Oprah Winfrey - does speech provide clues about presidential run?

[bendejo]

Let's not forget Oprah does a hold a place in US politics: kingmaker.

"Is he the one?"

Let's see if she comes up with another one.  At this moment I'd say Cory Booker is a possibility.

 

Michelle O. hated living in the media's fishbowl, and, if for no other reason, Oprah wouldn't want that either, as much of a publicity hound as she is.

Not long ago Oprah pulled a publicity stunt to promote herself and a movie she had coming out at the time, and it involved denouncing someone involved in a stupid incident as a racist.  I thought it was pretty low; I never really thought much of her anyway, but that incident really gave me a sour attitude toward her.

 

 

[Dagnabbit]

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

The woman is qualified  to be President because;

- She is  educated, both formally and  through life and work experience.

- She is an accomplished and successful business entrepreneur who accomplished it all without screwing people over or declaring convenient bankruptcies cheating people.

- She is free of scandal or allegations of  deceit or dishonesty.

- She has set up and run a charitable foundation that has delivered  effective eduicational opportunities to the poor and disadvantaged  in the USA and elsewhere.

 

She is smart, a brilliant communicator, empathetic, acceptable to middle of the road democrats and republicans and a consensus builder not a divider.

 

I don't like her, but she is as qualified as any of the presidential candidates who have run over the past 50 years. 

 

She has zero experience. This is not an entry level position.

[Air Smiles]

28 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

She has zero experience. This is not an entry level position.

 

In money terms she is worth about the same as Trump, but she made every dollar from nothing unlike Trump who had everything handed to him.

 

I would say she is overqualified compared to the current potus.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Air Smiles

[greatwhitenorth]

29 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

She has zero experience. This is not an entry level position.

 

I don't know about that, Trump never held public office before and he was electable. 

[Stargeezr]

Hey! Ronald Regan was an ok President, and only was an actor in his earlier years, so why wouldn't Oprah be a good  President?  She is intelligent, smart, and has not had all those previous bankruptsies that the Donald has had, plus I have never heard Oprah once say she is a genius.

Geezer

[impulse]

13 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Just what America needs, another actor/ talk show host for President, the Worlds never going to take you seriously if you keep doing that.

 

They took Reagan pretty seriously.   Even after Bedtime for Bonzo.

 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said:

She has zero experience. This is not an entry level position.

 

It's for the voters to decide whether they want fresh blood, or someone who's been in DC so long that they can't smell the swamp gas any more.

 

Edit:  Or even worse, long enough that they're addicted to the swamp gas and can't survive without it.

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by impulse

[PattayaAngel]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hold your horses, matey.

Winfrey hasn't even announced yet (nor has anyone) and the democrats have a long list of worthy potential 2020 presidential candidates.

If Winfrey seeks the nomination, she will face a large field of opponents.

Not saying she couldn't win, but it's way way early. 

John McCain, republican, is very seriously ill. 

 

Pray do list the 'worthy candidates'?  BTW, matey, my post was slightly 'tongue in cheek'

[Dagnabbit]

3 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

In money terms she is worth about the same as Trump, but she made every dollar from nothing unlike Trump who had everything handed to him.

 

I would say she is overqualified compared to the current potus.

They both have zero experience.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Dagnabbit]

3 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Hey! Ronald Regan was an ok President, and only was an actor in his earlier years, so why wouldn't Oprah be a good  President?  She is intelligent, smart, and has not had all those previous bankruptsies that the Donald has had, plus I have never heard Oprah once say she is a genius.

Geezer

 

Ronald Reagan was governor of California before becoming president & prior to that had been on many political committees.

 

He was not just an actor in his early years. He had experience. 

 

You people are absolutely delusional if you believe being president is a job for a newcomer.

[spidermike007]

23 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

Oprah would be a terrible president.

 

If she runs in 2020 - it'll secure Trumps second term.

 

Is this the best and brightest that the US has to offer? Clinton, Trump, Oprah? 

 

I think this is the end of democracy as we know it. Oprah is in no way qualified to be the leader of the free world. It's just the flip side of the Trump coin.

 

President is NOT an entry-level position.

