By Method Go To PostWhy?It would confirm that the Dems' only idea to oppose Trumpism/Conservatism is to ride the charisma of a presidential candidate, likely without any significant change in platform from 2016. Without an Obama/Oprah/Bill Clinton they've shown themselves to be incapable of articulating a compelling vision for America. And the compromises of an Obama/Clinton would again manifest themselves in an Oprah presidency imo. More interested in appearances than in structural changes to the way society works.
Universal healthcare, marijuana legalization, free public college, and lots of other popular proposals are just sitting there collecting dust, and the supposedly progressive party doesn't appear to be interested in pushing for them. They're cowards who are hoping the unpopularity of Trump will hand them control by default. Then when they do jack shit with any power they stumble into, they'll wonder why Republicans get elected again.
By Kibner Go To PostProbably neither would be a good candidate. I'm not sure there exists a good candidate.
Her history as a DA doesn't bother me. Shocker ... DA wants to keep people behind bars that were already behind bars. More over, you're going to be hard pressed to find someone with an impeccable record for a hard left liberal from someone who's a DA.
I mean she may not be a good candidate in the end when compared to the rest of the deck we're handed, but I would still vote for her 100 time out of 100 times compared to some rich and famous TV celeb.
I would like to vote for Gillibrand, honestly.
If a rich and famous TV celeb will push progressive policy and defer to her betters on international issues then I'm good with that
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostIf a rich and famous TV celeb will push progressive policy and defer to her betters on international issues then I'm good with that
Populism got us Trump. F that noise. We as a people should be better and if we're not we deserve what we get. Moreover ... I like the concept of having an educated person who understands foreign relations as an opposing voice among the military "betters".
Voting for a business person has to be the dumbest fucking thing ever. They’re interested in making more money for themselves, not anyone else.
By RobNBanks Go To PostVoting for a business person has to be the dumbest fucking thing ever. They’re interested in making more money for themselves, not anyone else.
YES!
I said this last page and it needs to be emphasized. We damn near fetishize business acumen. Providing a healthy market for business is only ONE aspect of a presidency and making money isn't what our government is supposed to do.
We need someone to say ... "hey this may slow GDP growth a teency bit, but it will be good for our people overall."
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostIf a rich and famous TV celeb will push progressive policy and defer to her betters on international issues then I'm good with thatThe status quo in American society since Reagan has massively benefitted people like Oprah to the detriment of nearly everyone else.
How much do you really expect her to change things? The problem isn't ineffective leadership, it's that Democrats are incapable of naming the problems we face.
By KingGondo Go To PostThe status quo in American society since Reagan has massively benefitted people like Oprah to the detriment of nearly everyone else.
At least her gusts get some of that trickle down lol
I think Warren Buffet has shown a greater understanding at needing a tax bracket overhaul
By GQman2121 Go To PostShe's not going to run so I hope this little news bumps dies out by this time tomorrow.http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/08/media/oprah-golden-globes/index.html
Sources: Oprah Winfrey 'actively thinking' about running for president
Oprah Winfrey is "actively thinking" about running for president, two of her close friends told CNN Monday.
The two friends, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, talked in the wake of Winfrey's extraordinary speech at the Golden Globes Sunday night, which spurred chatter about a 2020 run.
Some of Winfrey's confidants have been privately urging her to run, the sources said.
One of the sources said these conversations date back several months. The person emphasized that Winfrey has not made up her mind about running.
A representative for Winfrey did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Democratic race for president won't officially begin until after the 2018 midterms, but many potential candidates are already jostling for position and making trips to Iowa.
"President Winfrey" was the talk of the entertainment world after Winfrey accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes. And the "Oprah for president?" possibility was a top story on morning TV.
Oprah will completely ruin her brand even worse than Hillary did.
You can just go ahead and mark her with the 'L' already.
You can just go ahead and mark her with the 'L' already.
The Clinton Foundation has more shit attached to it than a dog park.
What has Oprah done exactly that would get her booed out of a country?
What has Oprah done exactly that would get her booed out of a country?
By DY_nasty Go To PostThe Clinton Foundation has more shit attached to it than a dog park.Right?! only dog whistle against oprah is "quack scientists on her show."
What has Oprah done exactly that would get her booed out of a country?
That's all they fuckin got against her...
I still think Sherrod Brown is the best compromise candidate between establishment and progressives.
Too bad he won't run tho.
Too bad he won't run tho.
By DY_nasty Go To PostThe Clinton Foundation has more shit attached to it than a dog park.
What has Oprah done exactly that would get her booed out of a country?
