Winfrey presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6495
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:12 am UTC

Now wait one cotton-pickin' minute. Chemtrails are REAL. There are many dangerous chemicals being dispersed by jet planes that are the product of deliberate airborne chemical reactors these planes carry into the stratosphere. Dihydrogen monoxide, zeryl alcohol, hydroxilic acid, oxidane, hydrogen hydroxide, and many many others. Hydrogen (a powerful explosive) is part of almost all these chemicals, and it binds with and uses up oxygen, which we all need for breathing and stuff.

All those others are nut-jobbers with tin hats. But chemtrails is a YUGE conspiracy to keep the truth from us all!

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:26 am UTC

My favorite part of the chemtrail nutters is just how fucking stupid you have to be to believe that. Everyone should know that if you are going to spray mind control drugs, if they even work, you spray them where people breath them. You are better off sticking that stuff as an additive to gasoline, and even then the drug is still outdoors. Might as well slip it in the water supply. See, fluoridation, while bullshit, is not nearly as fucktarded as chemtrails, because at least if the government was slipping us mind control drugs, putting it in the water supply is not as idiotic as spraying it at 35,000 feet.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:33 am UTC

What does any of the chattering above have to do with Oprah Winfrey running for prez of the USA? You dudes are badly flirting/derailing the thread with each other and need to stop. Anyways, I think if Oprah became president she just might care about America's well being way way more than Trump. She like speaks with such passion that I wanna believe a lot of the stuff she says. I heard she even went to one of her friends' houses to talk with them about their drug addictions. That's a caring person and a caring president lady.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6495
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:55 am UTC

Ginger wrote:What does any of the chattering above have to do with Oprah Winfrey running for prez of the USA?
It has to do with whether the electorate cares about qualifications for president. Anybody would be better than Trump. The thing I remember is that years ago Trump was a guest on her show, and she raised the issue of Trump running for president, as if to encourage him. I haven't watched the clip recently (I'm not a fan of daytime TV) but that by itself scares me about her. Oprah seems nice and all, and seems to be smart, but she does not have any governing experience to speak of. We are seeing how essential that is. She runs a big (yuge, actually) company, but she's basically a media personality.

Ginger wrote:She like speaks with such passion that I wanna believe a lot of the stuff she says.
Wanting to believe does not make something true. Never lose sight of that.

To be elected, she has to get the votes. Who's voting? People who believe in {stuff we were chattering about above}! What does that mean for the campaign of a media personality? I'm not sure, but it scares me. It seems we're not electing political leaders any more; we're electing royalty.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:58 am UTC

Ultimately, in democracy we get what we deserve. Apparently, we deserve Trump.

A pity that literacy tests and the like have such an intertwined history with racism, because they could have been so useful otherwise. </snark>

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:03 am UTC

ucim wrote:To be elected, she has to get the votes. Who's voting? People who believe in {stuff we were chattering about above}! What does that mean for the campaign of a media personality? I'm not sure, but it scares me. It seems we're not electing political leaders any more; we're electing royalty.

Jose

Okay fine. You gotta point. If we elect popular celebrities because they're pretty pretty ideologically or have lots and lots of monies to spend and no political experience then we might be in trouble. Yet I really truly don't think the majority of voters are, "Nutters and chemical trail conspiracy theorists." Who does that leave? The more intelligent moderates, conservatives and liberals. Would liberals like Oprah? Probably. And I haven't seen a lot of liberal conspiracy theorists outside of some radical feminism stuffs. Would moderates like Oprah? Maybe Maybe. She seems suave enough to navigate tricky discussions and she can actually have her people help her fact check stuff or even look it up herself. She's not stupid. Would conservatives like Oprah? I doubt it. She gave away stuff for freesies on her show and that's bad bad bad bad to a conservative fiscally.