 

 

First of all Oprah will NOT run. It is all speculation. The office is way, way below her. She is a elegant, dignified women, who has a big heart, and has done much to help many. Far more than could ever be said about the current occupant of the very white house. 

 

She would not want to subject herself to the open sewer, that is the US candidacy for president, nor the cesspool that is the presidency and the white house. Never gonna happen people. However, I do predict a landslide victory for the democrats this coming November in the mid terms, and a takeover of both the house and the senate. It is the result of a circus clown, charlatan huckster running things now. It is an inevitable backlash to horrendous policies, and the bumbling tax plans, that the majority of Americans were opposed to. Just another massive transfer of wealth. Not exactly what the US needs at this stage.

 

And please, there is a zero percent chance of a second term for the unhinged, maniac clown.

Edited January 10, 2018 by spidermike007

[alex8912]

Oprah would be a much better candidate than Elizabeth Warren. She is the worst. No one from Massachusetts should be allowed to run for Pres. 

[joeyg]

On 1/9/2018 at 9:28 AM, impulse said:

I'm not a Trump fan at all, but if he's shown that a citizen without an umbilical to the established party hierarchy can get elected, he's done the USA a tremendous service. 

 

Hopefully, the next one will be one we can admire instead of loathing.  But without his massive ego, thick skin and off the wall negotiation manipulation skills, that door wouldn't be open.

 

Not so sure about Oprah, though I did predict her running- rather tongue in cheek.  She may make a great president.

 

"Thank you!"

[ilostmypassword]

18 hours ago, amvet said:

He grew up in a log cabin spiting logs and read by candle light and was self educated.  That is what I meant. Oh, and stop trying to disagree critique and upset everyone who is not a member of the rainbow coalition.  That's why you folks lost to Trump.  The idea is to get a candidate elected not to see how angry you can make anyone who is not in your group.   I'd drop the calling Lincoln gay as true as it might be it's another reason you all lost so bad.  Your big coalition is woman and blacks and Hispanics.   Put the gays and ladyboys in the closet till after the electoral votes are counted.  And that is just good practical advice on how to beat what will be a very popular President.  

"And that is just good practical advice on how to beat what will be a very popular President"...whom you didn't support but...

Edited January 10, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The founding fathers intended for good citizens to leave their plows and their shops, come to DC for a finite term, serve their country, then go back to their plows and their shops to live in the world they created while in service.  They didn't intend to see lifetime politicians latching on to the government tit, with their noses so firmly planted in the trough that they're willing to do anything to stay there- no matter what it costs the country. 

 

So, yes.  Politics in the USA is supposed to be a temp job.  Not part time, but not a lifetime.

 

 

They may have intended that but they certainly assumed that whoever did serve would have high enough ethical standards  not to use their office for their own financial gain.

[ilostmypassword]

18 hours ago, amvet said:

He grew up in a log cabin spiting logs and read by candle light and was self educated.  That is what I meant. Oh, and stop trying to disagree critique and upset everyone who is not a member of the rainbow coalition.  That's why you folks lost to Trump.  The idea is to get a candidate elected not to see how angry you can make anyone who is not in your group.   I'd drop the calling Lincoln gay as true as it might be it's another reason you all lost so bad.  Your big coalition is woman and blacks and Hispanics.   Put the gays and ladyboys in the closet till after the electoral votes are counted.  And that is just good practical advice on how to beat what will be a very popular President.  

And of course his election had nothing to do with racism:

Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

"Finally, the statistical tool of regression can tease apart which had more influence on the 2016 vote: authoritarianism or symbolic racism, after controlling for education, race, ideology, and age. Moving from the 50th to the 75th percentile in the authoritarian scale made someone about 3 percent more likely to vote for Trump. The same jump on the SRS scale made someone 20 percent more likely to vote for Trump."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.58962c22b1b5

[PattayaAngel]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And of course his election had nothing to do with racism:

Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

"Finally, the statistical tool of regression can tease apart which had more influence on the 2016 vote: authoritarianism or symbolic racism, after controlling for education, race, ideology, and age. Moving from the 50th to the 75th percentile in the authoritarian scale made someone about 3 percent more likely to vote for Trump. The same jump on the SRS scale made someone 20 percent more likely to vote for Trump."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.58962c22b1b5

lies, damn lies and stats

Edited January 10, 2018 by PattayaAngel

[impulse]

24 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

They may have intended that but they certainly assumed that whoever did serve would have high enough ethical standards  not to use their office for their own financial gain.

