Ship of Fools: Oprah 2020

Thread: Oprah 2020 Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020430

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This has been touched on on the Trump thread, but I hope we can have another thread about here.

She has a lot of cred in the Democratic Party.

She speaks for a lot of women nationwide.

Even Herr Drump said at one time he had considered her for VP but decided against that.

The negatives, as I see them:

She is 63 years old, 65 by the time the next presidential election rolls around. We just do not need another Baby Boomer in the office IMHO.

Her partner and she are not married. If she is going to get any traction in conservative states and even some liberal areas, that will have to be addressed.

She is an entertainer. Yes, we have had entertainers before: Ronald Reagan and Herr Drump come to mind, but look at how their administrations have been.

The ideal candidate for me would be someone who knows the ropes in Washington DC, who is a Gen X or Millennial, and who has stood up to big money interests.

Does matter which race or which gender.

If Oprah does through her hat in the ring, let the primary system winnow out all the chaff and may the best person win.

If she does come out of the primaries on top. I will vote for her, though.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

She has no - zero, zip, none, null - experience in government.

At least she's an actual businessperson, though, as opposed to a real estate developer, which is to say a habitual cheat. I would still prefer someone who has dealt with real-world issues while in office.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

Let's start with someone who at least has cast a comprehending glance or two at the U.S. Constitution. While I'm guessing that might include Oprah, we need candidates with both political savvy and governmental experience.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Yes, to have some concept of the Constitution would be a Good Thing. (And if someone had told me I'd write such a sentence two years ago, I'd have laughed. Silly me.)

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Would someone like Oprah get any traction running as an independent?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Trump has a good chance of winning re-election.
If you want someone else to have a chance of defeating him, it has to be a man.
Given the demographics of the actual voters in the US, a woman is at a major deficit. Trump's victory is in large part due to Hillary being a woman.
A black woman? You really think a country that elected a man who made massively racist statements in his announcement of his candidacy and massively sexist things during his campaign is going to elect a black woman?
Obama's win gave me hope for America; Trump's crushed it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Would someone like Oprah get any traction running as an independent?

The US is a two party system. The only way an independent can win is by out muscling one of the two parties. And, as Oprah is going to be closer to a Dem than a Republican't, she would have to out muscle both parties. What she would do as an independent would be to split the already in trouble lefty vote.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

buddhawrote:

quote:
A black woman? You really think a country that elected a man who made massively racist statements in his announcement of his candidacy and massively sexist things during his campaign is going to elect a black woman?
Obama's win gave me hope for America; Trump's crushed it.

You might have been overestimating the social signficance of both Obama's and Trump's elections. The number of bigots and non-bigots probably hasn't changed much since Obama won his last election in 2012. What changed between elections is things like how motivated people from the respective parties were to came out and vote, as well as how many people from one party switched over to the other party, and not neccessarily because they had suddenly become racist.

And then toss in the electoral college, which this time around had the effect of amplifying the influence of certain rust-belt voters(a fair number of them former Obama supporters) who got conned into believing the Republican Party would let Trump pursue an interventionist policy on factory closures.

As an example, I come from what is considered the most right-wing province in Canada(the historical reality is actually a bit more complicated, but the reputation is broadly accurate). Alabama North is one of the nicknames. Last election, however, the voters gave a majority to a socialist party of the Bernie Sanders variety. But I don't think a whole swackload of people in the province suddenly converted from right-wing craziness to democratic socialism. A lot of other factors were at play there.

[ 09. January 2018, 03:44: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
She is an entertainer. Yes, we have had entertainers before: Ronald Reagan and Herr Drump come to mind, but look at how their administrations have been.

Full of criminals and suspected criminals, and disastrous for the working people of America?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

^^ And FWIW, no, running Oprah for president would be a bad idea. Not neccessarily because she's a black woman(unless you want to believe the nation that birthed the KKK and Jim Crow would vote for a black man, but draw the line on gender), but just because she's nowhere near being a suitable candidate.

And I don't buy the logic of "Well, Trump was pretty unsuitable, and that didn't hurt hurt him." That's like deciding to get bombed out of your skull before a job interview, because you heard that last year the CEO's nephew got hired for a job when he was drunk for the interview, so obviously this company will always hire drunk employees.

[ 09. January 2018, 03:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

History shows that independents will weaken one party or the other. John Anderson ran as an independent in 1980 siphoning votes from the Republican Party.

Should Oprah run as an independent, she would siphon votes from the Democrats.