And we had a prez by the name of George W. Bush that, in my opinion knew nothing about being a good president, he made up lies to get into the Iraq war to take their oils and bomb the living Hell out of them. And he went to a fancy Ivy League College. I'm sure Oprah would be fine if we elected that guy in the past.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

idonno
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby idonno » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:32 am UTC

Ginger wrote:Anyways, I think if Oprah became president she just might care about America's well being way way more than Trump.

Not to be overly pessimistic but if that is now the measure for being a good candidate, I think we have already lost.
Ginger wrote: She seems suave enough to navigate tricky discussions and she can actually have her people help her fact check stuff or even look it up herself. She's not stupid.
She has either demonstrated an inability to do this with the bullshit pseudoscience guests she had on her show or she doesn't care as much about the people harmed by the bullshit pseudoscience as she does making money. Neither option makes me want to make her president.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:55 am UTC

Ginger wrote:Yet I really truly don't think the majority of voters are, "Nutters and chemical trail conspiracy theorists."


No, but enough to swing an election. And the nutters are growing every year, as public confidence in science, government and the media are slowly chipped away from all angles. That's kind of the real danger in whackjobs.

Ginger wrote:And we had a prez by the name of George W. Bush that, in my opinion knew nothing about being a good president


Give credit where it's due; Jr did do a lot of good in Africa (and some not-so-good), and he did a fuckton for helping the homeless.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:00 am UTC

Wow I didn't know George Jr. helped homeless men and women. I kinda find that hot hot. Anyways, we all believe psuedoscientific stuff in my opinion. I know [citation needed] heavily a lot. I can only offer anecdotes not hard data. Yet in my experience in everyday life we find ways to cope with society and the world that are totally irrational and sometimes, sometimes it can even make us monies. Is it wrong to make monies with pseudoscientific beliefs? In my opinion and I know it's not a fact yet: If Oprah truly believes in it then she's not lying and defrauding. If she Didn't Believe In It then she'd be lying and defrauding. And defending fake science if you actually believe, for example, that saying the word "cancer" and then it gives your daughter cancer and she dies, and you study that pathology medically until it sounds semi-sane, publish a few papers supporting your theories on psychology and it becomes accepted medical facts. Only if you truly actually believe in what you're saying though. Oprah might be kinda cray-cray yet I support her run for president.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Mutex
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:35 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
ucim wrote:... all well and good, but how do you apply that to an electorate who still believes the moon landing was a hoax, the earth is flat, and the bible provides an accurate picture of reality?

Jose


Luckily, those tend to be the same people.

Don't forget to add chemtrails, Illuminati NWO, 911 truthers, and autism-vaccine nutters. Again, same people.

Are they though? My understanding was a lot of them thought the others were nuts and resented being associated with them. I remember there was a paper written about what drives those sorts of beliefs, climate change denial was another such belief. There was outrage amongst each of those groups that they were being associated with those other nutters.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Liri » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:39 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
ucim wrote:... all well and good, but how do you apply that to an electorate who still believes the moon landing was a hoax, the earth is flat, and the bible provides an accurate picture of reality?

Jose


Luckily, those tend to be the same people.

Don't forget to add chemtrails, Illuminati NWO, 911 truthers, and autism-vaccine nutters. Again, same people.

Are they though? My understanding was a lot of them thought the others were nuts and resented being associated with them. I remember there was a paper written about what drives those sorts of beliefs, climate change denial was another such belief. There was outrage amongst each of those groups that they were being associated with those other nutters.

