President Oprah? President The Rock?

1235»

Comments

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    JC29856 said:
    unsung said:
    LOL


    Im glad you said it!

    Also from above...Let’s face it: the Democratic Party has no other figure of gravitas on the bench.
    Isn’t Bernie a democrat?
    Does he believe that private companies have any control of any portion of the economic system or should government have all control?

    I will admit to not paying the guy much attention, but I have never heard him discuss the free market in a positive fashion.
    You're right, you haven't been paying any attention. No, Sanders is not a Communist, lol.
    Ok, so can you tell me what he wants the role of the free market to be please?
    He acknowledges the failures of the free market (which aren't deniable by anyone who looks at it objectively), but understands that it is the system under which we all operate right now, so his views are about how to make things better for everyone while under the weight of a failing, phony-ass, fixed free market system that now exists. Anyone who claims that the "free market" is working well for everyone in its current form or that it could work as Libertarians imagine it is in severe denial, so not only Bernie Sanders thinks this. That is why he essentially talks about a compromise between socialism and capitalism (which is, IMO, the most doable scenario when you're not dealing with a bunch of brainwashed capitalists or fanatical commies). It's not an all or nothing situation, and he knows it because he's not an idiot. Anyway, if you actually care about what Bernie Sanders thinks, you should get plenty of info from all perspectives (good and stupid) if you just google "Bernie Sanders and the free market" or just read up on his platform. Or just read up about how countries like Denmark and Sweden and Norway function, because that is close to what he supports, and those are not communist countries, obviously, and they still have a free market within a more socialist framework. Supply and demand is still a thing, but the distribution of wealth is much better through regulation and more equality in access to programs that improve the nation as a whole is an ideal supported through taxation (with good results FWIW - people in such countries are MUCH happier and more satisfied with their medical and education systems and their childcare options than Americans are, and their quality of life is higher too).
    Jane Sanders has her own views on how wealth should be redistributed and a grand jury is now looking into it.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/religion/burlington-college-trustee-says-she-had-federal-interview/2018/01/08/2fbd141c-f446-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html

    Oprah better start clearing her schedule.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 16,916
    BS44325 said:
    ^^^^^ awesome. 
    Went to her Christmas party in 97 or 98 in Chicago. It was like a fucking prison getting in and out. Never been to a party where people walked on egg shells like this. Almost like 99% of the people were scared to be there but didn’t dare not show up. Don’t expect to ever, ever hear dirt on Oprah that’s not already out there.
    That’s how a White House should be run.
    Or a country. Like Israel, maybe. Just don’t be dark. Or disparage Bibi and gas sales. No wonder you get it.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 16,916
    BS44325 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    JC29856 said:
    unsung said:
    LOL


    Im glad you said it!

    Also from above...Let’s face it: the Democratic Party has no other figure of gravitas on the bench.
    Isn’t Bernie a democrat?
    Does he believe that private companies have any control of any portion of the economic system or should government have all control?

    I will admit to not paying the guy much attention, but I have never heard him discuss the free market in a positive fashion.
    You're right, you haven't been paying any attention. No, Sanders is not a Communist, lol.
    Ok, so can you tell me what he wants the role of the free market to be please?
    He acknowledges the failures of the free market (which aren't deniable by anyone who looks at it objectively), but understands that it is the system under which we all operate right now, so his views are about how to make things better for everyone while under the weight of a failing, phony-ass, fixed free market system that now exists. Anyone who claims that the "free market" is working well for everyone in its current form or that it could work as Libertarians imagine it is in severe denial, so not only Bernie Sanders thinks this. That is why he essentially talks about a compromise between socialism and capitalism (which is, IMO, the most doable scenario when you're not dealing with a bunch of brainwashed capitalists or fanatical commies). It's not an all or nothing situation, and he knows it because he's not an idiot. Anyway, if you actually care about what Bernie Sanders thinks, you should get plenty of info from all perspectives (good and stupid) if you just google "Bernie Sanders and the free market" or just read up on his platform. Or just read up about how countries like Denmark and Sweden and Norway function, because that is close to what he supports, and those are not communist countries, obviously, and they still have a free market within a more socialist framework. Supply and demand is still a thing, but the distribution of wealth is much better through regulation and more equality in access to programs that improve the nation as a whole is an ideal supported through taxation (with good results FWIW - people in such countries are MUCH happier and more satisfied with their medical and education systems and their childcare options than Americans are, and their quality of life is higher too).
    Jane Sanders has her own views on how wealth should be redistributed and a grand jury is now looking into it.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/religion/burlington-college-trustee-says-she-had-federal-interview/2018/01/08/2fbd141c-f446-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html

    Oprah better start clearing her schedule.
    Oooooooo, what’s your point? Oooooooooo, you know more than the rest? Got an inside scoop? Or
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,004
    Electing Oprah to the presidency  isn't my idea of the best conceivable option BUT, since in these times, America doesn't seen to know how to take elections seriously like mature voters would in better times, Oprah might be our best current option especially in light of the other current options:

    Dems:
    Hillary.  Done (oh god, I hope).
    Bernie.  Ditto (though his run was at least interesting, thought provoking and mildly challenging)
    Joe Biden.  My understanding is he does not intend to run.  Would be a strong contender for me if he did though.
    Elizabeth Warren.  Same as Joe.  To me, again, would be a strong contender.
    Anyone else is a long shot and unlikely.

    Jill Stein.  What was that I heard?  She's  engaged to Putin, right?  Hidey ho!

    Have the Reps oust DT and nominate one of the usual list of characters- Cruz, Fiornia, Romney, et al.  (Nothing exciting there.)

    Nominate The Rock.  But only if Paper and Scissors get to play too.

    Or re-elect Trump.   ... :lol:  (it's either laugh or cry)

    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 15,629
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    KC138045 said:
    JimmyV said:
    I'm still holding out hope for President Qualified Candidate Who Knows How To Govern And Inspires People To Follow Them.
    This!  We need a president who can bring the country together, not divide it further.
    Don't sell Oprah short...she has the potential to do this.
    you think a black woman can unite a country that still holds neo-nazi rallies and people who protest against no longer celebrating the confederate flag? you think a BLACK WOMAN can do this?
    Uhhh...absolutely....a back man did it only a few short years ago. 
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
  • KC138045KC138045 Columbus, OHPosts: 2,643
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    KC138045 said:
    JimmyV said:
    I'm still holding out hope for President Qualified Candidate Who Knows How To Govern And Inspires People To Follow Them.
    This!  We need a president who can bring the country together, not divide it further.
    Don't sell Oprah short...she has the potential to do this.
    you think a black woman can unite a country that still holds neo-nazi rallies and people who protest against no longer celebrating the confederate flag? you think a BLACK WOMAN can do this?
    Uhhh...absolutely....a back man did it only a few short years ago. 
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
    Exactly!  And daytime television is 100% targeted to women.
    Columbus-2000
    Columbus-2003
    Cincinnati-2006
    Columbus-2010
    Wrigley-2013
    Cincinnati-2014
    Lexington-2016
    Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 12,283
    edited January 10
    brianlux said:
    Electing Oprah to the presidency  isn't my idea of the best conceivable option BUT, since in these times, America doesn't seen to know how to take elections seriously like mature voters would in better times, Oprah might be our best current option especially in light of the other current options:

    Dems:
    Hillary.  Done (oh god, I hope).
    Bernie.  Ditto (though his run was at least interesting, thought provoking and mildly challenging)
    Joe Biden.  My understanding is he does not intend to run.  Would be a strong contender for me if he did though.
    Elizabeth Warren.  Same as Joe.  To me, again, would be a strong contender.
    Anyone else is a long shot and unlikely.

    Jill Stein.  What was that I heard?  She's  engaged to Putin, right?  Hidey ho!

    Have the Reps oust DT and nominate one of the usual list of characters- Cruz, Fiornia, Romney, et al.  (Nothing exciting there.)

    Nominate The Rock.  But only if Paper and Scissors get to play too.

    Or re-elect Trump.   ... :lol:  (it's either laugh or cry)

    Our district's US Representative, John K. Delaney, plans to run.  I don't know how far he'll get but he seems like a really good guy.  Not that it matters, but he's a big Springsteen fan.  I read somewhere he's seen Bruce live over 30 times.

    The downside to him running is, in doing so, he is giving up incumbency to his House seat and the old bag republican he ran against is already on the campaign trail with currently no competition.  She visited my work yesterday.  We were told to dress business casual but had I known it was her visiting, I would've wore my Pearl Jam/Planned Parenthood t-shirt instead and sought the bitch out.
    Post edited by HesCalledDyer on
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,004
    brianlux said:
    Electing Oprah to the presidency  isn't my idea of the best conceivable option BUT, since in these times, America doesn't seen to know how to take elections seriously like mature voters would in better times, Oprah might be our best current option especially in light of the other current options:

    Dems:
    Hillary.  Done (oh god, I hope).
    Bernie.  Ditto (though his run was at least interesting, thought provoking and mildly challenging)
    Joe Biden.  My understanding is he does not intend to run.  Would be a strong contender for me if he did though.
    Elizabeth Warren.  Same as Joe.  To me, again, would be a strong contender.
    Anyone else is a long shot and unlikely.

    Jill Stein.  What was that I heard?  She's  engaged to Putin, right?  Hidey ho!

    Have the Reps oust DT and nominate one of the usual list of characters- Cruz, Fiornia, Romney, et al.  (Nothing exciting there.)

    Nominate The Rock.  But only if Paper and Scissors get to play too.

    Or re-elect Trump.   ... :lol:  (it's either laugh or cry)

    Our district's US Representative, John K. Delaney, plans to run.  I don't know how far he'll get but he seems like a really good guy.  Not that it matters, but he's a big Springsteen fan.  I read somewhere he's seen Bruce live over 30 times.

    The downside to him running is, in doing so, he is giving up incumbency to his House seat and the old bag republican he ran against is already on the campaign trail with currently no competition.  She visited my work yesterday.  We were told to dress business casual but had I known it was her visiting, I would've wore my Pearl Jam/Planned Parenthood t-shirt instead and sought the bitch out.
    My understanding is that is why Elizabeth Warren says she will not run- she believes she is doing the most she can in the Senate.  I'll check out your guy Delaney- sounds like a good man.
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 43,510
    edited January 10
    BS44325 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    unsung said:
    JC29856 said:
    unsung said:
    LOL


    Im glad you said it!

    Also from above...Let’s face it: the Democratic Party has no other figure of gravitas on the bench.
    Isn’t Bernie a democrat?
    Does he believe that private companies have any control of any portion of the economic system or should government have all control?

    I will admit to not paying the guy much attention, but I have never heard him discuss the free market in a positive fashion.
    You're right, you haven't been paying any attention. No, Sanders is not a Communist, lol.
    Ok, so can you tell me what he wants the role of the free market to be please?
    He acknowledges the failures of the free market (which aren't deniable by anyone who looks at it objectively), but understands that it is the system under which we all operate right now, so his views are about how to make things better for everyone while under the weight of a failing, phony-ass, fixed free market system that now exists. Anyone who claims that the "free market" is working well for everyone in its current form or that it could work as Libertarians imagine it is in severe denial, so not only Bernie Sanders thinks this. That is why he essentially talks about a compromise between socialism and capitalism (which is, IMO, the most doable scenario when you're not dealing with a bunch of brainwashed capitalists or fanatical commies). It's not an all or nothing situation, and he knows it because he's not an idiot. Anyway, if you actually care about what Bernie Sanders thinks, you should get plenty of info from all perspectives (good and stupid) if you just google "Bernie Sanders and the free market" or just read up on his platform. Or just read up about how countries like Denmark and Sweden and Norway function, because that is close to what he supports, and those are not communist countries, obviously, and they still have a free market within a more socialist framework. Supply and demand is still a thing, but the distribution of wealth is much better through regulation and more equality in access to programs that improve the nation as a whole is an ideal supported through taxation (with good results FWIW - people in such countries are MUCH happier and more satisfied with their medical and education systems and their childcare options than Americans are, and their quality of life is higher too).
    Jane Sanders has her own views on how wealth should be redistributed and a grand jury is now looking into it.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/religion/burlington-college-trustee-says-she-had-federal-interview/2018/01/08/2fbd141c-f446-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html

    Oprah better start clearing her schedule.
    What a meaningless post, lol. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, but whatever it is, it's ineffective.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 43,510
    edited January 10
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    KC138045 said:
    JimmyV said:
    I'm still holding out hope for President Qualified Candidate Who Knows How To Govern And Inspires People To Follow Them.
    This!  We need a president who can bring the country together, not divide it further.
    Don't sell Oprah short...she has the potential to do this.
    you think a black woman can unite a country that still holds neo-nazi rallies and people who protest against no longer celebrating the confederate flag? you think a BLACK WOMAN can do this?
    Uhhh...absolutely....a back man did it only a few short years ago. 
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
    I think maybe the sexist part might come in for him when you talk about  "middle aged housewives escaping the boredom of their daily lives" by engaging in "fluff", lol. That was quite a burn for "middle aged housewives". Now, I didn't find that sexist, but I did still find it somewhat offensive on behalf of housewives, and FWIW, almost everyone I know who ever watched Oprah or who admires her are not and were not bored middle aged housewives, although most of them are indeed female or gay. But whatever. Anyway, Oprah definitely has a niche - a pretty fucking huge one, but a niche all the same. That said, if it were Oprah vs Trump, I feel pretty certain that Oprah would win it, even if there is a demographic she appeals to most. It's not like only "bored middle aged housewives" would be voting for her. Also, not that I like her or support her running, but she's done a hell of a lot more than Dr Phil or Donahue has, and much, much more than host a talk show.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 43,510
    ^^^ Yes, that. The mega-rich and mega-powerful in business don't seem even close to qualified for the job IMO. There is necessarily a profound conflict of interest that cannot be fixed and a profound separation between their mindset and world view and that of almost all the citizens.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,235
    I wouldn't go that far. My concerns about Oprah don't have all that much to do with her wealth. If she is serious about the job and is willing to compete in a contested field, fine. My worry is that the same donors and establishment Democrats who decided Hillary was the one long before anyone cast a vote will do the same thing here. Female, famous, person of color...she checks a lot of boxes for those who choose their nominees by checking boxes. The Party cannot make that mistake again. The Democrats need a wide-open and robust field in 2020.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 43,510
    JimmyV said:
    I wouldn't go that far. My concerns about Oprah don't have all that much to do with her wealth. If she is serious about the job and is willing to compete in a contested field, fine. My worry is that the same donors and establishment Democrats who decided Hillary was the one long before anyone cast a vote will do the same thing here. Female, famous, person of color...she checks a lot of boxes for those who choose their nominees by checking boxes. The Party cannot make that mistake again. The Democrats need a wide-open and robust field in 2020.
    I actually think that being female and being black are legitimate factors given the sociopolitical climate in America. That doesn't mean those should be the only two reasons to vote for her. I mean, an incompetent, stupid black woman shouldn't be getting any votes just because she's a black women of course. But assuming the person is competent and has a real platform, then her being black and female should definitely also play a role, because blacks and women desperately need representation at the highest level of government finally, since everyone so far until Obama was a white man. I see nothing wrong with that perspective. I agree that being famous is certainly a ridiculous thing to be looking for. But I think the big problem is the mega-rich part for sure. The mega-rich always have an extra special personal agenda that leaves them more open to corruption and lobbyists. I guess because people don't get mega-rich unless they love power and money WAY too much to be well qualified to truly put other people's interests before their own. IMO.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 15,629
    PJ_Soul said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    KC138045 said:
    JimmyV said:
    I'm still holding out hope for President Qualified Candidate Who Knows How To Govern And Inspires People To Follow Them.
    This!  We need a president who can bring the country together, not divide it further.
    Don't sell Oprah short...she has the potential to do this.
    you think a black woman can unite a country that still holds neo-nazi rallies and people who protest against no longer celebrating the confederate flag? you think a BLACK WOMAN can do this?
    Uhhh...absolutely....a back man did it only a few short years ago. 
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
    I think maybe the sexist part might come in for him when you talk about  "middle aged housewives escaping the boredom of their daily lives" by engaging in "fluff", lol. That was quite a burn for "middle aged housewives". Now, I didn't find that sexist, but I did still find it somewhat offensive on behalf of housewives, and FWIW, almost everyone I know who ever watched Oprah or who admires her are not and were not bored middle aged housewives, although most of them are indeed female or gay. But whatever. Anyway, Oprah definitely has a niche - a pretty fucking huge one, but a niche all the same. That said, if it were Oprah vs Trump, I feel pretty certain that Oprah would win it, even if there is a demographic she appeals to most. It's not like only "bored middle aged housewives" would be voting for her. Also, not that I like her or support her running, but she's done a hell of a lot more than Dr Phil or Donahue has, and much, much more than host a talk show.
    I also enjoy my fair share of fluff that helps me escape from the boredom/monotony of my daily life. that pretty much covers any form of entertainment whatsoever. It wasn't a knock on those women at all. it's just who they are. if you looked at the demographics, it was not women arriving home from work to watch her show. It is women who are home during the day, and I highly doubt it was women in their 20's or even their 30's. that's just the demographic. 

    but some people need to get all huffy about something in a sad attempt to try to discredit the person saying it. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 43,510
    edited January 10
    PJ_Soul said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
    I think maybe the sexist part might come in for him when you talk about  "middle aged housewives escaping the boredom of their daily lives" by engaging in "fluff", lol. That was quite a burn for "middle aged housewives". Now, I didn't find that sexist, but I did still find it somewhat offensive on behalf of housewives, and FWIW, almost everyone I know who ever watched Oprah or who admires her are not and were not bored middle aged housewives, although most of them are indeed female or gay. But whatever. Anyway, Oprah definitely has a niche - a pretty fucking huge one, but a niche all the same. That said, if it were Oprah vs Trump, I feel pretty certain that Oprah would win it, even if there is a demographic she appeals to most. It's not like only "bored middle aged housewives" would be voting for her. Also, not that I like her or support her running, but she's done a hell of a lot more than Dr Phil or Donahue has, and much, much more than host a talk show.
    I also enjoy my fair share of fluff that helps me escape from the boredom/monotony of my daily life. that pretty much covers any form of entertainment whatsoever. It wasn't a knock on those women at all. it's just who they are. if you looked at the demographics, it was not women arriving home from work to watch her show. It is women who are home during the day, and I highly doubt it was women in their 20's or even their 30's. that's just the demographic. 

    but some people need to get all huffy about something in a sad attempt to try to discredit the person saying it. 
    .... I feel like you've been a bit huffy lately yourself. Everything okay?

    You may doubt it was women in their 20s and 30s, but as a women who was in her 20s and 30s during Oprah's heyday, I can guarantee you that it was women of pretty much all ages, and women in their 20s were bananas for her. Did you know it aired again later in the day in a lot of places to all the people who worked in the day could watch it? And a lot of people recorded it, or just really enjoyed it on their days off or when they were sick or whatever. Oprah had a massive female demographic when her show was on top. Even I, who never even liked her, ended up watching the fucking thing on occasion, starting when I was a teenager.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 15,629
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    so now you are giving obama credit for uniting the country? he was a great president, but if anything, the hatred started to bubble when he was elected. and it is now boiling over. 
    Now hang on one second...everybody on here knows that I am no Obama supporter but let there be no doubt that his 2008 campaign was brilliantly executed on a theme of unity... "There is no red state, there is no blue state...etc.". On the day of his inauguration it was a magnificent moment and at that time he had the opportunity to be the uniter that he campaigned as. Unfortunately the Pelosi/Reid congress took a different approach and took the agenda far to the left. The reason I did not like Obama is that for all his talk of unity I had a feeling that when all was said and done he was at heart one of "them" and would be fully on board with the plan. The "hatred" you speak of was not a racist outcry to a black man. It was an outcry against the hard left progressive agenda. I've said this a million times but nobody on here is willing to accept it. You would much rather prefer that people are resisting skin colour instead of your ideas. I get it...mentally that is too hard to process. Nevertheless thousands of Obama voters in the rust belt switched there support to Trump. They thought they were getting a unifier but instead got militant progressivism so they said fuck it and voted for a son of a bitch in 2016. That doesn't mean though that these voters are lost to democrats forever. They will appreciate Trump's results but at some point they will tire of the 24/7 fist fight. The question for democrats is who will be the democratic candidate that can capitalize on Trump's results. The rust belt voter will eventually want a unifier even if she is a black woman! What they won't want however is a return to militant progressivism. Oprah has been in their living room for years. She has the ability to be their candidate.
    sorry, completely disagree. and you can keep ramming it down all of our throats how much smarter you are than everyone else, but the vitriol and blind hatred of the man was not because of his policies alone. I would wage that it was a combination, but more racially motivated than you are willing to admit. there is a massive racism problem in the US that reared its ugly head once he was office, a problem everyone thought had gone away. 

    am I saying all republicans are racist? not at all. But a lot are. 

    they didn't switch parties because of Obama's policies. they switched because the government didn't solve all their problems like they continue to hope it will. Trump promised them he would bring back their dying industries so they didn't have to make any of the hard choices themselves. that's what people do, unfortunately. and it worked. 
    You do not completely disagree...your last paragraph basically rephrases what I said. Maybe I am much smarter...maybe I'm a genius in fact. A very stable genius! Also...manufacturing jobs are growing again...it isn't the resurrection of dying industry but it's a start. Oprah has the ability to capitalize on that where Bernie cannot.
    um, no it doesn't. you said they left obama for trump because of obama's "militant progressivism". I said they left because he didn't fix something that shouldn't be fixed. 

    how does being very successful in business make someone relatable to the common person? it doesn't. her life growing up poor makes her relatable, being rich and famous now further distances her from them.  
    It is the type of business she was in. You don't have the highest ratings in day time talk for a million years in a row without knowing a little bit about your audience. Her type of success required her to understand the american viewer across the entire country. I guarantee you that her people spent hour and hours learning about the american people's like and dislikes, their needs and their wants. This ability to know the audience and to deliver in their language year after year completely stem from her brilliance. In the end this is what politics is all about and I have no doubt that she could translate this strength into good governance. Many of you need to get over your anti-business tendencies. There is nothing special about the political class before you. 
    yeah, her audience was middle aged housewives. pretty hard to tap into that. people who want to escape the boredom of their daily lives for 60 minutes. how the fuck is that in touch with the average voter or their day to day plight? it's not. it's in touch with fluff and knowing how to market it as something of substance. do you think dr phil or phil donahue would be good as president too just because they had a successful daytime talk show?
    Least sexist guy ever.
    you don't understand basic demographics, do you? it's not sexist to say what a target audience is. it's the same as the simpsons being targeted to males age 18-39. 
    I think maybe the sexist part might come in for him when you talk about  "middle aged housewives escaping the boredom of their daily lives" by engaging in "fluff", lol. That was quite a burn for "middle aged housewives". Now, I didn't find that sexist, but I did still find it somewhat offensive on behalf of housewives, and FWIW, almost everyone I know who ever watched Oprah or who admires her are not and were not bored middle aged housewives, although most of them are indeed female or gay. But whatever. Anyway, Oprah definitely has a niche - a pretty fucking huge one, but a niche all the same. That said, if it were Oprah vs Trump, I feel pretty certain that Oprah would win it, even if there is a demographic she appeals to most. It's not like only "bored middle aged housewives" would be voting for her. Also, not that I like her or support her running, but she's done a hell of a lot more than Dr Phil or Donahue has, and much, much more than host a talk show.
    I also enjoy my fair share of fluff that helps me escape from the boredom/monotony of my daily life. that pretty much covers any form of entertainment whatsoever. It wasn't a knock on those women at all. it's just who they are. if you looked at the demographics, it was not women arriving home from work to watch her show. It is women who are home during the day, and I highly doubt it was women in their 20's or even their 30's. that's just the demographic. 

    but some people need to get all huffy about something in a sad attempt to try to discredit the person saying it. 
    .... I feel like you've been a bit huffy lately yourself. Everything okay?

    You may doubt it was women in their 20s and 30s, but as a women who was in her 20s and 30s during Oprah's heyday, I can guarantee you that it was women of pretty much all ages, and women in their 20s were bananas for her. Did you know it aired again later in the day in a lot of places to all the people who worked in the day could watch it? And a lot of people recorded it, or just really enjoyed it on their days off or when they were sick or whatever. Oprah had a massive female demographic when her show was on top. Even I, who never even liked her, ended up watching the fucking thing on occasion, starting when I was a teenager.
    fine. i don't really care what her real demographic was. my point was the comment i made was not sexist in the slightest, and merely stating an opinion on the people that watched her show, and calling me sexist was a weak attempt at a deflection. that was it. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,004
    I watched Oprah's show in the past.  I thought it was cool.  Dig this:



    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.