Sanders had long been an independent Senator, caucusing with the Democrats, but when he ran for president he went full on with the Democratic party. I happen to think after he had been defeated (unethically in my book) he knew full well he would destroy any chance to defeat Herr Drump if he decided to go independent.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ And FWIW, no, running Oprah for president would be a bad idea. Not neccessarily because she's a black woman(unless you want to believe the nation that birthed the KKK and Jim Crow would vote for a black man, but draw the line on gender),

I can well believe that, frankly.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I do not think gender is that much of an issue now because I have never seen the women's movement so energized as it is now. Last year there was the Pussy Hat movement. Then there is the #MeToo movement. Come 20 January there will be women's marches throughout the US though some places are choosing to postpone the march, I think because of a gay pride march already scheduled in those areas.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ And FWIW, no, running Oprah for president would be a bad idea. Not neccessarily because she's a black woman(unless you want to believe the nation that birthed the KKK and Jim Crow would vote for a black man, but draw the line on gender), but just because she's nowhere near being a suitable candidate.

Well, yes. But also Obama won in part because of the recession. The American economy isn't doing too badly right now.

quote:

And I don't buy the logic of "Well, Trump was pretty unsuitable, and that didn't hurt hurt him."

In modern American politics, the incumbent has a massive advantage, regardless of approval ratings.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

For the most part, I don't think she's qualified. No gov't experience. Not sure if she went to college--that's not a deal-breaker, but it might give us some insight into what and how much she knows about the world. She hasn't been in therapy, despite a background for which it might be very helpful. That's not a big deal. However, she said her talk show was her therapy. IMHO, that sometimes interfered with the show, because *she* had to understand everything guests said, and *she* had to announce her opinion and judgement of the guests and what they said. ISTM it was very much waiting for a queen to rule. If she still operates that way, it might trip her up in her presidential work.

There might be a religious problem: she's definitely spiritual, but she may not be a Christian. If that's the case, she'll catch a lot of flack.

OTOH: In public, she's good with people. She's a powerful, self-made rich woman. She's well-known, well-liked, even well-loved. And respected. She's been in a committed relationship for many years. She started a girls' school in Africa. (Though something went wrong--abusive staff, maybe???) She reads and writes--both in terms of doing and capacity. She has stage presence.

Marry Stedman, her partner? Doubtful. They talked about it, many years ago, but decided not to.

Her BFF Gayle might be at the White House a lot.

Her race might be an issue for some; but never underestimate how popular she is, especially with women.

**BTW, she gave one heck of a "Time's Up" speech at the Golden Globes awards last night.** That alone could swing voters her way.

I don't think she should be president, but she might make an excellent ambassador, or something at the UN. But ISTM she likes to make her own decisions, and that could be problematic.

FWIW.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Why would Oprah want to be President?

She has her own network. She has her own magazine that has her on the cover every month. She is loaded, and seems genuinely interested in using her wealth to improve the world. She has the power to inspire millions of people. She had at least a hand in getting the first black person elected President.

What on earth does the White House have to offer her, even if we look from a completely vocation-driven humanitarian perspective? Can't she do more good on her own, without having to get bogged down in the nasty business of budget reconciliations and approving drone strikes?

It was a great speech, and the reaction tells us just how hungry a lot of people are for an inspiring, decent voice in the White House. But I'll be shocked if she actually runs.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do not think gender is that much of an issue now because I have never seen the women's movement so energized as it is now.

I'm not as optimistic as you. I think sexism is still fairly rife in society and in men's minds and actions. At least down here in the colonies.

edit: clarification

[ 09. January 2018, 04:33: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Oprah did go to Tennessee State University, a black institution, but I do not know if she finished.

She was raised Baptist, but I would describe her current spiritual life as post-church. She has said "I have church with myself: I have church walking down the street. I believe in the God force that lives inside all of us, and once you tap into that, you can do anything."

Considering how many millennials and gen z people are nons or atheists, I don't think her religious views would have any impact on them. Gen Xers are in the middle of the road, Baby Boomers and what is left of the Greatest Generation would probably have the most problem. It certianly will be used against her in deep red states.

[ 09. January 2018, 04:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Speaking as a non-US observer: why on earth would the US want to elect an entertainer with no government experience as president just because she supports some of the same causes you agree with and you liked a speech she gave?? Because it's working out so well NOW????

Half the problem with Trump, for liberals, is the right-wing planks in his platform and the right-wing nutbars he enables. The other half of the Trump problem, the half which should be a problem for liberals AND conservatives (and is a problem for some of the never-Trump Republicans, the ones who haven't gone strangely silent) is his incompetence and lack of preparedness for the job.

Only one of those problems would be better under (I can't believe I'm typing this) President Oprah.

If any significant number of Democrats get behind an Oprah 2020 run, to me it just suggests they're every bit as dumb as the MAGA people -- they're just as willing to endorse a problematic and inexperienced celebrity on the basis of star power, a stirring speech, and a few shared opinions.

A party that has senators like Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Duckworth ... to name the first five that popped into my head ... does not need to line up behind a daytime TV host who has used her platform and wealth to do a couple of good things (as well as some terrible things like promoting "Dr" Oz the snake-oil salesman). What a dumb idea.