I've always seen a really high degree of co-morbidity of belief in various conspiracies. From flat-Earth to "Vitamin B17" and colloidal metal supplements. Usually with a heavy dose of anti-Semitism.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:43 pm UTC

I always wondered, why the anti-semitism. Is it just tradition? Is it because if you want a villain, what better than the successful resident foreigner who could possibly be your neighbor and you don't know? Is it because the source of the conspiracies (Russia funds a few of the kooks) is trying to push for divisions?

idonno
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby idonno » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:03 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Anyways, we all believe psuedoscientific stuff in my opinion. I know [citation needed] heavily a lot. I can only offer anecdotes not hard data. Yet in my experience in everyday life we find ways to cope with society and the world that are totally irrational and sometimes, sometimes it can even make us monies. Is it wrong to make monies with pseudoscientific beliefs? In my opinion and I know it's not a fact yet: If Oprah truly believes in it then she's not lying and defrauding. If she Didn't Believe In It then she'd be lying and defrauding. And defending fake science if you actually believe, for example, that saying the word "cancer" and then it gives your daughter cancer and she dies, and you study that pathology medically until it sounds semi-sane, publish a few papers supporting your theories on psychology and it becomes accepted medical facts. Only if you truly actually believe in what you're saying though. Oprah might be kinda cray-cray yet I support her run for president.

If she really believed it, she has not demonstrated the ability to "actually have her people help her fact check stuff or even look it up herself". The facts clearly and demonstrably don't line up with the claims. I don't just want a president who just really believes in what they are doing. I want one I believe is capable of accurately determining what should be done and doing it. A peddler of junk pseudo science does not fit the bill no matter how much they believe.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:31 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Wow I didn't know George Jr. helped homeless men and women. I kinda find that hot hot.


Here's a source for ya

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6495
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:02 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Oprah might be kinda cray-cray yet I support her run for president.
Being "kinda cray-cray" ought to be an automatic disqualification from running for president, doncha think?
Ginger wrote:Is it wrong to make monies with pseudoscientific beliefs?
Yeah. It's fraud.
Ginger wrote:If Oprah truly believes in it then she's not lying and defrauding.
But if she truly believes in it, then she might as well join the flat earthers. It is inexcusable for somebody of her intelligence and resources to actually believe and promote pseudoscience, given all the actual real science around her.

And science doesn't even work that way. Perhaps one of the most damaging misconceptions is that it does. Understanding the limitations of science is vital to learning how the world really works.

So no, she's definitely unqualified for the office. She'd be better than Trump, mainly because she isn't a racist dictator. But even that I'm not sure of; the CEO of any major corporation is in essence a dictator. That's how companies work.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

I'm convinced that Oprah is actually an ass because if there's something I've learned, every person that became famous is a self centered ass until proven otherwise.

Remember Jaynestown, from Firefly? Yeah I love that episode more than any other. Basically, it raises the question of what we believe our heroes to be versus what they were, and how we shape our history more on what we need than what actually happened. Sorry Out of Gas, you may provide more backstory than any other episode and you are very well made to boot, but you don't make us question ourselves and our reality the way that Jaynestown does.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:29 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Ginger wrote:Oprah might be kinda cray-cray yet I support her run for president.
Being "kinda cray-cray" ought to be an automatic disqualification from running for president, doncha think?

I dunno. People have tried to keep me out of legit jobs basically forcing me into an illegal one to make any monies at all... because I lie/have mind sicknesses/look slutty and cray-cray like a homeless hooker etcetera. So I sympathize with people like Oprah who might be misinformed and wrong yet still decent people with a lot to offer to a presidency. I am hesitant to say it yet I kinda don't think mind illnesses should disqualify you from presidency, or age, or physical or developmental limitations. And motherly personalities don't even need a lot of experience with governing bureaucracy in my opinion because they can learn on the job/from aides and advisors, have someone write their speeches and fact check--which I think she does despite everyone else claiming she doesn't; she might end up with wrong conclusions but so can anyone. Motherly women have experiences care giving and tending to people's deepest problems and that brings a lot of compassion to a presidency.

We don't need to be one hundred percent scientifically accurate about everything to be good people or prezzes. If we have years of experience counseling, mothering, dealing with abuses and calling them out and spend our rightfully--not fraudulently--earned monies supporting our causes whether someone thinks them fake news/science or not then we stand a chance at being good presidents. Regardless of if we sometimes lie or have mind sicknesses or take heavy heavy medications.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

Ginger, are you actually a liar/Cray Cray, or is that just from something like transphobia or the like?

