Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome!

    Tired of Kevins and Karens on Facebook and other social media platforms?

    Our forum is completely focused on football and moderated to keep discussions civil. Sound good? Sign up!

Oprah Winfrey for president in 2020?


football forum
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Danny said:

I get it, they have a sexist, racist psycho celebrity currently in, they want the opposite to that now....but go for an actual politician 

Oprah told that sexist, racist psycho to run for president in the 80s! xD Maybe we'd have more of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you want to run a super power, a little political experience should come first.

For instance, if we were all on a 747, and for some reason the entire flight crew dies... who do we all want as a pilot?

I could do it, if enough of you wanted. I've never flown a plane before, but I could give it a go. I've played GTA before, how hard could it be?

Or should we go a few aisles down where there's a guy going on holiday, but when he's working he flies planes over fields and dusts crops over farms. And he's never flown a plane this big. And he might have had a drink or four... But he knows how to fly a plane.

Now whoever the plane picks to land will have the headset on, talking with traffic control to work them through getting everyone home safe. Do we go with the tipsy pilot... or Dr. Gonzo.

And let's pretend that for some reason there were primaries or everything, so we're your only picks for the job. 

Who do we go for, the GTA playing moron who the entire time has been wondering "can a 747 do a barrel roll?"; or someone who's flown a fucking plane of some sort before even if they're not anywhere near the ideal pilot?

I mean, my heart says me because I am me. And my head is torn between the more qualified choice between the two... and also wanting to know whether a 747 can do a barrel roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oprah thinks being a mother is the hardest job in the world ffs! xD  ..women are constantly patting themselves on the back and nobody corrects them because we want to fuck um ..if you have a job you can do in your pajamas, your living the dream lol ..your off the grid doing what you want, what would you rather be doing? drilling to the centre of the earth shaking hands with the devil, every time there is a rumble in the ground you shit yourself  waiting for the whole thing to collapse in on you or would you rather be up in the sunshine with a couple of toddlers you can send to bed at anytime you like on some trumped up charges lol  ..these mothers are bending over at the waist putting dvd's into players, making popsicle  stick houses lol ...it's the most difficult job on the planet, Oprah is not even a mother so how the fuck would she know :rofl:

Edited by Happy Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having elected the absolutely unabashed personfication of the extremes of capitalism, it would make sense to go for a woman whose role is to try and convince people that there is hope in their desolate economic condition.

If one woman can become a billionaire, having overcome such extreme economic and social hardships, then anyone can. You've just got to love yourself, and read self-help books, and grab your opportunities, and watch Oprah. Don't worry about the tax system, or the legal system, or corporate regulation, or workers' rights. Don't look to change the wider economic conditions in which you live, you've just got to adapt to longer work hours and a drop in real living standards instead.

Americans are fundamentally blinded when it comes to politics because they are obsessed with the indivdual - they can't grasp structural issues and instead vote on the basis of their egoism or hero-worship of another.

And that's how people like Oprah are seen as progressive heroes, when actually they are some of the most devastating tools for the status quo.

 

 

Edited by Inverted
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

Having elected the absolutely unabashed personfication of the extremes of capitalism, it would make sense to go for a woman whose role is to try and convince people that there is hope in their desolate economic condition.

If one woman can become a billionaire, having overcome such extreme economic and social hardships, then anyone can. You've just got to love yourself, and read self-help books, and grab your opportunities, and watch Oprah. Don't worry about the tax system, or the legal system, or corporate regulation, or workers' rights. Don't look to change the wider economic conditions in which you live, you've just got to adapt to longer work hours and a drop in real living standards instead.

Americans are fundamentally blinded when it comes to politics because they are obsessed with the indivdual - they can't grasp structural issues and instead vote on the basis of their egoism or hero-worship of another.

And that's how people like Oprah are seen as progressive heroes, when actually they are some of the most devastating tools for the status quo.

That's a harsh caricature of Americans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kitchen Sales said:

 

That's a harsh caricature of Americans. 

