SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Oprah Winfrey - does speech provide clues about presidential run?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Oprah Winfrey - does speech provide clues about presidential run? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=236191)

Oprah Winfrey - does speech provide clues about presidential run?

Quote:

During the opening of the 2018 Golden Globe Awards programme, host Seth Meyers toyed with the idea of a possible Oprah Winfrey presidential campaign. When Winfrey took the stage later that night, the speech she gave was no joke.
There are reports emerging in the US that she is actively entertaining the notion.
For years the queen of US talk shows, she has produced and acted in movies and now runs a cable TV channel.
Her speech at the Globes sounded an awful lot like a presidential candidate on the campaign stump - polished and effective.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42586730

Girl power.:D

Free Healthcare for you! Free Healthcare for you! Free healthcare for everyone!

If a Trump can become president, everyone can. :yeah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2535616)

If a Trump can become president, everyone can. :yeah:

:D All future Presidents will be TV stars.

We don't need another person without any education nor experience in running government organizations as president.

The office of president is not an entry level position

I hope that one positive outcome of the Trump administration will be to kill, forever, this fantasy of electing a political outsider as PotUS.

If Winfrey wants to get in to politics (and she may be good in a political position) she can start at the state level or at the congressional level.

If the democratic position on candidates in 2020 is limited to "at least we ain't Trump", they can easily lose that election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2535624)

I couldn't agree more. But....I don't think anyone is listening.

As for Oprah, well everyone has baggage. She's got a lot. Celebrities don't have to defend their beliefs. Politicians do. Right now almost everyone likes her. See how quick that changes when she gets into politics.

I don't mean to offend anyone but...

I would be terrified to have a presidential candidate who has sold millions of copies of a book that convinces people that "The Secret" to success is to just close your eyes and believe in it hard enough, just as you believe in sky daddy. She only realised how much harm she'd done when she realised her book lead someone to forego cancer treatment and just sit home convincing himself he was getting better because faith.
But it seems to be trend these days. Anyone who thinks of himself, like, a genius, can apply for the job, even with the painfully glaring used car lot salesman speech "It's going to be wonderfull. It's going to be fantastic. I am going to give you everything. Everything. You'll see."

I totally get George Carlin when he said he was just watching the world slowly gliding down, and he didn't care anymore. That's how I feel when I see these things, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrucePartington (Post 2535750)

I'd be far, far more concerned about the current President than any potential run from Oprah..

I am concerned about a system where incompetent posers and imposters like Clinton and Trump and Oprah having realistic chances to get elected - now seems to be the norm. Every fool and every idiot seems to have chances to become US president these days.

Thats like an army pulling its generals from a pool of 1st-day-recruits.

The way it looks the local inbreed red neck who mates with vegetables could be in with a good chance. :03:

I have similar view point for what is going on here in the UK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2535794)

That's been the case from day one of U.S. Independence. We've had farmers, Lawyers, Soldiers, Teachers, Engineers, Writers, Actors, Businessmen, and even a Newspaper man as president. Some of them did exceptional jobs, others not so much. H.L. Mencken said it best, "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2535794)

^^^ (=3 posts north) @Skybird: You are such an elitist! :O::haha:
But seriously, this is what democracy is about. And here, the last Hinterwaeldler has the same voting power as the history professor.. And then: Look at our german politicians, e.g. Seehofer.
It's all the same. A dictator or king might look more intelligent, but this is probably the impression he tries to make.. it's all about human failure.

Quote from MaDef:
"H.L. Mencken said it best, "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." "
:D

I'm waiting for Kim Kardashian to announce her bid for POTUS! Big boobs for everyone! :D

More seriously, a) I would rather take old school political crony, atleast you have some idea what you will get and b) I have no vote, so I have to live with which ever moron you choose next...

I howver hope that next time you won't have to pick between cholera and plague.

If this scum is what voters bring into power and by that degrading the general common good and the country, then it would be the best service voters yould do for thewir country if they act with self-restrain and do not go voting. Becasue they do a lot of damage. And the common good and the contry do not deserce that.