As for the dress, well, I don't know enough about your situation.

Edit: private msg instead.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Ginger, are you actually a liar/Cray Cray, or is that just from something like transphobia or the like?

As for the dress, well, I don't know enough about your situation.

Edit: private msg instead.

Yes, the thread is about Oprah not me me me me me. Anyways, if I were a liar/cray cray then would I ever ever admit it? Would Oprah ever ever admit she's a liar cray cray woman? No one wanna lose their monies or their jobs. And not even being crazy should disqualify Oprah running for president as far as I can see. Even crazy mothers need children to care give to sometimes. Even if they're not scientifically accurate.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:12 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Ginger, are you actually a liar/Cray Cray, or is that just from something like transphobia or the like?

As for the dress, well, I don't know enough about your situation.

Edit: private msg instead.

Yes, the thread is about Oprah not me me me me me. Anyways, if I were a liar/cray cray then would I ever ever admit it? Would Oprah ever ever admit she's a liar cray cray woman? No one wanna lose their monies or their jobs. And not even being crazy should disqualify Oprah running for president as far as I can see. Even crazy mothers need children to care give to sometimes. Even if they're not scientifically accurate.


Liars and crazies sometimes admit to being that way.

And no, being crazy is not permissible for a president. There are plenty of good mothers who believe some nonsense about vaccines and autism, or least, halfway decent mothers. But being a good mom and a good president are not the same, and id venture that while 90% of women would be good moms, 98% of people would be terrible mayors let alone presidents. There are reasons CPS doesn't take away 90% of children for things like "mother believes in bigfoot".

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby bantler » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:15 pm UTC

I can picture Oprah and Gayle sitting in the White House residence having breakfast smoothies, chatting about the latest diet-fad and checking names on the daily ISIS drone kill-list.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:17 pm UTC

You get a drone strike! You get a drone strike! Everyone gets a drone strike!

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:43 pm UTC

Yes well I think CorruptUser's sentiment is highly shaming of people with mind disabilities. I never asked for my illness. Hell, technically, I never even asked to be transgender, which is still considered a mind sickness you require compulsory counseling for to receive hormones treatments/the surgeries. So whatevs. You people can think all you wanna that we don't allow crazies in the White House and we already allowed Nixon, Bill C., Georgey Jr., his father and much much more! Oprah would be better than all of them because even if she believes fake science at least she is charitable, kind and compassionate, which is way way better than being smart.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:01 pm UTC

Nixon definitely went crazy at the end, and it was NOT good. Bill Clinton, Bush 41 and Bush 43 were not crazy though.

The only other crazy president AFAIK was Jackson, and he was more of an authoritarian than a crazy guy. While modern depictions are on the lines of him requiring a pile of corpses in order to get an erection, the real reason for the Trail of Tears (well, second reason after racism) was that Jackson couldn't stand the idea that the five civilized nations were in this weird state of being both independent and, err..., dependent. He gave them the opportunity to basically give up their independence and become fully American, or be expelled. The natives saw this as just the next step in a process of basically eliminating their culture entirely (they weren't exactly wrong), and chose ethnic cleansing over culture-cide. A more extreme Jackson is Erdogan and the Kurds of Turkey, where being Kurdish is not in itself a capital offense nor will it get you any extra punishment, ostensibly, but admitting Kurdish ancestry or trying to learn anything Kurdish is in effect grounds for arrest.

