President Oprah Winfrey in January 2021?

[August1991]

We can debate whether Oprah Winfrey (born 1954) will run, and then we can further debate whether she could win against Trump. Heck, we still don't know whether Donald Trump (born in 1946) will run in 2020 for re-election.

We all know that both Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump have, to use a Freudian term, a large "ego". (I prefer the more mathematical term "self-centred".) Whatever.

1. You will hear that the Internet, social media has "disrupted" politics. (Disruption is the current fad phrase, it used to be out-sourcing.) Because of this newness, media-names like Trump can manipulate the system. And now, only someone like Oprah can defeat him.

2. Frankly, I think it would be neat to see these two "duke it out", as - uh - Americans say.

===

Confucianism vs US Constitution - Hmm, as Trump or OWN would say: The US Constitution, what a document!

  

Edited January 13, 2018 by August1991

[eyeball]

Without a Maybe option I'll hedge my bets.

1. It doesn't matter how manipulating the internet is when the person trying to manipulate you with it does so with all the finesse of a two year old on a xylophone. I suspect a four year old, never mind Winfrey, could manipulate circles around Trump.

2. It would be a slaughter with Trump looking like chopped liver before the first round was over. Of course he'd be oblivious to that.

[OftenWrong]

Trump's done pretty well in his first year actually eyeball, despite the intense media opposition. None of that had any substance, it is akin to tabloid gossip and trash, which you and many others have been suckered into believing. While we bicker over his hair colour, small hands, or blunt and direct demeanour he's happily working on his party's political agenda. By now there can be no doubt that Trump has fired up the US economy, through deregulation and tax reductions. The information is there and can be proven, if you look but you won't hear about it by sucking on the teats of mainstream media.

[August1991]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Without a Maybe option I'll hedge my bets.

....

Me too...

The question is simple: President Winfrey, yes or no.  The rest is obvious/implied.

====

But eyeball, Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump have (surprise, surprise) self-importance, large egos.

The US Constitution has survived for 250 years. Chou-En Lai merely asked about the French Revolution. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by August1991

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

By now there can be no doubt that Trump has fired up the US economy, through deregulation and tax reductions.

Well one thing fired was thousands of Wal-Mart employees, they thanked Trump for his tax regulations.

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Well one thing fired was thousands of Wal-Mart employees, they thanked Trump for his tax regulations.

I cannot find a reference to your claim. I googled https://www.google.ca/search?&q=walmart+employees+Trump+taxes but the links only show-

Walmart uses massive Trump tax gain to offer modest pay rise
Walmart says it's raising wages thanks to the GOP tax plan
With a lower tax bill in sight, Walmart to raise its U.S. minimum wage
Trump's tax bill prompts Walmart to raise starting wage, give $1,000 bonuses to some employees

This is a startling contrast with what has happened in Ontario, minimum wage increase forced upon businesses by the government. Employers are now cutting benefits and paid break time, and now I hear the price for products is going to go up. The consequences should be obvious... if the prices go up to cover the extra wages paid out, it's not a wage increase at all. Two very different political ideologies, two different results.

I would expect president Ofrah to be even worse...

[Argus]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump's done pretty well in his first year 

By what measure?

[Argus]

56 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Walmart uses massive Trump tax gain to offer modest pay rise
Walmart says it's raising wages thanks to the GOP tax plan
With a lower tax bill in sight, Walmart to raise its U.S. minimum wage
Trump's tax bill prompts Walmart to raise starting wage, give $1,000 bonuses to some employees

In reality, Walmart almost certainly raised its wages because with lower unemployment rate its harder to get new employees and harder to keep the ones they have. But saying something nice about the tax plan will endear them to Trump and cost nothing.

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

By what measure?

I read an article by Newt Gingrich that summed up Trump's / Republican's successes in his first year. Some highlights-

In his first year as president, (Trump) nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court and got him approved, aggressively cut regulations, established a National Security Strategy that has been widely praised, and successfully helped pass the largest tax cut in more than three decades for the American people... as a result of all this, small business confidence, CEO confidence, and consumer confidence are through the roof, which has helped drive the stock market to a record high.

His work on immigration reform and building "The Wall" are still ongoing.

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

In reality, Walmart almost certainly raised its wages because with lower unemployment rate its harder to get new employees and harder to keep the ones they have. But saying something nice about the tax plan will endear them to Trump and cost nothing.

You are speculating here, which is fine but you are showing your bias. Why should they want to be endeared to Trump? Why do people seek to excuse any success that he and his party have achieved, by any means even just speculation? I do that as well but it's a mistake to "believe" in a thing without hard substantiation. Especially given these times of intense political theatre. It's driving people nuts, you know?

Edited January 13, 2018 by OftenWrong

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

I read an article by Newt Gingrich that summed up Trump's / Republican's successes in his first year. Some highlights-

In his first year as president, (Trump) nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court and got him approved, aggressively cut regulations, established a National Security Strategy that has been widely praised, and successfully helped pass the largest tax cut in more than three decades for the American people... as a result of all this, small business confidence, CEO confidence, and consumer confidence are through the roof, which has helped drive the stock market to a record high.

