Oprah for President?

makeorbreak

Established
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
119
Everyone is saying Oprah Winfrey should run for President in 2020. This would be a big mistake.

If people were to vote for her because she's a woman, wrong reason. Hillary Clinton received votes because she was a woman but she had too much other baggage to qualify her for the position.

If it is because she's black, wrong reason also. Barack Obama also made mistakes and wasn't the best President.

If they want a black woman in the White House, wrong reason again. There is no reason to believe these two qualities make her an ideal candidate.

If people still believe a non-politician should be in the White House, wrong reason. Look at Donald Trump. Political experience should be considered a must. Arnold Schwarzenegger was Governor with no political experience. He borrowed more money than previous governors even though he said he didn't believe in borrowing. He left office with record deficits in place after saying he would balance the budget. Clint Eastwood also had no prior political experience and ran only to eliminate the ban on ice cream cones in the town.

If people want to support someone who has enough of their own money, they will not have to take contributions and create a debt, wrong reason. Again, look at Donald Trump. Look at Arnold and Clint. Donald and Arnold both accepted money, choosing not to totally fund their campaigns as they had said they would. They both owed people favours. Clint donated his $200 yearly salary as Mayor to charity but let's face it, he didn't need the money either and his campaign probably came under that total anyway.

If people want someone who can say they are a business success and able to run a country, wrong reason. A country is much more difficult to run than a business and the stakes are much higher. Look at Donald, Arnold and Clint. All have highly successful entertainment and business careers but that didn't prepare them for the job of running a country, not just financially but defensively and strategically.

If people want a leader who is without scandal in their background, Arnold had a sexual harassment allegation against him both entering and leaving office. A book making the rounds reveals a Clint Eastwood he hid. The book alleges Clint to be abusive man who played the field and had several illegitimate children. But now, a new book exposes the real man a violent, man who fathered several illegitimate and forced abortions on one but not two women he had affairs with. Sure, most of this came out after he had served as Mayor but some of the gossip would have been out there. Hillary Clinton's husband had affairs while in the White House and she dogged on the women who dared to speak up. Then, there were rumours about the running of the Clinton Foundation and the infamous e-mail scandal where she reportedly revealed potentially top secret information on an unsecure server. Then, there's Oprah who is being sued by a female executive for denying the woman a promotion because she became pregnant.

The best person to run against Donald Trump, if he is stupid enough to run again, could be either a man or a woman, white or black or any other colour, rich or not so rich. The main thing is they need to be someone who can unite a shattered country, not just representing one segment of the larger population. They need to have political experience though, no matter how much they want to serve the people and lead the nation.

Oprah is just not that person. She is, at best, a celebrity and that is not what the country needs. The U.S. needs someone who can get the people to look to the future and forget about the past. Whatever has already happened and frankly, it wasn't that great. People have to stop thinking in terms of black and white.
Sometimes, there is beauty in the graytones.

A leader is not supposed to appeal to only some of the voters all of the time and certainly not all of the people some of the time. America needs someone who can serve all of the people all of the time without anyone feeling they are not part of the big picture. They also need equal amounts of political savvy, the strength to stand up under terrible stress, the compassion to treat everyone with respect regardless of their beliefs or circumstances and the knowledge to do the right thing at the right time.

That's big shoes to fill but Oprah is not that person.
 

DesertRose

Superstar
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
7,676
America needs a president that can not be bought, is impartial, color blind and logical. (if only empathy was programmable).
Here is my vote:
 
Last edited:

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Everyone is saying Oprah Winfrey should run for President in 2020. This would be a big mistake.

If people were to vote for her because she's a woman, wrong reason. Hillary Clinton received votes because she was a woman but she had too much other baggage to qualify her for the position.

If it is because she's black, wrong reason also. Barack Obama also made mistakes and wasn't the best President.

If they want a black woman in the White House, wrong reason again. There is no reason to believe these two qualities make her an ideal candidate.

If people still believe a non-politician should be in the White House, wrong reason. Look at Donald Trump. Political experience should be considered a must. Arnold Schwarzenegger was Governor with no political experience. He borrowed more money than previous governors even though he said he didn't believe in borrowing. He left office with record deficits in place after saying he would balance the budget. Clint Eastwood also had no prior political experience and ran only to eliminate the ban on ice cream cones in the town.