It is a bit of an exaggeration, and there are cases in most countries where working people can be persuaded into voting against their own interests (like Brexit), but America is a particularly clear example of it. The American working class is, out of the major developed countries, the most easy to distract with identity politics and personality-driven campaigning. That extends both to getting them to vote explictly regressive candidates, and also to making them acceptant of their only real alternative being economic centre-right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

It is a bit of an exaggeration, and there are cases in most countries where working people can be persuaded into voting against their own interests (like Brexit), but America is a particularly clear example of it. The American working class is, out of the major developed countries, the most easy to distract with identity politics and personality-driven campaigning. That extends both to getting them to vote explictly regressive candidates, and also to making them acceptant of their only real alternative being economic centre-right.

 

Every political party blames the others brain washing for their own electoral failing, it helps them sleep at night. They can cling on to perceived correctness of their position and never consider the opponent to have had any legitimate concerns. 

The role of US President has been defunct for decades. It is a replica of 18th century English Kings, a puppet at home and military tyrant abroad. By design it encourages incumbents to be a celebrity first and a politician as an after thought. Oprah is a good fit for that. It doesn't make a great deal of difference if the person is already a celebrity in their own right. The demands for someone politically astute assumes that an individual can fix the system without changing the system, but individuals come and go, the system will stay on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Every political party blames the others brain washing for their own electoral failing, it helps them sleep at night. They can cling on to perceived correctness of their position and never consider the opponent to have had any legitimate concerns. 

The role of US President has been defunct for decades. It is a replica of 18th century English Kings, a puppet at home and military tyrant abroad. By design it encourages incumbents to be a celebrity first and a politician as an after thought. Oprah is a good fit for that. It doesn't make a great deal of difference if the person is already a celebrity in their own right. The demands for someone politically astute assumes that an individual can fix the system without changing the system, but individuals come and go, the system will stay on.

 

Well I'm not arguing in favour of either party, I'm making the point that American politics squeezes out true progressive politics by creating a two-sided obsession with culture politics - Trump on one side with religious conservatism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism; Clinton on the other with lip-service to environmentalism, faux feminism, and whatever other social causes win the youth/liberal vote.

The real fight was between Trump's vision of non-internationalist, domestically unfettered capitalism, and Clinton's support for the standard model of globalisation with some token regulation.

The fundamental anger of people voting these ways is valid - their living standards are falling and their chances are constricting. People are living stressful, unfulfilling lives. Leftists shouldn't be ignoring this fundemental reality. Reactionaries ingeniously manage to aggravate the situation by directing the blame for this from the wider economic model to more specific scapegoats, and liberals play right into their hands by wasting their energy in well-intentioned but massively counter-productive culture wars which ultimately end up with liberals also leading the discussion away from what makes the white working class so angry in the first place. Instead of analyses of how economic growth is being reflected less and less in real wages, or how the tax system is consistently defeated by entrenched wealth, so-called leftists waste their time with indecipherable screeds on gender, sexuality and race, or blindly defending every aspect of minority cultures and religions. The result is large numbers of voters being left with nothing but the right's rhetorically effective and easily digestable solutions to their problems. It's the fault of liberals and conservatives, and against their combined efforts it's an impossible effort for sincere progressive candidates.

Even if the office of President is becoming increasingly symbolic, that can change depending on the aptitude of the candidate. A candidate with the political capital to lean on executive orders, and effectively push through decisive USSC appointments and legislative proposals, still wields huge power. Trump, even in his disfunctional situation with his party, has been the impetus for huge tax reform, and the President for better or worse influences people's vote for legislators.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Inverted said:

Americans are fundamentally blinded when it comes to politics because they are obsessed with the indivdual - they can't grasp structural issues and instead vote on the basis of their egoism or hero-worship of another.

Weird statement from someone who had Jeremy Corbyn as his avatar for a while :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

Well I'm not arguing in favour of either party, I'm making the point that American politics squeezes out true progressive politics by creating a two-sided obsession with culture politics - Trump on one side with religious conservatism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism; Clinton on the other with lip-service to environmentalism, faux feminism, and whatever other social causes win the youth/liberal vote.

