Oprah for President

I think the idea that people without any experience in law or government can be effective has no basis in fact. History does not support it. Donald Trump is the only US president ever with no political or military experience. It shows in his general ignorance of the political process in the US. This idea that someone from the outside, usually business, can come in and "fix the mess", represents "magical thinking" with no basis in fact. It does show that many Americans have lost faith in their government. There aren't easy solutions to fix the problems. In my opinion, Americans should stop looking for the easy fix and address the issues with how they are governed. Another "messiah" , this time on the left, like Oprah is not the answer.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
But what if we all get a new car?

No I wouldn't want that, specifically speaking about the pseudo-science. From what little I know (see above) she exhibits good traits such as compassion and tenacity, but I don't really know anything about her beliefs or her true self. I am in the dark about her capabilities to handle complicated issues. Could you imagine her approving a SEAL raid or a drone strike? "You get a strike, and you get a strike, and everybody gets a drone strike!"

I don't know how she would adapt when confronted with real-world situations such as initiating a chain of events that would result in possible civilian casualties. I suppose I have a certain amount of faith that people would give credence to expert advisors, but lately that faith has been shaken. But hey, I guess that's what the elections and campaigns would be there to shed light upon right?
Click to expand...
Great points. Presidents should delegate issues to experts, most, if not all of the time.

Do you agree with me that, more often than not, they don't?
 
brightmoon said:
I think the idea that people without any experience in law or government can be effective has no basis in fact. History does not support it. Donald Trump is the only US president ever with no political or military experience. It shows in his general ignorance of the political process in the US. This idea that someone from the outside, usually business, can come in and "fix the mess", represents "magical thinking" with no basis in fact. It does show that many Americans have lost faith in their government. There aren't easy solutions to fix the problems. In my opinion, Americans should stop looking for the easy fix and address the issues with how they are governed. Another "messiah" , this time on the left, like Oprah is not the answer.
Click to expand...

I hope it would make people look at the model itself and see what can be improved. To me, campaign finance would be at the top of the list.

The idea though that "one single person" can fix and change everything is absurd.

Concentrating power in the hands of an "emperor" is virtually no different to a monarchy. The exact thing America sought to escape from.
 
James said:
We are ready to accept your surrender, you fake Canadian. ;)
Click to expand...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Not Having Another POTUS Like Trump in Office, and all that. :tonguewink:

I also agree with it being better for Oprah to gain at least some political experience before even considering running for President (believe acd mentioned Congress).

Because right now this is our reality:

c10997b47cbe058502d13dc292f55b1f--anti-trump-under-my-skin.jpg


And that's working out so wonderfully for us...
 
hush said:
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Not Having Another POTUS Like Trump in Office, and all that. :tonguewink:

I also agree with it being better for Oprah to gain at least some political experience before even considering running for President (believe acd mentioned Congress).

Because right now this is our reality:

c10997b47cbe058502d13dc292f55b1f--anti-trump-under-my-skin.jpg


And that's working out so wonderfully for us...
Click to expand...

I have a lot of time for Oprah, the Presidency is an incredibly complex geo political task. Not that she's not up to the job, her whole life reflects her abilities.

We'll see, despite everything I trust in democracy. But in a democracy I think there are well managed rules over political spending. When that goes wrong, so does the rest imho.
 

George III: I pray Mr. Adams, that America does not suffer unduly for its want of a monarchy.

Prophetic words?

Signed

"The real Canadian"

and yes @James campaign finance and an attempt to divorce money from politics should be first on the list
 
brightmoon said:

and yes @James campaign finance and an attempt to divorce money from politics should be first on the list
Click to expand...
That's really the issue. People know they are disenfranchised by money in politics. People don't vote because they figure, "Why bother? Nobody has my interests in mind, anyway." It's how an extremely unpopular tax plan got passed this year. It's how we ended up with a broken health system and all anyone in power can do about it is throw their hands up and say, "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated!?" Meanwhile, there is a system used round the world that seems to work much better than what we've got.... And over half the nation approves of it...
 
Last edited:
Now that we have entered the era of reality TV, celebrity, presidencies, I suppose anything is possible.
 
Pin said:
Great points. Presidents should delegate issues to experts, most, if not all of the time.

Do you agree with me that, more often than not, they don't?
Click to expand...

I would say delegate the research to advisers who should have a well-rounded knowledge of (and experience in) the agencies or departments they oversee. Ideally the president would be the one to take that information and use it to make informed decisions on what action to take with respect to how it would impact other interests. I don't know enough to agree/disagree with your assertion.