If people want to support someone who has enough of their own money, they will not have to take contributions and create a debt, wrong reason. Again, look at Donald Trump. Look at Arnold and Clint. Donald and Arnold both accepted money, choosing not to totally fund their campaigns as they had said they would. They both owed people favours. Clint donated his $200 yearly salary as Mayor to charity but let's face it, he didn't need the money either and his campaign probably came under that total anyway.

If people want someone who can say they are a business success and able to run a country, wrong reason. A country is much more difficult to run than a business and the stakes are much higher. Look at Donald, Arnold and Clint. All have highly successful entertainment and business careers but that didn't prepare them for the job of running a country, not just financially but defensively and strategically.

If people want a leader who is without scandal in their background, Arnold had a sexual harassment allegation against him both entering and leaving office. A book making the rounds reveals a Clint Eastwood he hid. The book alleges Clint to be abusive man who played the field and had several illegitimate children. But now, a new book exposes the real man a violent, man who fathered several illegitimate and forced abortions on one but not two women he had affairs with. Sure, most of this came out after he had served as Mayor but some of the gossip would have been out there. Hillary Clinton's husband had affairs while in the White House and she dogged on the women who dared to speak up. Then, there were rumours about the running of the Clinton Foundation and the infamous e-mail scandal where she reportedly revealed potentially top secret information on an unsecure server. Then, there's Oprah who is being sued by a female executive for denying the woman a promotion because she became pregnant.

The best person to run against Donald Trump, if he is stupid enough to run again, could be either a man or a woman, white or black or any other colour, rich or not so rich. The main thing is they need to be someone who can unite a shattered country, not just representing one segment of the larger population. They need to have political experience though, no matter how much they want to serve the people and lead the nation.

Oprah is just not that person. She is, at best, a celebrity and that is not what the country needs. The U.S. needs someone who can get the people to look to the future and forget about the past. Whatever has already happened and frankly, it wasn't that great. People have to stop thinking in terms of black and white.
Sometimes, there is beauty in the graytones.

A leader is not supposed to appeal to only some of the voters all of the time and certainly not all of the people some of the time. America needs someone who can serve all of the people all of the time without anyone feeling they are not part of the big picture. They also need equal amounts of political savvy, the strength to stand up under terrible stress, the compassion to treat everyone with respect regardless of their beliefs or circumstances and the knowledge to do the right thing at the right time.

That's big shoes to fill but Oprah is not that person.
You know.... that doesn't exactly shock me about Clint Eastwood, now that I think about it. He does seem.... he doesn't seem like someone I would want to hang around. I can't wait till being a regular, natural, kind, friendly person is back in style again... if it ever comes back in style. I get people like these Ice Cube, Clint Eastwood types...... but time and time again, they are found to not be all that great people and not the type that we should emulate.
 

Vixy

Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,907
Agree on that the states sure doesnt need a high satanic priestess as a president but it will be someone who runs in their foorsteps since they're drugging Trump to get rid of him.
 

makeorbreak

Established
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
119
Latest thing is Seal pointing out that Oprah can be seen in numerous pictures cuddling up to Weinstein and even kissing him on the cheek. She would have heard the rumours and he is right she was part of the problem. Now she wants to be part of the solution. Hypocritical in the extreme or maybe it helps when you might run for office.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,427
The last thing we need is another career politician.

America needs someone who can serve all of the people all of the time without anyone feeling they are not part of the big picture.
Can you elaborate on how a leader could technically serve all of the people all of the time?
 

makeorbreak

Established
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
119
'Technically' it's impossible but ideally, it is possible. Not every decision will satisfy every person but, if a decision is made considering the welfare and concerns of every person, even a person who is not directly benefitted by that decision will understand the wisdom and need for the decision. Even those who don't agree will see that the decision was made in the spirit of serving everyone if all factors were considered. In that way, everyone is served. Government can only make the best decision if they understand that someone will be disadvantaged by any decision. Minimizing this serves everyone if it is done with forethought and without malice or prejudice.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,427
Could you give an example of a political decision that is in the spirit of serving everyone?