I try not to participate in the usual Canadian sport of "We're so much better than our neighbours to the south" but it is worth noting that in our opposition party's recent leadership race, the "celebrity candidate" who thought he could waltz into the job on the basis of his business background and TV star status was so unpopular he dropped out before the leadership vote even happened. That's exactly the contempt with which an Oprah presidential run should be treated, even if one does agree with her on some points.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Perhaps politics is entertainment now. Just not very good entertainment. Waiting for the musical myself.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Speaking as a non-US observer: why on earth would the US want to elect an entertainer with no government experience as president just because she supports some of the same causes you agree with and you liked a speech she gave?? Because it's working out so well NOW????

Half the problem with Trump, for liberals, is the right-wing planks in his platform and the right-wing nutbars he enables. The other half of the Trump problem, the half which should be a problem for liberals AND conservatives (and is a problem for some of the never-Trump Republicans, the ones who haven't gone strangely silent) is his incompetence and lack of preparedness for the job.

Only one of those problems would be better under (I can't believe I'm typing this) President Oprah.

If any significant number of Democrats get behind an Oprah 2020 run, to me it just suggests they're every bit as dumb as the MAGA people -- they're just as willing to endorse a problematic and inexperienced celebrity on the basis of star power, a stirring speech, and a few shared opinions.

A party that has senators like Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Duckworth ... to name the first five that popped into my head ... does not need to line up behind a daytime TV host who has used her platform and wealth to do a couple of good things (as well as some terrible things like promoting "Dr" Oz the snake-oil salesman). What a dumb idea.

I try not to participate in the usual Canadian sport of "We're so much better than our neighbours to the south" but it is worth noting that in our opposition party's recent leadership race, the "celebrity candidate" who thought he could waltz into the job on the basis of his business background and TV star status was so unpopular he dropped out before the leadership vote even happened. That's exactly the contempt with which an Oprah presidential run should be treated, even if one does agree with her on some points.

Trudy, you've expressed what I think better than I could. Your two halves of the problem is succinct and bang on. Thank you.

For me that gets two of these.
[Overused]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Post commentator Jennifer Rubin explains what Oprah would need to do if she's serious.

However, as she says, "Trump has ruined presidential politics for the uninitiated celebrity. We’re a lot more leery of non-politician presidential candidates than we were before Trump ran, extending even to any number of businesspeople who would be dramatically more fit for the presidency than he. The myth that a businessman has some secret sauce to make the government run better has been punctured. We are all too aware that success in one arena does not necessarily transfer to another."

Oprah may be a wonderful person, a great speaker, a superb TV host. But I would not hire her to drill on my teeth. For some jobs, I want an experienced professional with a track record I can inspect.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

From Slate...

Oprah has a history of promoting charlatans

And I'll throw in her endorsement of the Satanic Panic in the late 80s.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do not think gender is that much of an issue now because I have never seen the women's movement so energized as it is now. Last year there was the Pussy Hat movement. Then there is the #MeToo movement. Come 20 January there will be women's marches throughout the US though some places are choosing to postpone the march, I think because of a gay pride march already scheduled in those areas.

The women's movement is energized because it has to be. Because gender is that much of an issue. If Gender were not much of an issue in our society right now, the woman's movement would silently die out. Women are fighting back because they're getting the short end in many ways and in many places. In short, the symptom you observe points to exactly the opposite situation than you have diagnosed.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

np--

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps politics is entertainment now. Just not very good entertainment. Waiting for the musical myself.

The musical "Hamilton". The musical/film "1776". Both very good. ("Hamilton" is still too expensive for mere mortals to see, but there are clips online. And PBS did a sort of "the making of" show.)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

Good post about gender still being an issue.

Trudy--

I'm not endorsing Oprah, but there are at least 2 differences between her and T: TTBOMK, she's both sane and functional.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
TTBOMK, she's both sane and functional.

You really should have seen her moderating the aforementioned shows on Satanic Ritual Abuse in the late 80s. Granted, one can possibly parse a difference between "insane" and "willing to believe the most obviously ridiculous claims possible and to encourage her audience to believe them as well".

[ 10. January 2018, 04:54: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The problem with Oprah is that whereas Donald Trump revels in conflict, Oprah seems to go the opposite extreme and avoids conflict by not taking controversial stances on political issues. There is a good reason for that from a business perspective, you don't want to tick customers off, but from a political perspective, an inability to take a stand, can be perceived as weak.

For example, I expect that the next Democratic party internal debate would be over healthcare, whether it should continue the incremental move towards universal healthcare through at least temporarily accepting the role of private insurance, or go through throttle towards mandated single-payer insurance and eliminate or substantively reduce private insurance. I don't think the next Democratic candidate can get away without taking a clear position on this issue, and certainly Oprah will come off as weak and indecisive if she states 1) a decision should be made after careful consultation and dialogue or 2) that is something for congress to decide.