But back on topic. Jackson and Nixon are NOT people we want in power again.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6495
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:06 pm UTC

There's a big difference between an ordinary job to make a living, and being Supreme Leader of the Most Powerful Country in the World. Cray-cray should disqualify a person from being President. (Alas, this doesn't seem to prevent people from doing so!) But being disqualified from the presidency is not anywhere near as being disqualified for any job at all. And actually being disqualified is different from having "people trying to keep you out...".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:08 pm UTC

Im now trying to imagine a scenario in which every congressman has to get certified by a psychiatrist first. I... don't see that ending well. Psychiatry ends up being hijacked by the political process, political leaders are terrified of going to psychiatrists and don't get the help they need, etc.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6495
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Im now trying to imagine a scenario in which every congressman has to get certified by a psychiatrist first.

Remember, the psychiatrists are certified by congressmen, albeit indirectly. No, sanity can't be a formal requirement for public office, but it should be a requirement that all voters apply when they vote.

I know. Good luck with that too. :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:11 pm UTC

ucim wrote:There's a big difference between an ordinary job to make a living, and being Supreme Leader of the Most Powerful Country in the World. Cray-cray should disqualify a person from being President. (Alas, this doesn't seem to prevent people from doing so!) But being disqualified from the presidency is not anywhere near as being disqualified for any job at all. And actually being disqualified is different from having "people trying to keep you out...".

Jose

Ain't no difference when you got only three choices: Your current job where you are disrespected/harassed, another job where you would be disrespected or abused or homelessness. Or I guess illegal jobs so four technical choices? None of those are pretty pretty choices and I'm not even talking about myself anymore. Maybe Maybe Oprah chose Hollywood because it was best suited for her talents and then got typecast as just a Talking Head Celebrity Woman. Maybe she was discriminated against for being black? Or too outspoken about abuse? I dunno it all starts to look like people wanna push you out out when you're a woman going onto males' turfs, or a black femme in a white femmes' worlds, or a feminine looking boy among manly men or whatevs.

No, being crazy should not disqualify you from any job. Or even being a criminal if you truly really wanna reform and be good now. And Oprah has a lot to bring to a presidency. And Bill C.: Sexually abused Monica Lewinsky in office. Cray Cray. George Jr. started pointless wars and LIED about WMDs over and over. Crazy. Dunno much about his dad though so I guess I retract that part?
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:18 pm UTC

Citation needed that Lewinsky was sexually abused.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:23 pm UTC

I can't because those are her feelings only. So I step back on that one and reframe the image: She was doing inapprops sex stuff in office with Bill Clinton, which is like my compulsive sex addiction and so: Cray cray all over the places. And Oprah has never sexually abused and is even giving speeches about Finally Acting to End sexual abuse. So good on Oprah two points for Prez Mistress O in my books. I'd vote for her in two heartbeats. <3
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

speising
Posts: 2272
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby speising » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:24 pm UTC

remember that you currently have the most sane president in history! he even said so himself!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:25 pm UTC

You can vote for her. I wont... if the other option is Trump, I'll vote third party again.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3918
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Dauric » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:38 pm UTC

Crazy isn't a Boolean True/False evaluation, there's a great deal of differences between type and severity that would be important in determining who could do what tasks. There's certain flavors of "crazy" that probably wouldn't be an adverse impact on the presidency (some types may even be an improvement), but there are others that clearly would be adverse to functioning well in that position.

That said, would Ms. Winfrey be of the type or severity of a mindset that would/should disqualify her from the presidency?

I don't think that her promotion of pseudoscience and/or other medical/psychological quackery is "Crazy" per-se, she has however shown a propensity for selecting 'advisers' based on less than ideal criteria. Now for a TV broadcast the likes of "Dr. Phil" and Dr. Oz." make for great television and if your a daytime television show (including the bit abut getting advertisers to fund it) then they're ideal. If your goal is to provide functional medical advice to your audience on the other hand.. they're not the best choices. Winfrey's choices seem weighted to as long as the show is running and making progress verifiable improvements or harms to the welfare of the people affected is secondary.