Edit: Trump is low-hanging fruit. I don't know enough to say that in general presidents don't listen to their advisers.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
I would say delegate the research to advisers who should have a well-rounded knowledge of (and experience in) the agencies or departments they oversee. Ideally the president would be the one to take that information and use it to make informed decisions on what action to take with respect to how it would impact other interests. I don't know enough to agree/disagree with your assertion.

Edit: Trump is low-hanging fruit. I don't know enough to say that in general presidents don't listen to their advisers.
Click to expand...

I topped the class on this particular task I did in postgrad where I was required to criticise the informational content of a document. I can't remember the proper name for the document I was given to look at, some sort of congressional briefing paper designed to inform lawmakers of world histories and events, researched and compiled and composed by an expert. The paper I looked at was about Chad. The paper inconsistently presented, misrepresented, and even completely fabricated statistics in a way that created the impression that Chad was in a downward spiral. In fact, genuine statistics I researched contradicted this completely, and suggested that Chad is experiencing a number of different types of growth and increased security. I think that if you were someone in power who didn't really learn about Chad at all, and trusted the integrity of this paper for your information, you would be easily swayed to believe that Chad is in desperate need of foreign intervention. Of course, no one can know everything, everyone will need to depend on experts some of the time. But I guess what I'm saying is that it is not good enough to just delegate stuff to experts, people at any level of this sort of power require a very thorough education and engagement with foreign affairs to do their job properly, it's important not to underestimate how crucial it is that people in these positions make an effort to obtain this sort of knowledge.
 
I agree with what @invisible just said. Very well put. "The buck stops here" No matter how good those people who are advising the president, he is the leader and must make the final decision. If the president has no basis in knowledge or experience to analyze the information presented, then we have a problem. If the president cannot look at the information presented critically, then we have a problem. If the president lacks the attention span to truly understand the information presented,through the application of his intellect, then we have a problem. If the president has convinced himself he doesn't need to listen to experts because of his "great intelligence" then we have a problem.

You see where I'm going with this...
 
invisible said:
I topped the class on this particular task I did in postgrad where I was required to criticise the informational content of a document. I can't remember the proper name for the document I was given to look at, some sort of congressional briefing paper designed to inform lawmakers of world histories and events, researched and compiled and composed by an expert. The paper I looked at was about Chad. The paper inconsistently presented, misrepresented, and even completely fabricated statistics in a way that created the impression that Chad was in a downward spiral. In fact, genuine statistics I researched contradicted this completely, and suggested that Chad is experiencing a number of different types of growth and increased security. I think that if you were someone in power who didn't really learn about Chad at all, and trusted the integrity of this paper for your information, you would be easily swayed to believe that Chad is in desperate need of foreign intervention. Of course, no one can know everything, everyone will need to depend on experts some of the time. But I guess what I'm saying is that it is not good enough to just delegate stuff to experts, people at any level of this sort of power require a very thorough education and engagement with foreign affairs to do their job properly, it's important not to underestimate how crucial it is that people in these positions make an effort to obtain this sort of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So I guess the question is, can Oprah do that?
 
That speech scares me. The whole thing, including the clapping near the end, was all scripted. The power that the Dems have over Hollywood has always been there, I know. But it seems more real when they have a charismatic leader like Oprah deliver a speech full of rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
brightmoon said:

George III: I pray Mr. Adams, that America does not suffer unduly for its want of a monarchy.

Prophetic words?

Signed

"The real Canadian"

and yes @James campaign finance and an attempt to divorce money from politics should be first on the list
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting public financing (via taxes) of elections?
 
Trump and Oprah have a lot in common.

I nominate Dolly Parton.

Ridiculous? If you think so, why? She's not a bimbo.

Stereotyping.


I think she is intelligent, capable, sincere, and genuinely pro-social. She is a survivor, someone who has actually experienced poverty -- as in dirt floor cabin poverty -- who doesn't feel superior in any obvious way. She feels compassion for the poor, not scorn.

Also,
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...ld-always-use-more-boobs-in-the-race-20160705

She's very gutsy to speak her mind as she does. It may seem like no big deal, but in this region, being a liberal often translates to economic distress. Bye Dollywood!

I live in the general area, so I admire her bravery. I wouldn't put a Bernie or Hillary bumper sticker on my car here. Someone would key my car or puncture a tire. Seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top