An Oprah candidacy is problematic from the left's perspective. She has made her fortune and success through the American capitalist system, would she seriously be able to deal with Republican attacks on social assistance who will cite her success story as proof that poor people and African Americans do not need government support to succeed?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

To me the biggest problem with Oprah running is that it re-enforces the idea that the only people who can become President are celebs. Which may not be the message you want people to get.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do not think gender is that much of an issue now because I have never seen the women's movement so energized as it is now. Last year there was the Pussy Hat movement. Then there is the #MeToo movement. Come 20 January there will be women's marches throughout the US though some places are choosing to postpone the march, I think because of a gay pride march already scheduled in those areas.
The women's movement is energized because it has to be. Because gender is that much of an issue. If Gender were not much of an issue in our society right now, the woman's movement would silently die out. Women are fighting back because they're getting the short end in many ways and in many places. In short, the symptom you observe points to exactly the opposite situation than you have diagnosed.

EXACTLY! (And yes, I'm shouting!) Thank you, mousethief.

The notion that Oprah Winfrey could run for president enrages me. There are so many people who have dedicated their lives to public service while she has made a fortune catering to people's silly and shallow feelings about what might make their lives more comfortable and promoting charlatans like Mehmet Oz. Let's choose from the pool of qualified folks this time.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

RuthW, I'm not particularly happy with the idea that high office should be seen as a reward for somebody who has dedicated their life to public service. Two of the really essential prerequisites for high office should be governmental competence and personal integrity.

I don't know enough about Oprah Winfrey to know how she stands on the second, but as far as I'm aware, she's not so far done anything that would provide any evidence of the first.

Making an impassioned speech that presses the right symbolic buttons to inspire a segment of public opinion, is definitely not enough to make up for the absence of that. It's a very bad idea to think it's even relevant.

Tangent alert
To my eyes, all the evidence both before and since his election point to the Orange Cookie-Monster not meeting either of those two prerequisites.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Jennifer Rubin, in that Post link upthread, points out that if -any- celeb wants to run for president, there are things they should do immediately. Things like:

=Divest from all businesses, media empires, etc. It'll give you a priceless weapon when you run against the current kleptocrat administration.

=Start organizing the blind trusts, for all the money you're going to get from that divestiture. Tidy up your taxes -now-; you're going to have to release the returns and it'll take several years.

=Begin the 'I am serious' work. Visit foreign capitals and meet with officials, delineate your policies and stances on all the issues of the day, enlisting the help of smart experienced pros to bolster your credibility. No more hanging out with actors and yoga instructors, now you need economic wonks and people who can talk for an hour about water policy.

=Start policing your family and friends. The kids, haircuts and detox; your brothers, cousins, etc. out of criminous or shady careers and onto blander paths. Everybody drops the membership in the neo-Nazi groups as from today. Settle with your spouse whether he/she will stump for you or pull a full Melania.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
She has made her fortune and success through the American capitalist system, would she seriously be able to deal with Republican attacks on social assistance who will cite her success story as proof that poor people and African Americans do not need government support to succeed?

I don't know her family history at all, but I'd guess that she could probably somehow find a way to spin her success as at least partly due to New Deal and/or Great Society social-welfare programs. Sorta like Joe Biden tried to do(and might have succeeded, had he not stolen the the actual words of his speech from Neil Kinnock).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

An Oprah candidacy is problematic from the left's perspective. She has made her fortune and success through the American capitalist system, would she seriously be able to deal with Republican attacks on social assistance who will cite her success story as proof that poor people and African Americans do not need government support to succeed?

She made her success despite the American capitalist system and she made it through entertainment. She is very much an exception in almost every way possible.
I think Seth McFarlane's take on it to be on the money.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps politics is entertainment now. Just not very good entertainment. Waiting for the musical myself.

You’ve got in one there NP....
T. entranced a bored and disillusioned Electorate with a circus act, (that of the clown). The Democrats are considering a fight back with the same strategy, not a clown but an entertainer nevertheless.
Difficult to predict the outcome of Elections in this the IT age, as we are now acutely aware. However, if I had to lay down money it wouldn’t be on an OW Presidency.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...Let's choose from the pool of qualified folks this time.

Amen, and thank you, Ruth.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Let me clarify what I meant when I said I did not think Oprah's gender will be an issue.

In the last election, the majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump, while 35% backed Clinton. This figure is far higher than non-college educated black women, of which only 3% voted for Trump, and non-college educated Hispanic women, of which 25% voted for Trump. Black, Hispanic and other non-white women backed Clinton in far greater numbers.

Overall 54% of all women voted for Clinton, and 42% voted for Trump. But the key is the white women in certain states threw the electoral college to Trump.

In nearly every other presidential election if a woman was running the canard was she could not win because of her sex. The presidential and vice presidential offices seemed to be above a glass ceiling that could not be broken.

