Oprah thinking of running for president

[PartySick 174,287]

4 hours ago, Adakam said:

Oprah would be great on the social side, but there are some hard choices a president has to make that im not sure she could handle. As much as we would like to, a country cant be handled under a "give everything to people" philosophy.

Id love if she was the next president's VP, or a close advisor, but i dont want to put the hard stuff on her hands.

She'd probably have the sense to surround herself with knowledgeable and experienced politicians to help her make those choices though. And when it comes down to it, I don't think she would do bad even if she had to do it alone

[PunkTheFunk 125,733]

13 hours ago, ClosetGagaFan said:

Can you really compare the two? Trumps failures do not stem from being a celebrity.. They stem from being a self riotous know it all insane racist rapist who cant possibly take advice from anyone with an intelligence greater than that of a stone. 

This tbh. Trump is just an awful person, period. I'd take Oprah over him any day.

[Blond 5,715]

The only presidents I acknowledge

[nikola 4,342]

If you don't have political background or experience you should not run for POTUS. No matter how famous you are.

[Ziggy 14,298]

11 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Didn’t we already have a fully(overly-qualified) candidate, and well we see how that turned out...  

 

Who also had the most political baggage in modern memory lol it’s not exactly fair to just say she was qualified (which she absolutely was) when it wasn’t that that weighed her down. It was interference, her own baggage, shady tactics being exposed, and general unlikability among scores of different groups.

 

Logically, leaders needn’t be likable or admired, but humans are logical. Emotions are a very strong component of being an effective leader and while Hillary recognized her shortcomings in that territory, she wasn’t able to overcome them.

[Eighteen 5,430]

if 2020 turns out to be a democratic primary with the rock and oprah, i don't know what to say except i'm moving back to england 

we have much better and experienced potential candidates who should be in the running: bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, joe biden, i've heard rumblings about jerry brown. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,668]

21 hours ago, Whispering said:

The President's image, manner and words matter. 

Wrong. Obama brought us back from the brink of another Depression. He put the economy back on the right track.

Of course there can be. I don't believe Oprah would pull people in that were nutcases and rejects.

People didn't support Sarah Palin because she was dumb as a rock. She actually had political experience. 

I laugh at Trump because he's an idiot. I didn't feel the same about other inexperienced nominees from the past or ones that have been mentioned for possibility in the future...and that's on both sides.

My thoughts were well beyond "sure, why not". I'm not losing my head over this possibility. If the possibility does occur, I will consider Oprah based on how her values line up with mine, on her priorities and on her policies. I have always given careful consideration to candidates that I vote for... from the local level to the highest office in the land. 2020 will be no different. 

Their actions matter, not image. Talking the talk is all very well, but can you walk the walk?

I don't know if Obama actually ended the recession. We're pretty much still in it. Sure, under his leadership, things were moving towards a better future but, as much as I liked him and wanted it to be the case, I don't see the change he said he wished to bring.

I don't know what you mean by "rejects," but there's liberal nutcases as well. I watched Oprah's speech today for the first time and while it was amazing, I couldn't help but agree with a comment that I saw underneath that said that you have to remember that her talk show gave a platform to pseudo science, psychics and proclaimed "self help" gurus who actually didn't help anyone at all. I distinctly remember when she promoted The Secret like it was the best book ever despite Rhonda Byrne being a chancer who made her money off a premise you could have sold to someone at no cost and who suggested that all you need to get whatever you want is to wish really hard for it and not put in any hard work. This commenter pointed out that there are plenty of good Democrats who are better for the position and at the end of the day, Oprah's a talk show host who is part of a capitalist empire and promotes what will give her money and viewers, which isn't comparable to a genuine political experience. If Oprah has viewers who believe in all the stuff that her show gave a platform to, well...that's a different kind a nutcase in my view.

Yeah, they didn't support Palin because she was dumb as a rock but even Republicans doubted that a hockey mom from Alaska was really the best VP choice, even if she was a governor. The fact she was a woman didn't help either. As we've seen, they're more than happy to vouch for men who are as a dumb as a rock.

