Oprah Winfrey - does speech provide clues about presidential run?

[Gerald]

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

[Gargamel]

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

[nikimcbee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilvnt1nlYKc

[Catfish]

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

[u crank]

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

:D All future Presidents will be TV stars.

[Platapus]

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.

[u crank]

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.


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.

[BrucePartington]

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.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

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.

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

[Skybird]

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.

[STEED]

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.

[MaDef]

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. 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."

[Catfish]

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. [...]

^^^ (=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

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

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.

[Skybird]

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.


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 (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9704.html), 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/2012/08/15/shame-on-you-voter-a-case-for-not-voting-from-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.

[Platapus]

In the US, almost anyone can grow up to be president. That is just one of the risks we have to accept.

[em2nought]

In the US, almost anyone can grow up to be president. That is just one of the risks we have to accept.

Who says a President has to grow up. :D

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51xvJ6-MWOL.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

Enough is enough ... I'm sick and tired of the news media wasting my time with silly idea's like this one. Sure she has a billion dollars and a desire to be the POTUS, but it is a complete waste of her time and money.

Not even worth repeating, but I bet that comes back to bite me, uh?

[Platapus]

I think it is a bit premature to get spun up over this. I don't believe she has even filed for candidacy.

[vienna]

Enough is enough ... I'm sick and tired of the news media wasting my time with silly idea's like this one. Sure she has a billion dollars and a desire to be the POTUS, but it is a complete waste of her time and money.

Not even worth repeating, but I bet that comes back to bite me, uh?

Sounds a bit like an argument that could have been used against Trump in 2016... :03::D







<O>

[vienna]

I think it is a bit premature to get spun up over this. I don't believe she has even filed for candidacy.

Aw, its just harmless speculation until we find out who will run against President Pence...






<O>

[u crank]

I think it is a bit premature to get spun up over this. I don't believe she has even filed for candidacy.

Indeed. And I think she would have a problem with the current leadership at the DNC. They have had the left turn signal on for some time and I don't think that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are looking for a moderate candidate to run for the Democrats. Unless she was willing to move in their direction it would be a problem especially for the younger Democrats who got all spun up on Bernie.

[u crank]

Aw, its just harmless speculation until we find out who will run against President Pence...


....against Pence in 2024. :D

[vienna]

Not after he loses the election in 2020...badly... :D






<O>

[mapuc]

Or

The Democrats saying

If The Republican can have a President without any political or almost none experience, we should also have the right to have one.

Markus

[u crank]

Not after he loses the election in 2020...badly... :D


OK I'll bite. To who?:D

[vienna]

OK I'll bite. To who?:D

The way things are going for the GOP? Almost anybody...







<O>

[u crank]

The way things are going for the GOP? Almost anybody...


Yea well when Hollywood decides .... let me know. :-j

[em2nought]

The way things are going for the GOP? <O>

If things are going badly for the GOP it's due to their failure to embrace the President that their supporters overwhelmingly chose and stand behind.

Stand behind no matter what the mainstream media arm of the Democratic Party continue to throw against the wall, a year later, hoping something eventually sticks. :hmmm:

[FullMetalADCAP]

So now we're just going to elect people who have billions of dollars? And poor people think Oprah has their interests at heart? Get real. She's no different than Trump. Just a cutthroat business person herself. You don't become a billionaire giving away YOUR money. She gives away products from companies who give her products to give away using her name. Then those companies make a profit when rich men's wives watch her show (while their rich husband is off at work working his butt off and she's home working her butt on) complain that some woman got a cool car on TV and how she wants a cool car just like she got or she's gonna scream! (Imagine Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka) And the rich man gives his wife everything she wants just to keep her from whining and complaining like that because chances are she's super attractive and uses her looks to play him like a fool but he likes having an attractive wife to sleep with even if she does cost him a fortune with her materialistic wants.

What the US needs is a middle class man who wants to take the job and wants to lower the wages for the entire US government, including the president so that the president can't make more than the average middle class person. Same with everyone in congress and the senate also. Someone who wants to tax the rich so that they can feel it just the same as a poor or middle class person. Someone who wants to overhaul the justice system so that the rich can feel that too. For instance, something isn't fair or right when a poor person and a rich person commit the same crime and the bail is set at 10,000 dollars the rich person can come up with $1000 real easy and post bail while the poor person can't unless he can get lenders to lend him the money to post the bail. $1000 to a rich person is like $10 if that. Maybe even a dime if they are rich enough. The poor person will struggle to pay off any lenders for that $1000 he borrowed to post his bail. (Note: Bail amount is usually 10% of what is stated. $10,000 = $1000 to post bail.) Heck, most poor can't even get anyone to lend them any money and just have to sit in jail and pay for their crime by losing their freedom. I think the richer you are, the more you should have to pay for your crime. For one thing, if you're rich, why are you even committing crimes? You should be an example to society, not a criminal. So sick of seeing poor people get raked over the coals in court and the rich walk free. They can afford the best attorney's to represent them also. Screw that.

Everyone should be given a public attorney. So much for the representation of "scales" being used when it's quite obvious that the poorer you are in society the more you pay. But since the rich are always running the show, it makes sense they are going to look out for their interests and screw the poor over. But the poor outnumber the rich so the poor really need to get smart and STOP electing rich people into office. Duh! Even Obama! So dumb! Elect someone who is closer to your economical position to get better representation.

[Skybird]

So now we're just going to elect people who have billions of dollars? And poor people think Oprah has their interests at heart? Get real. She's no different than Trump. Just a cutthroat business person herself. You don't become a billionaire giving away YOUR money. She gives away products from companies who give her products to give away using her name. Then those companies make a profit when rich men's wives watch her show (while their rich husband is off at work working his butt off and she's home working her butt on) complain that some woman got a cool car on TV and how she wants a cool car just like she got or she's gonna scream! (Imagine Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka) And the rich man gives his wife everything she wants just to keep her from whining and complaining like that because chances are she's super attractive and uses her looks to play him like a fool but he likes having an attractive wife to sleep with even if she does cost him a fortune with her materialistic wants.

What the US needs is a middle class man who wants to take the job and wants to lower the wages for the entire US government, including the president so that the president can't make more than the average middle class person. Same with everyone in congress and the senate also. Someone who wants to tax the rich so that they can feel it just the same as a poor or middle class person. Someone who wants to overhaul the justice system so that the rich can feel that too. For instance, something isn't fair or right when a poor person and a rich person commit the same crime and the bail is set at 10,000 dollars the rich person can come up with $1000 real easy and post bail while the poor person can't unless he can get lenders to lend him the money to post the bail. $1000 to a rich person is like $10 if that. Maybe even a dime if they are rich enough. The poor person will struggle to pay off any lenders for that $1000 he borrowed to post his bail. (Note: Bail amount is usually 10% of what is stated. $10,000 = $1000 to post bail.) Heck, most poor can't even get anyone to lend them any money and just have to sit in jail and pay for their crime by losing their freedom. I think the richer you are, the more you should have to pay for your crime. For one thing, if you're rich, why are you even committing crimes? You should be an example to society, not a criminal. So sick of seeing poor people get raked over the coals in court and the rich walk free. They can afford the best attorney's to represent them also. Screw that.

Everyone should be given a public attorney. So much for the representation of "scales" being used when it's quite obvious that the poorer you are in society the more you pay. But since the rich are always running the show, it makes sense they are going to look out for their interests and screw the poor over. But the poor outnumber the rich so the poor really need to get smart and STOP electing rich people into office. Duh! Even Obama! So dumb! Elect someone who is closer to your economical position to get better representation.

A new study in Germany just two days ago found something that is known in psychology since decades, and which has been confirmed by other studies before. People being perceived as attractive, get more often and more positive traits and characteristics attributed to them by other people. Whats worse - attractive people have better chances to get elected. Shine trumps competence.

Just when you talk about a grandfather-style or nation's mummy style candidate, then him or her must not be attractive, aTV commentator commeneted laconically. Grandfathers and mummies must not look young and hot anymore to be loved by others nevertheless.

This is the kind of fundamental motives that decides elections.

And this I am expected to take serious, this holy grail of democracy? Infamy. I take offence from that.

[tiger585]

hallo leute und alles klar bei euch:Kaleun_Salute:

[vienna]

Yea well when Hollywood decides .... let me know. :-j

Oh, I wouldn't really want Hollywood to decide. After all, the last reality TV star they put in the Oval Office has proven to be a huge turkey... :D


If things are going badly for the GOP it's due to their failure to embrace the President that their supporters overwhelmingly chose and stand behind.

Stand behind no matter what the mainstream media arm of the Democratic Party continue to throw against the wall, a year later, hoping something eventually sticks. :hmmm:

Its fine for the supporters to stand and support him, but the rest of us, the vast majority of Americans who did not vote for him are under no obligation to tolerate his glaring deficiencies and idiocies...

...and to blindly "Stand behind no matter what..." runs in extreme contradiction to not only common sense, but, also, the Constitutionally-given right to speak up and stand against unreasonable, and possibly illegal, actions taken by any administration. If ya'all wanna be lemmings, just follow The Chump-In-Chief as he heads for the cliffs...







<O>

[u crank]

Oh, I wouldn't really want Hollywood to decide. After all, the last reality TV star they put in the Oval Office has proven to be a huge turkey... :D


Everybody gets a turn. :O:

[vienna]

Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are doomed to repeat them... :03:








<O>

[Platapus]

You don't become a billionaire giving away YOUR money.

I will E-mail Bill Gates and tell him that he is doing it wrong.

[Skybird]

Bill Gates gives away money he made before.

I do not want to see the write-offs he gets for that from his tax bill.

Before anything else, Gates is a business man. THAT is what made all the money running after him.

[vienna]

Bill Gates gives away money he made before.

I do not want to see the write-offs he gets for that from his tax bill.

Before anything else, Gates is a business man. THAT is what made all the money running after him.

Still, he is giving away huge sums rather than just holding on to it or spending it all on extravagant material things to satisfy a need to acquire and to showoff their wealth. Gates and Warren Buffett, together have not only pledged to donate the bulk of their wealth, they also set up a foundation to encourage other billionaires and others of high wealth to pledge to donate the bulk of their wealth:

https://givingpledge.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

Anything that encourages persons of great wealth to try to assist others is well worth the effort. BTW, about twenty years ago, I read an article about the person who handles the Gates' financial affairs and one of the issues touched on was administration of the Gates' charities, at that time primarily funded solely by the Gates' own wealth. Their charity foundations are tax-exempt foundations and, as such, are under strict tax laws in order to maintain tax-exempt status. One of the requirements is a charity must spend a specific, and significant, portion of the available funds or lose their tax-exempt status. In the article the financial manager was asked about disbursements and, in an example, he stated one of the charities was required, in that tax year, to disburse over USD $350,000,000. That was twenty years ago; imagine what the amount must be currently, and, remember, that sum was for just one of the Gates' charities...








<O>

[vienna]

I actually found the article I cited above. The financial manager's name is Michael Larson. However, my memory was a bit faulty: the amount needed to be disbursed was USD $325,000,000 not USD $350,000,000; I plead old age...


http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/03/15/256491/index.htm



His name is Michael Larson. And BGI stands for Bill Gates Investments. Larson is Bill Gates' private money manager. He runs the entirety of Gates' fortune not invested in Microsoft stock. That sum, which sits in Gates' personal account and in two huge foundations, now amounts to $11.5 billion, and counting. Though this is a fraction of Gates' wealth--his 18.5% stake in Microsoft is worth some $76 billion today--it is still by any measure a huge chunk of money. About $5 billion of the $11.5 billion that Larson manages is in Gates' personal investment portfolio: that is roughly the same size as the Fidelity Value fund, a big mutual fund with 412,000 shareholder accounts.

As for Gates' foundations, well, the combined $6.5 billion he has sent their way in recent years has swiftly elevated them to the ranks of the very largest foundations in the world. His William H. Gates Foundation, with an endowment of $5.2 billion, is right up there with those founded by Ford, Kellogg, and Mellon. But while it took those pre-info age giants decades and decades to create the kind of wealth necessary to fund a great foundation, Gates has amassed his fortune in less than 13 years. His foundations, practically nonexistent at the beginning of Bill Clinton's second term, suddenly are sitting on endowments so large that they will have to give away some $325 million a year just to comply with tax laws on charitable giving. That figure is more than the median net income of the companies in the FORTUNE 500 last year.

The most amazing thing about Larson's job, though, is that it's really just beginning to gear up. As you've probably heard, Gates says he plans to give away nearly all of his wealth in his lifetime. It's an outrageously large fortune, the largest the world has ever known in current terms, and disposing of it presents huge challenges. "Giving away $1 billion is tricky," says one wealthy philanthropist. "Ted Turner is giving that much to the U.N., and you can always give to a major university, but they would just put up new buildings. There just aren't that many organizations that can really do the right job with that kind of money." Says Gates: "Effective philanthropy requires a lot of time and creativity--the same kind of focus and skills that building a business requires."

To give his money away, of course, Gates will have to dispose of huge chunks of Microsoft stock. In fact, Gates has already begun his big push. As first reported by Fortune.com in early February, Gates recently gave some $3.3 billion to his two charitable organizations, the William H. Gates Foundation and the Gates Learning Foundation. And now FORTUNE has learned that Gates has given another $1 billion to the William H. Gates Foundation.





Here's a nutshell assessment of Gates and Larson from 2014:


http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/who-manages-bill-gates-81-bn-meet-michael-larson-114092300401_1.html









<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are doomed to repeat them... :03:

<O>

I heard a rumor that hate can cause cancer :yep:

[Skybird]

Vienna,

yes to all that. However, in the main I wanted to object Platapus' objection to FullMetalADCAP. Gates did not start to give away money and by acting this altruistically he became a billionaire. He made his fortune before he started to give it away.