That is why I said I did not think gender will be an issue next time. I think more women will be turning out for the election. They will likely be the deciding factor in the election. The women's movement is energized, and that glass ceiling is going to be pulverized.

To tell the truth, I favor Elizabeth Warren. I do hope she will run. I would like to see Warren and Oprah in the primaries. Both will challenge each other: but, in the end, I could see the winner of the two pick the other for vice president.

[ 11. January 2018, 02:14: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

There are things I like about Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think her temperament is suited to the presidency. She can go from calmness to righteous fury in about 6 seconds. Very useful in Congress, and I think that's her best place.

Of course, compared with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., she'd be a vast improvement.

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

I don't like the idea of celebrities in politics (although there are exceptions--you'd have to call Kareem Abdul-Jabbar a celebrity, I guess, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat).

I grew up in California when we had an ignorant, corrupt, racist, red-baiting, anti-intellectual, stupid, lying sack of Hollywood filth in the governor's office--yappity yappity yap non-stop about mostly imaginary hippies and pinkos and dope fiends, constant attacks on our great university , and stupid jokes aimed against the environment ("if you've seen one redwood you've seen them all"). So I have no time for Hollywood and its effluvia--it can sink into the Pacific for all I care.

The fact that Oprah has given a platform to the "Satanic panic" pushers who ruined countless lives with their lies, and that foul cretinous unfit parent Jenny McCarthy with her antivaccine nonsense, is enough to make me pray she stays out of politics altogether. Oprah only looks good next to the Repuke thieves and bigots--that doesn't make her a fit candidate for any public office.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I take it you are talking about Reagan?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

RuthW, you are welcome. Thanks for noticing.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I take it you are talking about Reagan?

Or Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

The notion that Oprah Winfrey could run for president enrages me. There are so many people who have dedicated their lives to public service while she has made a fortune catering to people's silly and shallow feelings about what might make their lives more comfortable and promoting charlatans like Mehmet Oz. Let's choose from the pool of qualified folks this time.

This, this, a thousand times this.

I don't think Oprah is a remotely suitable person to be President. The fact that she is significantly more qualified than the current incumbent doesn't alter that.

I'd think Oprah could do a great job using her position to stump for someone who was qualified.

Bernie Sanders will be 79 at the next election. I think that rules him out. Joe Biden is a similar age, and I also think too old.

I could see either Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand as viable candidates. Perhaps Chris Murphy if the Democrats are too scared to field a woman again. Booker will run, but he's too far to the right of the party economically to get much traction in the primaries.

There's really nobody on the list of current Democratic governors that I consider a viable presidential candidate.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Anyone who plugged the "The Secret" should never be allowed to run in my book.

I had colleagues going on about it for months.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Anyone who plugged the "The Secret" should never be allowed to run in my book.

I had colleagues going on about it for months.

The Secret was one of her book club thingies? Oh, feh. Ptui. Yecch. Gah.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

For my money, Elizabeth Warren is Too. Old.

I firmly believe that the Democrats desperately need to find a capable younger candidate.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Bernie Sanders will be 79 at the next election. I think that rules him out. Joe Biden is a similar age, and I also think too old.

I could see either Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand as viable candidates. Perhaps Chris Murphy if the Democrats are too scared to field a woman again.

I think it's not too implausible to imagine HC trying to run again.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

No, I don't think Clinton would be such a fool.

I agree that a younger but dead serious candidate is the way to go. Biden and Sanders are past their sell-by date.

To believe that there is no innate sexism in politics shows a touchingly sweet nature, truly angelic. You are not observing the invective flung against female candidates.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

I fervently hope that's true, Brenda -- that Clinton isn't fool enough to run again. But I have wondered about her recent speaking engagements (one here where I live recently).

Unfortunately vast quantities of undeserved mud thrown her way during the campaign appear to have stuck. My son-in-law's parents, both otherwise reasonable, intelligent Democrats, seem to have decided that HRC is every bit as corrupt as the opposition painted her. I doubt they're alone in having soured on her.

And yes, the sexism in this country's politics and general culture is. Just. Breathtaking.

[ 11. January 2018, 15:11: Message edited by: Ohher ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I firmly believe that the Democrats desperately need to find a capable younger candidate.

This. A thousand times this.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think it's not too implausible to imagine HC trying to run again.

Unfortunately, you may be right. She still thinks it's her turn, as best I can tell - or at least her supporters that I know do.

I've about given up on both parties, to be honest. The Republicans are being led by crooks and right-wing whackjobs, and the Democrats can't seem to figure out that the times have changed.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Trump has a good chance of winning re-election.
If you want someone else to have a chance of defeating him, it has to be a man.
Given the demographics of the actual voters in the US, a woman is at a major deficit. Trump's victory is in large part due to Hillary being a woman.
A black woman? You really think a country that elected a man who made massively racist statements in his announcement of his candidacy and massively sexist things during his campaign is going to elect a black woman?
Obama's win gave me hope for America; Trump's crushed it.