;)

There are very good reasons why people like Jason Brannon or Hans-Herrmann Hoppe attack the glorification of democracy so bitterly.

Not even mentioning that modern dmeicracy is not democracy in the understabnding of Ancient Greece where demucracy was invented. Our idea of democracy was their understanding of tyranny.

Quote:

When I see people with an “I Voted!” sticker, my first thought is, “Shame on you!”

Imagine 12 people are serving on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution and defense present evidence and call witnesses. The court asks the jury to reach a verdict. They find the defendant guilty.

Suppose four of the jurors paid no attention during the trial. When asked to deliberate, they were ignorant of the details of the case. They decided more or less at random.

Suppose four of the jurors paid some attention to the evidence. However, they found the defendant guilty not on the basis of the evidence, but on wishful thinking and on bizarre conspiracy theories they happen to believe.

Suppose four of the jurors paid attention to the evidence. However, they found the defendant guilty because he is an atheist, while they are Christians. Like many Americans, the jurors trust atheists no more than they trust rapists.

In the case above, the jurors acted in a vile and despicable way. The defendant is possibly innocent. He does not consent to the outcome of the decision. The decision will be imposed upon him through violence and threats of violence. The decision could harm him, and deprive him of property, liberty, or even life. Jurors have a moral obligation to decide these kinds of cases in a competent and morally reasonable way.

This line of reasoning applies even more strongly to the electorate as a whole. Political decisions are high stakes. Most citizens are innocent. Almost none of us consent to the outcome of the election or to our government.* The outcomes—including all ensuing laws, regulations, taxes, budget expenditures, wars, and so on—are imposed upon us through violence and threats of violence. These decisions can and so harm us, and can and do deprive many of us of property, liberty, and even life. At first glance, we should think that voters, like jurors, have a moral obligation to vote in a competent and morally reasonable way.

However, as I document in The Ethics of Voting, the best available evidence indicates that most voters mean well, but are politically incompetent. Most are like the first eight jurors in the thought experiment above. (Most non-voting citizens are even worse.) If so, I argue, they owe it to the rest of us to abstain. Citizens have no duty to vote, but if they do vote, they must vote well, for what they justifiedly believe will promote good government.

There’s nothing morally wrong with being ignorant about politics, or with forming your political beliefs though an irrational thought processes—so long as you don’t vote. As soon as you step in the voting booth, you acquire a duty to know what you’re doing. It’s fine to be ignorant, misinformed, or irrational about politics, so long as you don’t impose your political preferences upon others using the coercive power of government.

Of course, there’s a difference between jurors and voters. Individual jurors have a lot of power. Individual voters have almost no power. You are more likely to win Powerball than to decide an election. If so, does that excuse individual voters? My individual vote will not hurt anybody, so doesn’t that mean I can just vote however I’d like?

I don’t think so. I’ll illustrate why not with an analogy. Suppose a 100-member firing squad is about to shoot an innocent child. Suppose they are trained to shoot so that each bullet will hit the child at the same time. Suppose each bullet, on its own, would suffice to kill her. Suppose also that you can’t stop the shooters. The child will die regardless of what you do. Now, suppose the shooters offer to let you join in and fire with them. Is it okay for you to take the 101st shot?

Most people, upon reflection, think not. Even though you don’t make a difference, you have a moral duty to keep your hands clean. You have a duty not to join in with the group when the group harms innocent people. Only a monster would take the 101st shot, even though it makes no difference to the outcome.

So it goes with voting. If you are an ignorant, irrational, biased, capricious, or malevolent voter, your vote makes no difference. However, you’re the 101st shooter. We shouldn’t celebrate you for voting. We should hold you in contempt.

http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2012...jason-brennan/

Our modern understanding of wonderful democracy is nothing else but the plebs yelling as loud as everybody can, thinking that makes him precious, competent, important. But plebs is plebs. Our tyranny is an ochlocracy - the tyranny of the masses.