 

Other Trump successes:

• Started re-negotiation of NAFTA
• Removed U.S. from TPP trade deal
• $300 billion more in China trade
• Slapped tariffs on Canadian dumping
• Appointed many federal appellate judges
• Approved KXL bitumen pipeline from Canada
• Removed Obamacare individual responsibility tax penalty
• Escalated military actions against ISIL with victory in Iraq
• Rescinded Obama EO's that hurt industry (e.g. coal)
• Boosted the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants
• Funded resources for opioid crisis
• Reinstated Mexico City policy
• Motivated NATO deadbeats to increase defence spending
• Recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel per U.S. federal law.
• Lowest unemployment rate since 2000
• Business climate is outstanding...Dow passed 25,000
• Donated his presidential salary !

 

[OftenWrong]

In regards to thread poll, I have voted "Yes'. Given the overwhelming media shit-storm where innuendo, unsubstantiated speculation and fictional books vis Trump are taken as perfectly true, the Dems probably could elect anyone they want. That is the strategy.

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump's done pretty well in his first year actually eyeball, despite the intense media opposition. None of that had any substance, it is akin to tabloid gossip and trash, which you and many others have been suckered into believing. While we bicker over his hair colour, small hands, or blunt and direct demeanour he's happily working on his party's political agenda. By now there can be no doubt that Trump has fired up the US economy, through deregulation and tax reductions. The information is there and can be proven, if you look but you won't hear about it by sucking on the teats of mainstream media.

Well thank goodness I watch Fox News too then. None of that undiluted DTM for me. Fair and balanced...all the time, you betcha.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I doubt Winfrey would go through such an ordeal. Unlike Trump, she hasn’t had to endure relentless criticism in her business dealings and would find the change highly unpleasant. 

The emergence of celebrity and mega-rich candidates is a disturbing trend in US democracy. Policy is being superseded by personality which means voters will have even less say on what happens. 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I read an article by Newt Gingrich that summed up Trump's / Republican's successes in his first year. Some highlights-

Newt Gingrich the serial adulterer? They guy reprimanded by congress by a vote of 395-28 on ethics violations and deceiving the House?

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

In his first year as president, (Trump) nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court and got him approved, aggressively cut regulations, established a National Security Strategy that has been widely praised, and successfully helped pass the largest tax cut in more than three decades for the American people... as a result of all this, small business confidence, CEO confidence, and consumer confidence are through the roof, which has helped drive the stock market to a record high.

First, Trump had nothing to do with the tax cuts except to sign the bill. He didn't come up with it. The Senate did. The same is true of the supreme court nominee. He knows nothing about these people and is too lazy to care. He nominated the guy the Republicans told him to nominate. As for regulations. Again, this is  a guy everyone has described as having zero interest in policy work. So that was once again done by the party while he played golf. As for as a national security strategy. The White House national security office has been described as being in chaos for most of his term, with no unanimity of message or policy. The only people praising their strategy are diehard Republicans.

I do agree the tax cut is helping drive profits higher for corporate America, and thus sending the stock market high. But... but... I thought he was the guy who worked for Main Street, not Wall Street! So far it looks like he's taking away services to Main Street in order to give big profits to Wall Street! How could that be?!

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I doubt Winfrey would go through such an ordeal. Unlike Trump, she hasn’t had to endure relentless criticism in her business dealings and would find the change highly unpleasant. 

The emergence of celebrity and mega-rich candidates is a disturbing trend in US democracy. Policy is being superseded by personality which means voters will have even less say on what happens. 

She is, by all accounts an incredible egotist, much like Trump. I'll grant you she's smarter and more emotionally stable than he is, but then almost anyone would be. Celebrity is no reason to make someone President, or should Lady Gaga run?

[Hal 9000]

She won't run.  At this point polls have her at 10 points over Trump, but she has never entered into anything that she didn't have 100% control over.  She has always been the interviewer, never has she been questioned about anything substantial and I don't think she's willing to sacrifice her entity, her ego and her brand for this.  At this point, people think she'd win, and if she never runs, they'll always believe that.  If she runs and loses to Trump, that would be extremely damaging for her.  No, she won't run, she'll find a way out that makes people love her even more.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

...The emergence of celebrity and mega-rich candidates is a disturbing trend in US democracy. Policy is being superseded by personality which means voters will have even less say on what happens. 

 

No, it is not an emergence, but common theme in politics for decades, and not just in the United States.

Voters drive the cult of personality.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Newt Gingrich the serial adulterer? They guy reprimanded by congress by a vote of 395-28 on ethics violations and deceiving the House?

First, Trump had nothing to do with the tax cuts except to sign the bill. He didn't come up with it. The Senate did. The same is true of the supreme court nominee. He knows nothing about these people and is too lazy to care. He nominated the guy the Republicans told him to nominate. As for regulations. Again, this is  a guy everyone has described as having zero interest in policy work. So that was once again done by the party while he played golf. As for as a national security strategy. The White House national security office has been described as being in chaos for most of his term, with no unanimity of message or policy. The only people praising their strategy are diehard Republicans.