To that end my concern would be of a Winfrey administration that her cabinet would be made up of people who have more television charisma in presenting their policy concepts, rather than people who can produce the boring statistics and evidence to back up their positions.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:50 pm UTC

LOL la la la la academia. Statistics are liars, they only record what/who you write about in your report and no no one can possibly account for every statistically relevant demographic making them essentially useless except as rhetorical devices. Having Charisma is part of a presidents' job too. So is PR, so is presenting a clean and family friendly image and even being religious seems to work its way in there sometimes despite a supposed separation of church and state. It's not all about facts and boring boring figures and if Oprah wanna select people that talk well and are socially conscious then she'd have a good cabinet not a bad one. Of course, you framed your position in such a way that anyone with "television charisma" can't possibly have real knowledge or facts on their sides--They just wanna make monies and amuse us with stories of screeching teenage girls or diet fads like the less than reputable AND abusive Drs. Phil and Oz.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:53 pm UTC

Eh, for any member of the party that's not a leader, Paladin or Bard, charisma should be a dump stat.

User avatar
measure
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:31 pm UTC
Location: Time-traveling kayak

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby measure » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:55 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Now for a TV broadcast the likes of "Dr. Phil" and Dr. Oz." make for great television and if your a daytime television show (including the bit abut getting advertisers to fund it) then they're ideal.

Even someone fully capable of choosing competent advisors for the position of presidency would be expected to choose this sort of advisor for a television show (they are "ideal" for that role after all). Is there any indication whether she would use the same sort of advisor in both roles?

nicklikesfire
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:20 am UTC
Location: CT, USA

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby nicklikesfire » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:01 pm UTC

I really only have a few qualifications I'd like to see in a candidate.

1 - Good critical thinking skills.
2 - Agrees with me on important issues.

Oprah's support of junk science doesn't meet that first point. I don't really know anything about the second point. I'm guessing she's a nice person, but that really means nothing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:10 pm UTC

I've always described Big O as having her heart in the right place, but head up her ass.

Chen
Posts: 5476
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:14 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Wow I didn't know George Jr. helped homeless men and women. I kinda find that hot hot. Anyways, we all believe psuedoscientific stuff in my opinion. I know [citation needed] heavily a lot. I can only offer anecdotes not hard data. Yet in my experience in everyday life we find ways to cope with society and the world that are totally irrational and sometimes, sometimes it can even make us monies. Is it wrong to make monies with pseudoscientific beliefs? In my opinion and I know it's not a fact yet: If Oprah truly believes in it then she's not lying and defrauding. If she Didn't Believe In It then she'd be lying and defrauding. And defending fake science if you actually believe, for example, that saying the word "cancer" and then it gives your daughter cancer and she dies, and you study that pathology medically until it sounds semi-sane, publish a few papers supporting your theories on psychology and it becomes accepted medical facts. Only if you truly actually believe in what you're saying though. Oprah might be kinda cray-cray yet I support her run for president.


Belief doesn't change the underlying reality of the universe (we're not in the White Wolf Mage setting here). Pseudoscientific beliefs can be debunked by actual science. In believing the pseudoscience, you are either dismissing the science or being willfully ignorant of it. Both are terrible for any human being, let alone a leader of a country.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Winfrey presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:44 pm UTC

The human mind is not capable of understanding all of science. The last person to know everything that is known is generally cited as Aristotle. Today, between computer science and molecular biology, between forensic accounting and topology, between econometrics and nephrology, it's all but impossible to know everything in a single field of science let alone multiple fields. At some point a Particle Physicist has to look at a Pharmacist's work and say "that sounds like a reasonable explanation, and while I don't know enough to say this does or doesn't work, I trust you know what you are doing." The problem is this leaves a lot of room for possible bullshit. Fraudsters love quantum physics because even most scientists don't have near enough mathematics and physics education to say "not only is this bullshit but here is the 132 reasons why." You won't have a bullshitter justify their work with baseball, because enough people know baseball to know that's not how baseball works.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 39 guests