Oprah Winfrey for president in 2020?

[Dr. Gonzo]

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?

[Honey Honey]

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.

[Fairy In Boots]

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. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

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.

[Fairy In Boots]

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. 

[Spike]

15 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.

What do you mean 'trying to prove'? Maybe being chummy with Hollywood's worst kept secret isn't exactly endearing? Besides just because Trump did X doesn't absolve anyone of Y.

[The Artful Dodger]

6 hours ago, Spike said:

What do you mean 'trying to prove'? Maybe being chummy with Hollywood's worst kept secret isn't exactly endearing? Besides just because Trump did X doesn't absolve anyone of Y.

Maybe but likewise it's no indictment of anyone either. She's not responsible for anything he has done and it wouldn't preclude her from running.

Thatcher was best buddies with Saville, Britain's best kept secret.

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

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. 

TPP was bad for China mostly. Trump had fuck all to do with ISIS lol, that's mostly the Iraqi-Iranian-Russian-Syrian coalition, with a little help from the Kurds, and Turkey saying they're helping. The US barely did anything against ISIS. The unemployment and economic growth is a spillover from the last president, the US govt fiscal year starts in October, so we've only had a few months with a Republican budget.

Pulling out of the Paris accord, being incredibly loose with words and making it seem like nuclear war is immiment, palling around with dictators while calling lies true and truth lies, weakening traditional alliances, standing up for Nazis and the KKK, etc... are all why I think he's an awful president.

 And the US government is hobbled to pass legislation. 1 year, 1 bill signed to law. But it's the GOP wealthcare plan, which doesn't do anything except increase US debt as China stops buying the dollar. So this is likely the beginning of the end of the US empire.

All he has to do is start a war and he's worse than GWB immeasurably.

[The Artful Dodger]

I don’t see any outstanding democratic candidate at the moment, sanders wil be bludgeoned to the side like he was by Clinton and who else is there who offers anything different?

I actually think we’re likely to see a Republican replace Trump, now he’s got their tax cuts through they’ve used up their need for him.

[Spike]

More tax cuts are needed really. The amount of money that the USA uses on stupid stuff just to make up all the tax money is astounding.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Spike said:

More tax cuts are needed really. The amount of money that the USA uses on stupid stuff just to make up all the tax money is astounding.

I'm not sure if more tax cuts are needed, or if the money needs to be reallocated. The military spending is absolutely insane, while the US has a lot of domestic issues that need to be sorted out. Infrastructure is really poor, in San Diego the interstate highways are crumbling. The US remains the only major western nation without a national health service - so things like getting cancer or getting a surgery can literally be financially crippling to individuals (and their families), even with health insurance (depends on their health plans). The state of American education looks pretty shite tbh as well (I can say the same thing about the UK as well, so I will: the state of education in the UK is pretty shite). A lot of money is also wasted on social programs that have failed and Obamacare, while providing a baseline minimum healthcare, is more expensive than something like Medicare/Medicaid for all, as that's taxpayer money that's subsidising the American Health Insurance industry.

And I'm not one to normally call for austerity measures... but some states need austerity measures put in place. Because the state governance has been so poor that some states are taking out much more money than they put in. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

All of the high dependency states here are taking out too much money compared to the amount they put in - this is demonstrative that these states' governments have mismanaged their states and are reliant on the US government to survive. The solution is either austerity measures put in place so these states are less of a burden to the rest of the USA or ultimately the providing of some social services should be done by the states rather than the federal government.

Because there are so many differences between states and the people that live in them, it probably would be best to reduce the power of the federal government to provide these social services and let the states provide it. Otherwise we have this situation with welfare queen states mooching off the actual contributing states, with the actual contributors getting much less benefit (their return essentially) on paying taxes. Reducing the amount of services that the government is responsible for, as opposed to the states, would also lessen the entire nation's federal tax liability. It'll never happen though because some states are too dependent on federal social safety net services, but would never vote for them to be provided by their state governments. And austerity measures would likely be considered too "cruel" - as the country would be telling America's most desperate that they won't be getting the help their most desperate for.

[Spike]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not sure if more tax cuts are needed, or if the money needs to be reallocated. The military spending is absolutely insane, while the US has a lot of domestic issues that need to be sorted out. Infrastructure is really poor, in San Diego the interstate highways are crumbling. The US remains the only major western nation without a national health service - so things like getting cancer or getting a surgery can literally be financially crippling to individuals (and their families), even with health insurance (depends on their health plans). The state of American education looks pretty shite tbh as well (I can say the same thing about the UK as well, so I will: the state of education in the UK is pretty shite). A lot of money is also wasted on social programs that have failed and Obamacare, while providing a baseline minimum healthcare, is more expensive than something like Medicare/Medicaid for all, as that's taxpayer money that's subsidising the American Health Insurance industry.

And I'm not one to normally call for austerity measures... but some states need austerity measures put in place. Because the state governance has been so poor that some states are taking out much more money than they put in. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

All of the high dependency states here are taking out too much money compared to the amount they put in - this is demonstrative that these states' governments have mismanaged their states and are reliant on the US government to survive. The solution is either austerity measures put in place so these states are less of a burden to the rest of the USA or ultimately the providing of some social services should be done by the states rather than the federal government.

Because there are so many differences between states and the people that live in them, it probably would be best to reduce the power of the federal government to provide these social services and let the states provide it. Otherwise we have this situation with welfare queen states mooching off the actual contributing states, with the actual contributors getting much less benefit (their return essentially) on paying taxes. Reducing the amount of services that the government is responsible for, as opposed to the states, would also lessen the entire nation's federal tax liability. It'll never happen though because some states are too dependent on federal social safety net services, but would never vote for them to be provided by their state governments. And austerity measures would likely be considered too "cruel" - as the country would be telling America's most desperate that they won't be getting the help their most desperate for.

The funny thing about America is that they throw money at the problem instead of reforming. They are running a half-century old schooling system that doesn't need more money per se but rather needs to be tore up at the foundations and relaid. America needs reform to be more efficient, not more money thrown at the problems. The schools are getting more fudning than ever but are also performing worse than ever. You can repaint a house as much you like but if they wood is rotting their is only so much time till it breaks.

[Fairy In Boots]

7 hours ago, Spike said:

The funny thing about America is that they throw money at the problem instead of reforming. They are running a half-century old schooling system that doesn't need more money per se but rather needs to be tore up at the foundations and relaid. America needs reform to be more efficient, not more money thrown at the problems. The schools are getting more fudning than ever but are also performing worse than ever. You can repaint a house as much you like but if they wood is rotting their is only so much time till it breaks.

Could have swapped out America for most of the western world to be honest. It’s the short term nature of politics sadly, they’re interested in their term cycles not the long term. Most infrastructure investment is a plaster when stitches are required 

[God is Haaland]

Give me one reason why she'd be better than Sanders.

"She's black" and "She's a woman" are not reasons, just some racist, sexist nonsense.

[Panflute]

On 1/13/2018 at 17:55, BartraPique1932 said:

Give me one reason why she'd be better than Sanders.

"She's black" and "She's a woman" are not reasons, just some racist, sexist nonsense.

She has a more realistic chance of still being alive in 2020, let alone by the end of a term.

[Kowabunga]

5 hours ago, Panflute said:

She has a more realistic chance of still being alive in 2020, let alone by the end of a term.

That's just gerontophobic nonsense. 

[Spike]

6 hours ago, Panflute said:

She has a more realistic chance of still being alive in 2020, let alone by the end of a term.

I was thinking about making that joke when I saw his post.