The real fight was between Trump's vision of non-internationalist, domestically unfettered capitalism, and Clinton's support for the standard model of globalisation with some token regulation.

The fundamental anger of people voting these ways is valid - their living standards are falling and their chances are constricting. People are living stressful, unfulfilling lives. Leftists shouldn't be ignoring this fundemental reality. Reactionaries ingeniously manage to aggravate the situation by directing the blame for this from the wider economic model to more specific scapegoats, and liberals play right into their hands by wasting their energy in well-intentioned but massively counter-productive culture wars which ultimately end up with liberals also leading the discussion away from what makes the white working class so angry in the first place. Instead of analyses of how economic growth is being reflected less and less in real wages, or how the tax system is consistently defeated by entrenched wealth, so-called leftists waste their time with indecipherable screeds on gender, sexuality and race, or blindly defending every aspect of minority cultures and religions. The result is large numbers of voters being left with nothing but the right's rhetorically effective and easily digestable solutions to their problems. It's the fault of liberals and conservatives, and against their combined efforts it's an impossible effort for sincere progressive candidates.

Even if the office of President is becoming increasingly symbolic, that can change depending on the aptitude of the candidate. A candidate with the political capital to lean on executive orders, and effectively push through decisive USSC appointments and legislative proposals, still wields huge power. Trump, even in his disfunctional situation with his party, has been the impetus for huge tax reform, and the President for better or worse influences people's vote for legislators.

Practically all the political parties across the spectrum, the intelligentsia and the commentariat who were at the wheel when their little world was shattered have rushed to use that very same economic argument. How else are they to reconcile that they are the self entitled champions of the poorer than thou, the hard workers, the working class, the JAMs or whatever they want to invent to appear moral, with the reality that some people are that modern unsavoury group no one wants to be anymore called social conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Practically all the political parties across the spectrum, the intelligentsia and the commentariat who were at the wheel when their little world was shattered have rushed to use that very same economic argument. How else are they to reconcile that they are the self entitled champions of the poorer than thou, the hard workers, the working class, the JAMs or whatever they want to invent to appear moral, with the reality that some people are that modern unsavoury group no one wants to be anymore called social conservatives.

Theres no need to be in denial that many people in tough economic situations are socially conservative. The issue is avoiding the situation whereby those social beliefs are used to achieve economically conservative aims which end up pushing people further into poverty, and then even more intense resentment and isolation. 

What I'm saying is that the left needs to be willing to reach out, or at least make itself not totally unpalatable to these demographics and ditch any connection to liberal, self-indulgent social justice nonsense. 

When you look around the world, it seems that prejudice and bigotry is intensified by poverty. Im not saying that every non-poor person is socially super sensitive, but I'm saying that maybe people would be less susceptible to divisive rhetoric if they weren't so economically insecure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Inverted said:

It is a bit of an exaggeration, and there are cases in most countries where working people can be persuaded into voting against their own interests (like Brexit), but America is a particularly clear example of it. The American working class is, out of the major developed countries, the most easy to distract with identity politics and personality-driven campaigning. That extends both to getting them to vote explictly regressive candidates, and also to making them acceptant of their only real alternative being economic centre-right.

 

The biggest problem is single issue voters. It's the identity politics people, the guns rights people, the religious fundamentalist/anti-abortion fanatics. These single issue voters in America are generally in hotly contested states, so while they don't care about every issue... the one issue they do care about can be enough to swing a presidential election because of the stupid electoral college.

I don't understand the purpose of the electoral college, to be honest. People in more populated states count less for who they vote for President. The original reasoning is so the smaller states wouldn't be completely beholden the larger states' political will - but instead you get smaller states imposing their will over more people. 2 of the last 3 presidents were elected with a minority of the American voters approval (Bush and Trump). I suppose the original reasoning makes sense, but why the hell are larger states so disproportionately affected? Why is land more valuable than people in a US Presidential election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Theres no need to be in denial that many people in tough economic situations are socially conservative. The issue is avoiding the situation whereby those social beliefs are used to achieve economically conservative aims which end up pushing people further into poverty, and then even more intense resentment and isolation. 