I do agree the tax cut is helping drive profits higher for corporate America, and thus sending the stock market high. But... but... I thought he was the guy who worked for Main Street, not Wall Street! So far it looks like he's taking away services to Main Street in order to give big profits to Wall Street! How could that be?!

 

So you mean, the book is all true??

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Newt Gingrich the serial adulterer? They guy reprimanded by congress by a vote of 395-28 on ethics violations and deceiving the House?

First, Trump had nothing to do with the tax cuts except to sign the bill. He didn't come up with it. The Senate did. The same is true of the supreme court nominee. He knows nothing about these people and is too lazy to care. He nominated the guy the Republicans told him to nominate. As for regulations. Again, this is  a guy everyone has described as having zero interest in policy work. So that was once again done by the party while he played golf. As for as a national security strategy. The White House national security office has been described as being in chaos for most of his term, with no unanimity of message or policy. The only people praising their strategy are diehard Republicans.

I do agree the tax cut is helping drive profits higher for corporate America, and thus sending the stock market high. But... but... I thought he was the guy who worked for Main Street, not Wall Street! So far it looks like he's taking away services to Main Street in order to give big profits to Wall Street! How could that be?!

 

Meh, I dislike Trump as much as the next guy but you are being pretty biased here. It's true that any legislative achievements are ultimately the result of work in congress, but it's also true that most of what has been done would not have been done under a Democrat president. And while Trump might not be able to read any word longer than a few letters, that doesn't mean that he didn't set deregulation as a priority at many agencies and/or appoint heads of these agencies that are for deregulation (of course, much of the deregulation is bad deregulation - but that doesn't stop it from being listed as an achievement if one is ideologically opposed to regulation). 

As for the tax cut bill... the criticism of it is mostly hypocritical BS. If you look at it, all it did was make America's taxes a lot more like Canada's. Reduced corporate rate (it's still higher than in Canada), reduced how much people can deduct local/state taxes (they can't deduct them at all in Canada), reduced how much mortgage interest can be deducted from taxes (it can't be deducted at all in Canada), reduced federal income tax rates (they are still higher, and more progressive, than in Canada), and increased the standard deduction so that far fewer people need to bother with the complexities of the tax code. So how exactly is this some evil bill that harms main street? No, the tax bill is one of the very few things done at the federal level since Trump came into office that's actually a significant step in the right direction. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Bonam

[Ginsy]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

She is, by all accounts an incredible egotist, much like Trump. I'll grant you she's smarter and more emotionally stable than he is, but then almost anyone would be. Celebrity is no reason to make someone President, or should Lady Gaga run?

Lady Gaga running for President is the only logical next step! 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Ginsy said:

Lady Gaga running for President is the only logical next step! 

 

Not for Lady Gaga...she won't be 35 until March of 2021....too young.

[SpankyMcFarland]

19 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, it is not an emergence, but common theme in politics for decades, and not just in the United States.

Voters drive the cult of personality.

Who were the previous billionaire presidents with no political experience? Granted, this bad trend is not confined to the US. 

Voters are less rooted in local organizations and are migrating towards the pseudo-communities created by media on tv or online. This makes them more vulnerable to populist demagoguery. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by SpankyMcFarland

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Who were the previous billionaire presidents with no political experience? Granted, this bad trend is not confined to the US.

 

Several presidents lacked political experience, regardless of wealth.   George Washington, JFK, and T. Roosevelt had both.

Many presidential candidates had immense wealth and no political experience (e.g. Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Nelson Rockefeller).

Other candidates for federal and state office have also been very wealthy and without political experience.

Welfare recipients can also run for president.

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Several presidents lacked political experience, regardless of wealth.   George Washington, JFK, and T. Roosevelt had both.

Many presidential candidates had immense wealth and no political experience (e.g. Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Nelson Rockefeller).

Other candidates for federal and state office have also been very wealthy and without political experience.

Welfare recipients can also run for president.

Kennedy was a senator and congressman, Washington didn’t get the chance to represent anybody before being prez (hence the unpleasantness that divides us still) and are you sure about Teddy? I had to wiki this but it looks like he had prior political and gov experience, even leaving aside his VP job. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

Of the failures, Forbes was a policy wonk and Rocky had extensive gov experience before his first run as well as being governor of NY. Perot is the only real parallel. 

Something deep is shifting in the tectonic plates of society. Celebrity is assuming moral significance. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Kennedy was a senator and congressman, Washington didn’t get the chance to represent anybody before being prez (hence the unpleasantness that divides us still) and are you sure about Teddy? I had to wiki this but it looks like he had prior political and gov experience, even leaving aside his VP job. 

Of the failures, Forbes was a policy wonk and Rocky had extensive gov experience before his first run as well as being governor of NY. Perot is the only real parallel. 

Something deep is shifting in the tectonic plates of society. Celebrity is assuming moral significance. 

 

My main point with those specific examples is that neither wealth or lack of experience preclude serving as president.

Washington had lots of experience representing Virginia citizens/landowners/voters, and he was very, very, wealthy.

The U.S. Constitution enumerates qualifications for president, which Trump easily met.

Celebrity is part of modern society and its media.