So sad. But so true. But hey, maybe the US can learn from from the UK, and do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities. One lives in hope.

Cheers, 2RM

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
RuthW, I'm not particularly happy with the idea that high office should be seen as a reward for somebody who has dedicated their life to public service. Two of the really essential prerequisites for high office should be governmental competence and personal integrity.

I'm not looking at the presidency as a reward for public service - I'm looking at it as something that should be done by someone who wants to serve the public and has experience in doing so, which would encompass governmental competence.

Personal integrity -- well, yeah. The problem is, I think, that to aspire to such a powerful position one has to have an ego the size of all outdoors, and that tends to work against having personal integrity.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I think my view here is coloured by living in France.

Emmanuel Macron is possibly the most arrogant man alive*. Nonetheless, no major ethical dirt has turned up on him thus far. The rumour, repeated by Marine Lepen, about offshore bank accounts, was bona fide invented by Russia fake news. He sued her.

Manu also colours my perception because he is forty years old. Do the Democrats really have no one they can turn to under the age of 65?

I don’t think Macron is the perfect President. But I do think France is on healthier and more democratic track than lots of other countries.

*This is not a bad thing in all circumstances. When sitting down with Vlad Putin, for example, there is definite usefulness in what we shall politely describe as his “supreme self-confidence”.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personal integrity -- well, yeah. The problem is, I think, that to aspire to such a powerful position one has to have an ego the size of all outdoors, and that tends to work against having personal integrity.

In one of his post-election interviews, Obama said that to be (or run for?) president, you have to have a big ego. And, if you don't know that about yourself, you shouldn't run.

IOW, have a big ego, but be aware of it and own it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So sad. But so true. But hey, maybe the US can learn from from the UK, and do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities. One lives in hope.

In what possible sense of those four words is the UK doing the right thing? We have a useless government led by a woman who can't manage her own Cabinet, an opposition led by a superannuated polytechnic radical who's got this fantasy that he's Lenin, while all those who have anything sensible to offer have been hollowed out of the system and nobody in Parliament who's any good is on either front bench.

[ 12. January 2018, 08:41: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So sad. But so true. But hey, maybe the US can learn from from the UK, and do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities. One lives in hope.
In what possible sense of those four words is the UK doing the right thing? We have a useless government led by a woman who can't manage her own Cabinet, an opposition led by a superannuated polytechnic radical who's got this fantasy that he's Lenin, while all those who have anything sensible to offer have been hollowed out of the system and nobody in Parliament who's any good is on either front bench.

This is unfortunate, I agree. But our plight in the US is so horrific, so abyssal, that every sensible American would rather be in your shoes.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So sad. But so true. But hey, maybe the US can learn from from the UK, and do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities. One lives in hope.
In what possible sense of those four words is the UK doing the right thing? We have a useless government led by a woman who can't manage her own Cabinet, an opposition led by a superannuated polytechnic radical who's got this fantasy that he's Lenin, while all those who have anything sensible to offer have been hollowed out of the system and nobody in Parliament who's any good is on either front bench.

I entirely share your concerns. But we have, in the past, done the right thing, (eg, stopping Hitler) once we have done the wrong things first, (eg, appeasement). It may well be that we are in the 'exhausting all other possibilities' mode right now.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I would have thought that the UK is at a kind of nadir at the moment. I'm not sure if it's any comfort that things might get better, well, maybe. But we are here now, in the deep doodoo, with people dying in hospital corridors. I suppose I should think of an AA maxim, that you have to hit the bottom.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I entirely share your concerns. But we have, in the past, done the right thing, (eg, stopping Hitler) once we have done the wrong things first, (eg, appeasement). It may well be that we are in the 'exhausting all other possibilities' mode right now.

That's over 70 years ago. Claiming that the world owes us a favour because our parents and grandparents did something good before we were born has been a preposterous delusion. It has been a key contributor to the ridiculous sense of entitlement, that everything will turn out all right 'because you're worth it'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... Personal integrity -- well, yeah. The problem is, I think, that to aspire to such a powerful position one has to have an ego the size of all outdoors, and that tends to work against having personal integrity.

Yes, that is a tension. However, I don't think that should inhibit us from both demanding it and judging politicians, severely if necessary, on whether they have managed it, or cracked under the temptations of office. After all, plenty of politicians, even quite mediocre ones in other respects, have made a reasonable showing on this.

When it comes to the Orange Cookie-Monstrosity, both before he was elected and since, all the evidence has been that he has a huge ego but neither understands nor cares about the other concept.

On Oprah for President, as yet the issues are different. As I said,

quote:
Two of the really essential prerequisites for high office should be governmental competence and personal integrity.

I don't know enough about Oprah Winfrey to know how she stands on the second, but as far as I'm aware, she's not so far done anything that would provide any evidence of the first.

The notion that she's suitable to be President because she makes the right noises and represents the right causes is not enough. The world has seen all too many 'symbolic' political leaders, who succeed in gaining office because they convince the public that it wants what they claim to represent irrespective of whether they either have the competence to deliver, or even can be bothered to. That's the appeal of the Orange Cookie-Monstrosity with his 'drain the swamp'. It's also the appeal of the late Hugo Chavez, both Juan and in due course Evita Perón, and our own Jeremy Corbyn. There's no reason at the moment to believe Oprah would be anything more than another of them.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I entirely share your concerns. But we have, in the past, done the right thing, (eg, stopping Hitler) once we have done the wrong things first, (eg, appeasement). It may well be that we are in the 'exhausting all other possibilities' mode right now.
That's over 70 years ago. Claiming that the world owes us a favour because our parents and grandparents did something good before we were born has been a preposterous delusion. It has been a key contributor to the ridiculous sense of entitlement, that everything will turn out all right 'because you're worth it'.

Nowhere have I made such a claim, and I defy you to quote me where I did. Whilst I entirely uphold your right to protest, there is a point at which criticism becomes psychotic. If you think the UK such a bad place to be, you are entirely free to go elsewhere. If you choose your destination wisely, you might even benefit from better weather. But when you have lived elsewhere for a while, I think you might find that the UK, for all it's problems, isn't such a bad place, after all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

SRM, by citing as your example, the one you've chosen, I think you are making that claim. Hardly anyone now living can claim any personal pride in or credit for, having been any part of that. Even a person called up in the last months of the war is now, if still alive, 90.

And I wasn't saying the UK was a terrible place to be - though the xenophobic morons who are on the up at the moment are pushing it in that direction. I was challenging your statement,

quote:
But hey, maybe the US can learn from from the UK, and do the right thing, once it has exhausted all other possibilities.

I can't see any basis for it. To put it as politely as I can, it's delusional and dangerously so.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Hmmm. I think it is a lack of compatible sense of humour that separates us, rather than any substantial issue.

But to put my contention as to British government policy in pseudocode:

code:

10.  Let X be the number of wrong things to do.
20.  For (i = 1 to X)
30.   Do the wrong thing
40.   If (public acquiescent)
50.     Stop
60.   Else
70.     Load next i/wrong thing
80.   End if
90.  End for
100. Do the right thing
110. Stop

I am simply suggesting that not all nations have yet cottoned onto the fact that it is line 100 that justifies the iteration of lines 20 - 90. And that the UK, broadly speaking, given it's popular allegiance to ethical determinations, has.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

I think line 40 is problematic. First, the "public" is not a monolith; it generally separates into competing and even mutually-exclusive factions.

Second, even if it were, the "public" does not always "want" the Right Thing. To return to your historical example, look at the difficulty Britain had in persuading the US to get involved in WWII. Look at the US's turning away of Jewish refugees.

Third, working one's way through all the "wrong" options first does not ameliorate the damage those wrong things wreak. That the US eventually joined in bringing Hitler down did nothing to save the lives of those refugees.

Ends do not justify means.

[ 13. January 2018, 13:47: Message edited by: Ohher ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
And that the UK, broadly speaking, given it's popular allegiance to ethical determinations, has.

I'm not sure what this even means, and even if it exists, it exists alongside a load of willful blindness.

quote:

If you think the UK such a bad place to be, you are entirely free to go elsewhere. If you choose your destination wisely

And frankly this bit of nonsense makes my blood boil - there are all sorts of reasons why people are 'stuck' in the country that they are in - simply asserting that they should move if they don't like it is wrong at every scale.

[ 13. January 2018, 14:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

2RM, I can't see what this has to do with whether our senses of humour are mutually compatibility. There's nothing in this exchange that enables you to guess anything about what I find funny, nor me to guess anything about what you do.

I agree with Ohher's criticism of your Basic and with what Chris Stiles has said.

Besides, what about the maxim 'get it right first time'?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Was Ronald Reagan the start of celebrity as your leader? Yet people seem to think he was great. But history had not judged increases in military spending, various between rich and poor. Destructive social and economic policies. I this sense the current president Sh**hole is merely Reagan with honesty on steriods.

The fact that people even begin to think that such as Oprah could lead signifies the emotional, nonlogical degeneration of a political system. Do we get leadsrs we deserve?

[ 13. January 2018, 15:36: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I think line 40 is problematic...

Indeed, one could refine the algorithm in many ways, to make it more accurate. Doubtless this forum hosts many politically aware programmers who could do so. But there is virtue in simplicity, and I was really only seeking a congenial manner to bring an end to a disagreeable public spat.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Besides, what about the maxim 'get it right first time'?