What I'm saying is that the left needs to be willing to reach out, or at least make itself not totally unpalatable to these demographics and ditch any connection to liberal, self-indulgent social justice nonsense. 

When you look around the world, it seems that prejudice and bigotry is intensified by poverty. Im not saying that every non-poor person is socially super sensitive, but I'm saying that maybe people would be less susceptible to divisive rhetoric if they weren't so economically insecure. 

 

Some correlation is there but I don't believe it is caused by relative poverty. That for me is a coincidence. If it solves anything it would be by accident.   

Flip everything over and put a microscope to the institutions and environments where social liberalism prevails. This isn't a naturally liberal environment at all, it is a kind of silent authoritarian one. Social liberalism is a settled matter, like not gutting an animal in front of everyone on the street, there are social consequences for those who break ranks. It is not because everyone in that white collar office is by nature a social liberal, social conservatism manifests itself in very different ways, it's not hard to find some university educated champion of social liberalism who is uncomfortable and uneasy around people who have different tastes, that is your new millenial social conservative.

It doesn't matter what the environment is, if people are in groups they will look to each other for social clues as to what is ok, social liberalism has won the office, academia, intellectual spaces, the inner cities. Places more likely to be frequented by blue collar workers or rural inhabitants contain a lot of masculinity and very different social leaders and rules. Giving people a pay rise wont change that dynamic to a social liberal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Oprah Winfrey becoming President would be farcical but not sure what these photos are supposed to prove?

The current President has actually openly bragged of sexual assault ffs.

Prove that she’s no saint, there’s a carefully cultivated public perception that she’s a wonderful human. I very much doubt it. 

Also Trump probably is a cunt in real life, I think a high percentage of world leaders would be real pieces of shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Prove that she’s no saint, there’s a carefully cultivated public perception that she’s a wonderful human. I very much doubt it. 

Also Trump probably is a cunt in real life, I think a high percentage of world leaders would be real pieces of shit. 

I think the worst thing Oprah has done is be a voice for bullshit peddlers in the "junk science" industry. People who promote weight loss pills, vaccine denial, diabetes medication that does literally nothing. And that vile piece of shit Deepak Chopra.

This shit by itself, should be enough to disqualify her from ever winning a presidential primary and being a potential candidate for president. Yet, America has shown us that they have no problems with letting someone vastly unqualified and unsuited for the job to become a presidential candidate and even president.

Neither Oprah nor Mark fucking Zuckerberg are appropriate responses to having Trump as President. But they've both been flouted by the US media as potential future presidents. If that's America's response to the Trump disaster, then the US is finished as a superpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the worst thing Oprah has done is be a voice for bullshit peddlers in the "junk science" industry. People who promote weight loss pills, vaccine denial, diabetes medication that does literally nothing. And that vile piece of shit Deepak Chopra.

This shit by itself, should be enough to disqualify her from ever winning a presidential primary and being a potential candidate for president. Yet, America has shown us that they have no problems with letting someone vastly unqualified and unsuited for the job to become a presidential candidate and even president.

Neither Oprah nor Mark fucking Zuckerberg are appropriate responses to having Trump as President. But they've both been flouted by the US media as potential future presidents. If that's America's response to the Trump disaster, then the US is finished as a superpower.

Why is it such a disaster? 

ISIS are all but gone, unemployment is at a 16 year low, wages are rising. Illegal immigrants is down massively. He withdrew from TPP which was a crock of shit, he finally had the bollocks to get the Jerusalem thing off the desk. 

Dont get me wrong he’s done some bad, some moronic tweets and a few dodgy climate change decisions which I’d question aside it’s not been half the shit show we’re told is unfolding. 

The liberal media and moaning democrats are in danger of the same mistakes the UK made with Corbyn. It’s just such blatant bias and ott mud slinging at times and it’s so incessant that it’s become so tedious you just zone out. I have I’d assume that the American public will be the same. It’s at the point where nobody cares anymore, it’s ceased to damage him and actually will start having a reverse effect. 

Edited by Fairy In Boots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...