Yeah, Trump sure is a one-off in many ways. But I don't see how that's relevant to the topic. It's about if Oprah would be a good president, not the current one.

Thing is, I find politicians hard enough to trust. Trusting a celebrity will be even more difficult. People who choose fame and glory can be awful people. Not to mention, unpredictable. A politician is used to some degree of professionalism whereas a celebrity will have been used to having their own way for years, letting money talk and sobbing at awards podiums. I know which one I'd trust more to run a country.

18 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Wait I read this and re-evaluated my opinion. I'm shook. I felt the currents of this message but got lost in the whole "should she run debate" - proof that we are all susceptible to the culture we live in

PLEASE! PLEASE! Give it a read.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/people-are-completely-missing-the-point-of-oprahs-amazing-golden-globes-speech.html

I really agree with that. It was akin to a battle cry for people everywhere. It was about raising the profile of everyone else, not herself. It was a motivational speech to encourage us all to make a change, not for one person to change it all for us. Sure, a lot of people say "______ for president" somewhat jokily every time a lot of people give a rousing speech but this time, people really mean it. But are they losing sight of the whole point of it? Yes. Oprah was telling us that one person cannot bring about change, only by millions of us acting can we being about change and change is in all of us.

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Their actions matter, not image. Talking the talk is all very well, but can you walk the walk?

I don't know if Obama actually ended the recession. We're pretty much still in it. Sure, under his leadership, things were moving towards a better future but, as much as I liked him and wanted it to be the case, I don't see the change he said he wished to bring.

I don't know what you mean by "rejects," but there's liberal nutcases as well. I watched Oprah's speech today for the first time and while it was amazing, I couldn't help but agree with a comment that I saw underneath that said that you have to remember that her talk show gave a platform to pseudo science, psychics and proclaimed "self help" gurus who actually didn't help anyone at all. I distinctly remember when she promoted The Secret like it was the best book ever despite Rhonda Byrne being a chancer who made her money off a premise you could have sold to someone at no cost and who suggested that all you need to get whatever you want is to wish really hard for it and not put in any hard work. This commenter pointed out that there are plenty of good Democrats who are better for the position and at the end of the day, Oprah's a talk show host who is part of a capitalist empire and promotes what will give her money and viewers, which isn't comparable to a genuine political experience. If Oprah has viewers who believe in all the stuff that her show gave a platform to, well...that's a different kind a nutcase in my view.

Yeah, they didn't support Palin because she was dumb as a rock but even Republicans doubted that a hockey mom from Alaska was really the best VP choice, even if she was a governor. The fact she was a woman didn't help either. As we've seen, they're more than happy to vouch for men who are as a dumb as a rock.

Yeah, Trump sure is a one-off in many ways. But I don't see how that's relevant to the topic. It's about if Oprah would be a good president, not the current one.

Thing is, I find politicians hard enough to trust. Trusting a celebrity will be even more difficult. People who choose fame and glory can be awful people. Not to mention, unpredictable. A politician is used to some degree of professionalism whereas a celebrity will have been used to having their own way for years, letting money talk and sobbing at awards podiums. I know which one I'd trust more to run a country.

 

When you are the leader of the free world, it all matters.

We? You don't live here. Obama helped turn around the recession in the US and kept us from a Depression. In the US.

Rejects like Mike Pence and the cabinet members Trump has selected. 

You brought up Palin and Trump. I replied with my thoughts on those two. If Trump wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, don't bring his name up in your comment.

Eh, depends on the celebrity. Before Oprah was a celebrity, she was raised by a single mom (who cleaned houses for a living) in rural Mississippi. She went to college and worked her way up every step of the way. The majority of politicians are lawyers. That's not usually a profession people think of as "trustworthy individuals". Some celebrities are wonderful people, some are disgusting human beings. Some politicians are wonderful people, some are disgusting human beings.

Like I stated in my previous post, I will wait and see who I will support, after the debates and the primaries. I'm not going to pre-judge at this point. I'm going to wait and see what the candidates have to say.