) and lets those beliefs alter their policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom