If it's Oprah vs Trump 2020, I feel like we're rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451 crazyland politics (just specifically the politicians, nothing else about the book).
One popularized the racist Birther / “born in Kenya” meme. The other is biggest promoter behind Dr Phil, probably the most prominent modern American quack doctor.
They’d be representing opposite parties, but they have a lot in common. Both have publicly promoted the uniquely damaging lie that vaccines cause autism.
Both are media people first and foremost, hucksters, promoters, peddlers of false hopes and false fears.
Waves of dangerous Mexicans are not, in fact, “pouring across our southern border”. Dr Phil does not actually have a magic solution for weight loss. Trump does not now, and never did have a plan to “Make America Great Again”.
It’s all for show.
—
Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US?
Based on the amount of people who promised to move to Canada if Trump won, my guess is next to nothing.
Beside, when was the last time a conservative said, dammit, Bill won, or Obama won, I'm off to [some country]. It's mostly Dems who almost never actually go through with it. Sure, you get a very small trickle but nothing like they promise.
[1]http://mynorthwest.com/470605/oregon-california-washington-s...?
If you mean, follow the patterns of suggesting if so-and-so wins, I'm out, a number of Republicans did that with Obama (and maybe the Clinton reelect in 1996.)
Though in the wake of the 2008 Obama win, there was also a big upswing in conservatives not specifically saying it about themselves, but predicting the wealthy in general would economically rebel by withdrawing from the economy and “Go Galt”.
What I do notice about conservatives is a rush to "buy guns" --that's their knee jerk moreso than, "screw it, I'm leaving."
Maybe this is the role of the president in the future? Just a buffoon celebrity who can say whatever they want and best represents the fickle fancy of the people?
Somebody else handles the actual governing.
Somebody else chosen by whom? Following what agenda, according to which principles? Overseen by whom? Presumably, chosen by the buffoon President to act in his/her stay, following the agenda set forth in his/her election platform, and within the principles of the Constitution... but even merely one layer of remove makes it difficult for the other branches of government to exert their roles in providing checks and balances, and for citizens of the Republic it becomes even more difficult to figure out who is doing what and whether what is being done is grossly in their interest or not.
Also, it’s by no means clear anymore that voting the incumbent out of office and somebody new into his place creates that discontinuity necessary to avoid a dynasty arising. If much of the machinery of government disappears behind an opaque veil and elections are contested between idiots then we no longer have any clue what is going on behind the curtain, and behind that curtain there may be an éminence grise of such power even a new (notional) President fears to disrupt, or even if these unseen powers are not powerful enough to intimidate the newcomer, it might just be more convenient for the new guy (or gal) to “go with the flow” and and leave the hard business of real governing to a experienced set of hands.
It really ain't pretty.
The closest analogue to Trump/Oprah in modern western history is probably Silvio Berlusconi.
That fiasco wasn’t even a swift dramatic thing—just a grinding two decades and counting of stagnation, inept government, corruption and brain drain as your best youth go abroad.
I hope it doesn’t happen here and I want to do anything I can to help.
Past some hypothetical point, though, I think my wanderlust and sense of pride would take me elsewhere.
Innovation can happen anywhere, and fortune favors the bold.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/europe/sicily-elect...
As far as I know from my studies, the Americans have given their President loads of power. It would be quite a challenge to rewrite and redistribute powers of President, should he become a mere Public Figure like the Queen of England. If Americans were to accept undergoing such a change, might as well have more than two main parties and take money out pf politics. I suspect us to be dead by then.
In addition, because there is no clear definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors", congress can pretty much remove The President whenever they want. The House only requires a simple majority to impeach and the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to convict.
It's definitely the most powerful. No one else is even close in raw military power.
Yes in world terms he's clearly very powerful. Compared to the rest of the world a single US aircraft carrier or ballistic missile submarine captain is more powerful than most world leaders.
But his power is very limited. Congress can remove him, they can even completely defund the military if they wanted to.
Our submarine fleet and long range bombing ability are still far superior. Russia and China have near zero force projection capability. Even with surface ships gone, we still have more.
Russia and China both accept that they can't match the US, and all of their strategies for war with us are defensive strategies designed to make it too expensive for us to bother.
No one seriously doubts American military dominance today--not even potential rivals.
Talk about a miserable situation.
But no, I would much more quickly join a third party initiative (I voted third party in this last election), because I do think the fundamental underpinnings of our government are hard to beat, even if that means dealing with cranks and morons being able to elect the same.
I do fear our democracy turning into a greater circus than it already is, but I also generally trust the wisdom of the crowd for the end result (though definitely do not trust the crowd for philosophical, moral or intellectual opinions).
I feel like the current status is more a bug that we might be able to cure, but I wouldn't want to abandon the entire system because of that bug.
the racist Birther / “born in Kenya” meme
2) the whole "born in Kenya" media rant was meaningless given that he would be qualified to serve as President wherever he was born under US law at the time of his birth, given his mother's natural-born citizenship.
Now candidates have always criticised in various ways, harsh ways. But not to this extent. It's completely different from the way Ted Cruz's Canada born story was treated. Or McCain's (then US territory) Panama-born history.
Now why is there a discrepancy, why did opponents push blatant lies and why did the birther movement take hold on Obama and not others?
Precisely because they're grounded by racist notions. Calling Obama a muslim wouldn't be a negative thing, or an attack, in a world where there wasn't islamophobia, if people didn't equate muslim with terrorist. Calling him an African, stressing his non-Americanism, wouldn't be a successful attack on his character if racist old white people didn't equate themselves and themselves only with patriotic 'original' Americans.
None of this had to do with any interest in upholding constitutional law. Trump has shown very clearly that politics trump accountability to our legal system. This was an attack on Obama's character that only worked because it inspired racist notions. Have you not seen the rallies and protesters of the birther movement, are you really not seeing anything racist about that?
This isn't racist to you? https://www.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/foxnation-20...
or this? http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.115633.131395031...
It's an absolute joke of an argument, and was obviously racially inspired. (and please don't tell me not to use racism as the now commonly accepted umbrella term that includes ethnic discrimination too, e.g. islamophobia. we've long passed the point of arguing those semantics.)
2) agreed, see aforementioned Cruz for example. Which is precisely why it's racist. It wasn't about upholding constitutional law, it was about painting him as Kenyan. It didn't matter whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or a different solar system, it mattered that he was black and had parental roots in a country that could be painted as muslim despite 5 out of 6 Kenyans being Christian. That's what they got him on and got people bothered, precisely because of racism.
To be clear I'm a pretty staunch socialist so I find little solace in the idea that she could be president, but I also think it's not quite right to say that they are steps down the same path: if I had to make this sort of a metaphor it would be that Trump yields Fahrenheit 451 and Oprah yields a cyberpunk dystopia something akin to Blade Runner.
Forbes says Oprah is worth $2.8B.. and Trump is worth $3.1B. Oprah is 63; Trump is 71... so they've had about the same amount of time.
By what reasoning is one a failure and the other wildly successful?
Oprah posted some great growth numbers early in her career with her TV show.. but if you start from when she reached $1B in 2004 to today, she has a return of 7.63% annually.
If I had to pick, IMO Oprah is more impressive. But it isn't like we're comparing Bill Gates and the owner of the local dry cleaner. Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund.
If we're really looking for business leaders with good growth numbers, it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.
You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want.
Oprah went from $0 -> billionare. If she'd investive passively, she'd still have basically nothing.
Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare. If he'd invested passively he'd be ahead.
In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point.
> Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns.
> ... it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.
This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They're not supermen. Running the country is not something I'd want any of them to be doing. Running a government sub-bureaucracy, maybe, but only one without much policy-making power.
_Yes._ A person with a billion dollars does not work a billion times harder than a person with 1 dollar. A programmer should be keenly aware of this, I think, given what a monumentally complex task it is to evaluate the value of labor in our industry. I also do not begrudge an individual their success carte blanche even if I am highly critical of capitalism (best to judge them for the specifics of their actions) but we should be clear about whether or not someone has shown evidence of being better than a coin flip before we start saying they're qualified for something.
My intention was to exclude her earnings from TV. She was successful at that, but a TV host is not a business person.. and the claim was that she was "wildly successful" at business. TV success != business success.. and Oprah has had a difficult time developing business outside of her TV success.
She's no more a great business person than Bieber or Taylor Swift. If Taylor Swift took her money and put it in an index fund that returned what Oprah and Trump have earned, she would be worth $3B when she's 60. Does this make Swift a great business person worthy of being president?
In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point.
No disagreement on that.
Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare
You're just picking $500m randomly. The highest number for his inheritance was thrown out by Rubio during a debate of $200m. Which is the number I used to calculate the 8%.
This is weird valley-think.
First, I don't live in the valley. Second, both Oprah and Trump have subpar growth. If you turn off your TV, you'll find the average business grows faster than these two. No need to go to SF, better business people are literally all over the country.
Trump is White, male, 3rd generation millionaire.
"Oprah is beyond doubt a magnificent orator. But the idea of a reality show star running against a talk show host is troublingly dystopian. We don’t want to create a world where dedicated public service careers become undesirable and impractical in the face of raw celebrity."
Politician in democracies seem to lose more from specific bad events they gain from good ones. This gives them an incentive to push responsibility away from themselves out to unelected officials (regulators, judges, cops) and non-government lobbies (big businesses, NGOs, public-sector unions). And this pushing has been progressing for decades and decades already.
So by now, while politicians collectively could seize the reins of their own power, they don't actually have them in their hands. In such a world, the "job" of the politician is then engage with the public, putting on a show of attacking the system, while not having, or even desiring, the power to change it.
Who better for that job than Trump and Oprah?
Warren is less left than Sanders, who AFAIK remains the single most popular politician in the country. Sanders might not want to make another run at his age, but while he might have a grudge against the former DNC leadership, he and his supporters have been actively engaged in DNC reform efforts and made some significant advances; I don't see any reason to expect he wouldn't continue to positively engage with the national party.
As for other candidates, Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) has been hailed as a rising star and potential near-future Presidential candidate. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (IL) likewise has been floated as a potential candidate. Rep. John Delaney (MD) is certainly running, and not obviously implausible as a nominee.
Actually, rather than going on, I’ll just drop the WaPo’s lost of potentials (which I just found, and overlaps mine; I don't necessarily agree with their ranking, but they are mostly plausible and, but for Dwayne Johnson and Oprah, experienced candidates.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/22/th...
And not just the politicians.