I entirely applaud this sentiment. Only problem is, we tend to have to make mistakes in order to learn by them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Besides, what about the maxim 'get it right first time'?
I entirely applaud this sentiment. Only problem is, we tend to have to make mistakes in order to learn by them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Just because a county, or a person makes mistakes doesn't mean they learn by them. As for the argument, that you can leave if you don't like it, that would suggest that people who criticise their country are always wrong, and don't like it, neither of which are necessarily true.

I love my country (NZ), and am not the least interested in leaving it. Any criticisms I make are aimed at challenging structures that I see as unjust or dysfunctional such as poverty, one of the developed word's highest youth suicide rates, and an appalling level of domestic violence.

I am not going to pretend any of those things are acceptable.

Huia

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
And frankly this bit of nonsense makes my blood boil - there are all sorts of reasons why people are 'stuck' in the country that they are in - simply asserting that they should move if they don't like it is wrong at every scale.

Of course it is. But a nation, like an individual's decision regarding domicile, is a compromise. If you can't compromise, don't expect my sympathy. It's the way life is. Get used to it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Any criticisms I make are aimed at challenging structures that I see as unjust or dysfunctional such as poverty, one of the developed word's highest youth suicide rates, and an appalling level of domestic violence.

I am not going to pretend any of those things are acceptable.

Huia

I am all for picking out specific issues to tackle in the interests of progress. What I am against is a self-indulgent, lazy, general attitude of dissatisfaction. If you really want change, be the change you want to see (as someone famous once said). Or go away. Just don't carp at people who are doing their utmost to make their country a better place for their children than they grew up in.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
And frankly this bit of nonsense makes my blood boil - there are all sorts of reasons why people are 'stuck' in the country that they are in - simply asserting that they should move if they don't like it is wrong at every scale.
Of course it is. But a nation, like an individual's decision regarding domicile, is a compromise. If you can't compromise, don't expect my sympathy. It's the way life is. Get used to it.

I reject this attitude entirely. Yes, of course nations are a compromise, but just telling people to suck it up is ridiculous. People have every right, and I would probably go so far as to say the duty, to point out features of their country that they consider subpar, and to campaign for them to change.

Anything else frankly stinks of I'm-alright-Jackery.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
If you really want change, be the change you want to see (as someone famous once said). Or go away. Just don't carp at people who are doing their utmost to make their country a better place for their children than they grew up in.

If you are doing your utmost to improve the country, but what you are doing is stupid, I will applaud your motivation whilst criticizing your methods. Being engaged is great, but it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing, if the something is counterproductive.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I reject this attitude entirely. Yes, of course nations are a compromise, but just telling people to suck it up is ridiculous. People have every right, and I would probably go so far as to say the duty, to point out features of their country that they consider subpar, and to campaign for them to change.

As I said, and you ignored:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I am all for picking out specific issues to tackle in the interests of progress. What I am against is a self-indulgent, lazy, general attitude of dissatisfaction.

Maybe we are not disagreeing, after all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Nope Trump will not win. He has the lowest approval rate among all classes except lower class white males. He is also losing ground with lower class working women primarily because he is trying to take their insurance away and reducing food stamps which they rely on to keep their children fed and protected. The latest foot in the mouth episode is really causing a rile around here.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Just watched an interview with Kamala Harris. Interesting. She has been called a female Obama but seems smarter. Quite a family history. Yes, she will be on my watch list. Did I say she is Gen X?

[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris ]Wiki article[/URL]

[ 13. January 2018, 23:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I am all for picking out specific issues to tackle in the interests of progress. What I am against is a self-indulgent, lazy, general attitude of dissatisfaction.

I didn't see the post you were responding to as being self-indulgent and lazy, or indeed characteristic of a 'criticism that becomes psychotic'.

Perhaps you could point to examples of any of the above, at the moment it comes across as empty rhetoric.

[ 13. January 2018, 23:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just watched an interview with Kamala Harris. Interesting. She has been called a female Obama but seems smarter. Quite a family history. Yes, she will be on my watch list. Did I say she is Gen X?

[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris ]Wiki article[/URL]

Yes. That is interesting. You'll know she's a serious threat when somebody starts to claim she wasn't really born in California.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I am all for picking out specific issues to tackle in the interests of progress. What I am against is a self-indulgent, lazy, general attitude of dissatisfaction.
I didn't see the post you were responding to as being self-indulgent and lazy, or indeed characteristic of a 'criticism that becomes psychotic'.

Perhaps you could point to examples of any of the above, at the moment it comes across as empty rhetoric.

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone, just stating what I am for, and what I am against. If you take such a critcism personally, I can't help that, and if the cap fits, wear it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone, just stating what I am for, and what I am against. If you take such a critcism personally, I can't help that, and if the cap fits, wear it.

Right. Which confirms my suspicion; you tried a version of 'suck it up, buttercup' to breeze through an argument and got called on it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0