• Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
  • Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
    This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.

Oprah Winfrey for President in 2020???

For serious discussion of politics, political news, policy, political theory and economics and events happening round the world
praxis
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Post by praxis » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:52 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
Rome;683977 wrote:Oprah doesn't have political experience. She had some good qualities. She could perhaps do well in Congress, but she is not adequately prepared for all the responsibilities of the Oval Office.
I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.[/QUOTE]Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians? They appear to be the best liars and for the ones with political relationships, also have the benefit of others standing up for them, regardless of what's true or not about them.

I want to be able to know something about the people running for office. I'd like public scrutiny and the advantage of what competitors and media have to say. The more the merrier.

Trump has benefited from the spotlight because of the fact that he's not afraid of allowing the chips to fall where they may. There's nothing hidden about Trump, the issue is that much of it didn't matter enough to enough people to keep him out of office. That's because of the fact that enough people weighed his reputation against his tenacious personality and compromised or whatever it is they did to vote for him.

Oprah Winfrey is smart, experienced in business and large organizations, she's a calm presence, level-headed, giving, yet successful. Those are qualities that a lot of people would like to possess and would in turn vote for, IMO.

She's also a god believer, and that's a negative, but something I'd compromise on in light of everything above.

User avatar
Nino Knightmare
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:59 am

Post by Nino Knightmare » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:39 pm

I've come to think recently that the US president really doesn't have much power - and is just a token figurehead; much like the UK monarch. Given that; I really don't mind who's in the white house "leading" these days as long as they're not a republican - I mean it'd be lovely if they were an out atheist too but that seems an unrealistic goal in the current US sociopolitical climate.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:22 pm

[quote=""praxis""]
Politesse;684018 wrote:I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.
Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians?[/QUOTE]Who says we shouldn't be wary of politicians? They are still preferable because the alternative is getting people like Trump at the wheel.

dancer_rnb
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:38 pm

Post by dancer_rnb » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:34 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
praxis;684024 wrote:
Politesse;684018 wrote:I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.
Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians?
Who says we shouldn't be wary of politicians? They are still preferable because the alternative is getting people like Trump at the wheel.[/QUOTE]

False dichotomy. Trump would be terrible whether he stood for office previously or not. Hitler wasn't instantly made chancellor of Germany.
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.

User avatar
MattShizzle
Posts: 18963
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Bernville, PA

Post by MattShizzle » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:32 am

[quote=""dancer_rnb""]
Hermit;684036 wrote:
praxis;684024 wrote:
Politesse;684018 wrote:I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.
Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians?
Who says we shouldn't be wary of politicians? They are still preferable because the alternative is getting people like Trump at the wheel.
False dichotomy. Trump would be terrible whether he stood for office previously or not. Hitler wasn't instantly made chancellor of Germany.[/QUOTE]

Well, he didn't have much political experience before getting leadership, either.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:46 am

[quote=""dancer_rnb""]
Hermit;684036 wrote:
praxis;684024 wrote:
Politesse;684018 wrote:I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.
Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians?
Who says we shouldn't be wary of politicians? They are still preferable because the alternative is getting people like Trump at the wheel.
False dichotomy. Trump would be terrible whether he stood for office previously or not. Hitler wasn't instantly made chancellor of Germany.[/QUOTE]
Explain to me where you see a dichotomy, false or true.

praxis
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Post by praxis » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:29 am

[quote=""Hermit""]
praxis;684024 wrote:
Politesse;684018 wrote:I think this is going to be a serious problem for the remainder of our democracy; we seem to only want celebrities, CEOs, or exciting new "fire-brands" for president. Calling someone a "politician" in a presidential debate is considered to be levying an insult rather than acknowledging a basic qualification.
Why shouldn't people be wary of politicians?
Who says we shouldn't be wary of politicians? They are still preferable because the alternative is getting people like Trump at the wheel.[/QUOTE]I'm happy Trump hasn't started any new wars in spite of his rhetoric on NK. Trump talks tough but he seems to me to be resistant to war. There's no question he's been pressured to ramp up the tough posture on both NK and Russia.

I personally don't like the guy, but then I never have. Being a native New Yorker myself Trump has been part of the background noise as far back as I can recall. Him, Howard Stern and Don Imus - morons, all.

But to your post...what's got the political establishment in so much of an uproar is the fact that Trump doesn't follow protocol, but that's exactly what got him elected. Lots of politicians claim to be anti-establishment for votes, Trump's the first to actually be exactly that with bite.

Myself, I would have preferred an anti-establishment candidate on the progressive side, but I do like the exposure of the political powers his election has produced.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:33 pm

[quote=""praxis""]Trump talks tough but he seems to me to be resistant to war.[/quote]

The America First president just announced he's escalating the Afghanistan war and Iraq.
There's no question he's been pressured to ramp up the tough posture on both NK and Russia.
“He’s been pressured”? He initiated the “tough posture” escalation on NK and Tillerson and Mattis are reportedly trying to hold Trump back from striking North Korea.

As for Russia, what “tough posture” are you referring to? He has refused to act on their sanctions and evidently lets his overlord do whatever he wants in Syria and has “embraced Russian money and illicit favors, while maintaining rhetoric and policies benefiting Russia and undercutting national security officials of his own country”.
I personally don't like the guy
Literally hundreds of posts to the contrary.
what's got the political establishment in so much of an uproar is the fact that Trump doesn't follow protocol
We’re more than a year into his presidency, praxis. He IS the “establishment,” so pretending that he is still some sort of magical outsider of a mythical insider realm is just more evidence in support of you personally liking the guy. Regardless, once he fired Bannon and fell in lock-step with McConnell and the Republican agenda that pretty much put any such lie about him ever being “anti-establishment” decidedly to bed.
I do like the exposure of the political powers his election has produced.
The alt-right catchphrase you are desperately trying to allude to—without stating it outright, of course—is “deep state.”
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

Post Reply