My side-strike on tax tricks probably was not needed, yes. Sorry for that. I even knew what you described in more detail. Some devil led my fingers there.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oprah and Weinstein. This should go over very well with the voting public. Will she claim she knew nothing? Most certainly. Do I believe she knew nothing? Not a chance.

https://i.redd.it/6uyr7vcoetqz.jpg

Look Harvey. A bonus for you:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLz05xkUMAEd951.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

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

I wish she had been the Dem nominee last election. She would have been very far from acceptable, but she would still have better that this sad clown we're stuck with

[STEED]

sad clown we're stuck with

https://media.makeameme.org/created/one-does-not-5a5cfb.jpg

[August]

I wish she had been the Dem nominee last election. She would have been very far from acceptable, but she would still have better that this sad clown we're stuck with

Really what makes you think that?

[AVGWarhawk]

I wish she had been the Dem nominee last election. She would have been very far from acceptable, but she would still have better that this sad clown we're stuck with

Oprah is all about Oprah. Always has been.

Hopefully Michelle Obama will run as her VP.

[em2nought]

Hopefully this is the only kind of running that Oprah keeps doing. :D
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9c972cd1c3c320d46592531054a8af2d49ba2e41da20ecb1b3 d9ab606b4321ca.jpg

[vienna]

I heard a rumor that hate can cause cancer :yep:

:hmmm: ...Hmm...

If that were true, given how Trump is continuously and angrily raging against real and imagined slights or enemies, and given Trump is well known to engage in long-running feuds, and given Trumps is well known to harbor hatred long after the object of hate has moved on, given all of that Trump should be one great, massive, and complete malignancy...

Hold on... Mr. Quatro may be on to something... :D :haha:



Vienna,

yes to all that. However, in the main I wanted to object Platapus' objection to FullMetalADCAP. Gates did not start to give away money and by acting this altruistically he became a billionaire. He made his fortune before he started to give it away.

My side-strike on tax tricks probably was not needed, yes. Sorry for that. I even knew what you described in more detail. Some devil led my fingers there.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say He made his fortune before he started to give it away."; it is rather difficult to give away something if you don't have it first. I think you may be referring to the situation among a lot of the rich where a person has inherited wealth (ala Trump, etc.) and has essentially a sinecure from the start of their working life. Gates did come from a fairly well-off family; his father is a noted attorney and had built a sizeable fortune, though not massive. Bill Gates actually did not rely on his family's wealth nor did he follow in his father's footsteps as an attorney; instead, Bill found an outlet for his particular genius in computers and built his own wealth; he din't even finish college, so one of the world's richest men is a college dropout...

What Bill Gates did get from his father was a great sense of philanthropy: Bill Gates, SR. is a well-known and respected philanthropist for social causes...

I do have a particular respect for those who do make their fortunes and then seek to help others rather than engage in primarily acquisitive endeavors or fritter away their wealth. What is interesting is how a great many of the philanthropists who devote a larger portion of their wealth to charities are most often those who actually created their own wealth rather than inheriting it without effort...








<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Really what makes you think that?

I'm not sayinh Orprah is anywhere close to being a good candidte for POTUS, definitely not Ellen Degeneres either or Michelle Obama,all lightweights.

But I dont' like Trump,neverhave for the decades hes' been running his mouth, his scams. He has no class,no taste, he's a full of bs guy. I can oppose and argue with people but still respect them if they have some class.

Now to be clear, he's right in what he says a lot of the time, and I strongly support his policies, sohe's better than hillary. :Kaleun_Wink:

[FullMetalADCAP]

The left has got to step away from race and sex stuff and put up a real fight and stick to politics that ALL people can relate to - money and the economy. They only hurt themselves when the current president talks money and all they can do is say, "But this idea from Trump is gonna hurt some non-white person or a woman or a non-straight person" as an argument all the time.

The left has gone complete loony tunes about race, sex, and sexual orientation to the place of absolute absurdity and even outright hypocrisy. For instance, feminism needs to just die off now. It had it's time and place but has gone way overboard to outright emotional insanity. Hard to take a woman (Clinton), who makes millions of dollars, seriously that women are disadvantaged when you're a poor man (and most men in society ain't anywhere close to her wealth). Feminists like her (Clinton) argue glass ceiling all the time but never seem to even mention the floor they stand on above so many men who are beneath the feet of most women in society today.

Hard to say women are so disadvantaged in education when, in one article they are praising how girls and women dominate 85% of educational studies and make up the bulk of college grads. But then in the next article they make girls and women out to be victims of discrimination by mentioning that pesky 15% of STEM just alludes them so it must be patriarchy and discrimination at play because how on Earth can women dominate most of education and not ALL of education right? Who knows, maybe men are good for something after all ladies, but hey, that's sexist talk right? If women ain't on top, it's apparently patriarchy and discrimination at play in the views of the modern femiNazi man hater. But if women dominate over men, there's no shortage of news articles hailing women's victory over men because "equality" is the goal of feminism right - not victory of one sex over another? Derp.