Government can only make the best decision if they understand that someone will be disadvantaged by any decision.
This seems like a reasonable standard. But wouldn't problems arise inevitably from the various levels of intelligence and wisdom of the subjects and interpreters, as well as the ability or inability to judge a decision's general advantageousness based on universal standards of morale, justice or pragmatic efficiency?
 

makeorbreak

Established
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
119
With any decision that's ever been made in the history of mankind, problems have arisen and will always arise. It's the nature of the beast. However, when you propose to base a decision on 'universal standards of morale, justice and pragmatic efficiency', problems are unavoidable simply for several reasons.

Dictionary.com identifies 'universal' as '1. relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.' Universal advantageousness is impossible just by its own description. Every person cannot reap the same benefits from any decision or we would all be clones. If we were to say that all coat hangers would be eye level so everyone can use them, it would fail as a reasonable solution. Children, first of all, could not use the coat hooks and adults are varying heights. Someone would be left out; it's unavoidable. Universality is a dream, a myth and a joke. What is good for one person may not be good for another. You can only strive to help the vast majority and then try to implement additional measures to make up for faults in the solution.

I think you meant 'morality', not 'morale'. Morale is a feeling associated with confidence. Morality is a distinction between what is right and wrong and that is by, no means, universal. In one country, it is right to cut off a man's hands for stealing in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Legs can even be cut off for repeat offenders but once both hands have been cut off, how's he carry his ill-gotten gains away? Here, we would to even think of doing this. To them, it's right. To us, it's wrong. Look at other examples: prostitution (legal in some places, illegal in others); marijuana and other drugs (legal in some places, illegal in others); carrying a weapon in public (legal in some places, illegal in others); abortion (legal in some places, illegal in others).Morality is simply not universal.

Justice is assuredly not universal, take Nigeria's and Saudi Arabia's punishment for stealing. Here, we put them in jail or let them off with community service or a fine. Justice is at best negotiable and at worst barbaric. Either way, if is dispensed consistently across the wide range of the population, it can be said to just and fair to the people.

Pragmatic means 'dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.'
Efficiency is the state or quality of being efficient or able to accomplish something with the least waste of time and effort. Pragmatic efficiency would mean any decision must be made using common sense and must realistically address the issue at hand. The decision must be done quickly and directly without having to jump through hoops to implement the final solution. Hence, committees are not good examples of pragmatic efficiency and rarely come up with workable solutions, wasting money, time and valuable manpower which could be better utilized elsewhere.

A decision that meets also of the requirements of universal standards of morality, justice and pragmatic efficiency would have to be taken on a case by case basis. Any decision must be made while taking into consideration the sensitivities and values of the majority. If the one making the decision tries to accommodate the vast majority of the people affected by their decision without breaking neither the letter or intent of the written laws, the decision will be a just decision. And if the decision is made with the least delay but with sufficient data and background information, the decision will be efficient and pragmatic.

No decision can make everyone happy but if proper consideration is given and all precautions are
taken, the vast majority will be satisfied. Those who don't agree or aren't directly benefitted by the decision will have to accept that those in charge acted in the best interests of all. If they didn't, they will be replaced and another group will have to perform the tight wire act of choosing what's best for the people.

The right leader will recognize the impossibility of such a task and still choose to accept the challenge. The rest of us will continue to sit back and complain about the ones willing to take a stand, hoping none of our liberties or advantages are withdrawn in favour of someone else who yelled louder about what they deserve. The right decision is the most popular one and it depends largely on timing and who it serves best.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,427
Yes, I meant morality. An error rooted in my mother tongue, my bad. The intention was to lure you into admitting universal curry-favouring politics are essentially impossible and that there will always be a minority that is or feels disadvantaged, whether or not they truly are. That's why I asked if you could come up with an example where government devises and passes a law that is advantageous to all. Advantageous to all doesn't necessarily equal the "same benefit" to all. Maybe it's less complicated to evaluate a policy based on what is most fair to most people. But I'm not giving up about thinking of a policy that benefits all in some way. If you don't have an example spawning from your grey matter, I think I might have one.

Morality is simply not universal.
Do you say this based on temporal observation? Or is that really your philosophical opinion?
 
Top