 

Not at all.  They fully acknowledged human nature and built in checks and balances and the procedures to impeach them if needed.  Or at the very least, vote them out the next time around.

 

[Dagnabbit]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And of course his election had nothing to do with racism:

Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

"Finally, the statistical tool of regression can tease apart which had more influence on the 2016 vote: authoritarianism or symbolic racism, after controlling for education, race, ideology, and age. Moving from the 50th to the 75th percentile in the authoritarian scale made someone about 3 percent more likely to vote for Trump. The same jump on the SRS scale made someone 20 percent more likely to vote for Trump."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/17/racism-motivated-trump-voters-more-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.58962c22b1b5

I remember Washingtom Posts stats on who would win the election too.

 

Bottom line is if people keep churning out stuff like this - calling half of the population of the US racists, it'll piss them off enough to vote for Trump again. In fact, I predict that Trump will actively play on this next time.

[Jingthing]

37 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

lies, damn lies and stats

More like inconvenient truths.

[JLCrab]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

She's beyond a dark horse. She's consistently on lists of potential 2020 candidates. 

Well OK just that most people have not heard of her.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

I remember Washingtom Posts stats on who would win the election too.

 

Bottom line is if people keep churning out stuff like this - calling half of the population of the US racists, it'll piss them off enough to vote for Trump again. In fact, I predict that Trump will actively play on this next time.

But of course it didn't call half the population racists or even say that all or most Trump voters were influenced by race. But thanks for demonstrating once again the truth of Pavlov's insights.

[Jingthing]

Well OK just that most people have not heard of her.

Yeah. She's not a reality t.v. star.

I think the democrats will end up running with someone white working class people can relate to. Could be Biden or other choices like Sherrod Brown from all important Ohio. No need to pick a woman just for token reasons.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[nong38]

Oh NO shes a chum of that twerp Borat Obama, don't let her loose with him in the back seat.

[Jingthing]

Oh NO shes a chum of that twerp Borat Obama, don't let her loose with him in the back seat.

That comment is wrong on so many levels.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[amvet]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

But of course it didn't call half the population racists or even say that all or most Trump voters were influenced by race. But thanks for demonstrating once again the truth of Pavlov's insights.

You wrote, "And of course his election had nothing to do with racism:Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism"

I thought that's what he was talking about.  You keep insulting the average American and he will vote for whoever you don't support because you made him angry instead of trying to work out a reasonable candidate that would appeal to a broad spectrum of American voters like Oprah https://nypost.com/2010/04/13/lesbian-flings-prostitution-abuse-lies-oprahs-hidden-life/

Edited January 10, 2018 by amvet

[UncleTouchyFingers]

That Oprah speech was the biggest virtue signal in all of recorded history. 

 

CRINGE

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, amvet said:

You wrote, "And of course his election had nothing to do with racism:Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism"

I thought that's what he was talking about.  You keep insulting the average American and he will vote for whoever you don't support because you made him angry instead of trying to work out a reasonable candidate that would appeal to a broad spectrum of American voters like Oprah https://nypost.com/2010/04/13/lesbian-flings-prostitution-abuse-lies-oprahs-hidden-life/

Another example of what I would call mathematical illiteracy. The piece I cited didn't say that. Once again, Pavlov rules.

[amvet]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Another example of what I would call mathematical illiteracy. The piece I cited didn't say that. Once again, Pavlov rules.

Perhaps read what I wrote before responding.  I didn't say anything about the piece you cited I wrote, "You wrote (in bold) Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, amvet said:

Perhaps read what I wrote before responding.  I didn't say anything about the piece you cited I wrote, "You wrote (in bold) Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

Because it was the headline of an article.

If I had simply copied the headline it would have looked like this:

Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

Edited January 10, 2018 by ilostmypassword