The moderate Democrat has had that constant problem of being too concerned with being "everything to everyone", a.k.a. that "lover not a fighter" syndrome.
That problem is only going to be magnified by Oprah having a literal brand to peddle.
Last we checked, her financials aren't fucked and she's not beholden to Cypriot bankers or whatever, so she's not just going to play Russian roulette for the fuck of it.
So when she runs and fails to galvanize a base, she will be blamed for getting Trump re-elected. That's not going to be a good look for anybody, and Jay-Z gonna be licking at the chomps to turn Beyonce into the new Oprah.
By Smokey Go To Post2/3 last presidents would be black if Oprah ran and won?
Nope . America won't stand for it.
Not just black. If the checkout line tabloid headlines weren't lying to me all these years, a black lesbian.
I kind of really want to see Oprah vs. Fox News.
if we're going to be honest--Bernie out here grinding like a motherfucker and has a built in group of fanatics ready to canvas for him
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postif we're going to be honest–Bernie out here grinding like a motherfucker and has a built in group of fanatics ready to canvas for him
He'll be 80.
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postif we're going to be honest–Bernie out here grinding like a motherfucker and has a built in group of fanatics ready to canvas for himI'ma be at the top o' dat list, homie. Gonna hit up Wisconsin Ave. and the rest of Georgetown like a mutha'fucka. 'Cuz you know those are the only safe places out here.
By Smokey Go To PostHe'll be 80.
and he doesn't give a shit lol--look how hard he out here workin
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postand he doesn't give a shit lol–look how hard he out here workin
He'd be almost 90 assuming he saw all 8 yrs.
idk
The closest corollary to an Oprah presidency would probably be another Obama presidency. I don't think Oprah is nearly as well-liked as Obama is/was though. And let's say she's as effective as Obama: look how easily most of his signature accomplishments have been dismantled or undone within one year of the Trump presidency.
I just don't get how anyone could support her when she has basically no known policy stances or experience at all.
Her involvement in the Zuck/Booker Newark school funding, her comments about the differences between South Africa and inner-city USA... I smell a lot of neoliberal on her. Many in the Dem Party itself will be all about her candidacy though.
I just don't get how anyone could support her when she has basically no known policy stances or experience at all.
Her involvement in the Zuck/Booker Newark school funding, her comments about the differences between South Africa and inner-city USA... I smell a lot of neoliberal on her. Many in the Dem Party itself will be all about her candidacy though.
By KingGondo Go To PostI smell a lot of neoliberal on her.I was linked the perfect article to reinforce your viewpoints!
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/may/09/oprah-winfrey-neoliberal-capitalist-thinkers
Spicer suggested Winfrey might have problems because of her inexperience in the political arena.
“She doesn’t have the political infrastructure,” Spicer said. “And we’ve seen this before in our history — where people who have tried to pop in who are not in politics and have had a difficult time adjusting.”
Honestly I think that when I start canvas'ing for whomever Bernie endorses, I'm gonna subscribe to the Steve Bannon playbook and steal all the Breitbart vocabulary and start calling all the neoliberals "cucks". Hey, it worked for the alt-right, didn't it?
All I know is it doesn't smell like strippers' panties. (You gotta say shit like that to win Trump voters.)
By KingGondo Go To PostThe closest corollary to an Oprah presidency would probably be another Obama presidency. I don't think Oprah is nearly as well-liked as Obama is/was though. And let's say she's as effective as Obama: look how easily most of his signature accomplishments have been dismantled or undone within one year of the Trump presidency.I don't know what neoliberal is in this context
I just don't get how anyone could support her when she has basically no known policy stances or experience at all.
Her involvement in the Zuck/Booker Newark school funding, her comments about the differences between South Africa and inner-city USA… I smell a lot of neoliberal on her. Many in the Dem Party itself will be all about her candidacy though.
Also, Oprah was bigger than Obama right up until he beat out Hillary imo
Also lol @ known policy. We been off that.
I find the term Neoliberal to be about as useful as a sack of shit. It's become a meaningless insult to describe someone who isn't a full blown social democrat. You're for free trade?!?!?! NEOLIBERAL SHILL!!!!!
I was once called a neoliberal shill for implying austerity is a tool to be used conditionally just like fiscal expansion. If you're at full employment and interest rates are starting to climb, a little reduction in spending would be good. Austerity was used incorrectly in Europe after 2008 when they should have been doing fiscal expansion just like the US.
If you're not calling for the reduction of the welfare state and calling for massive deregulation of the markets, I have a hard time considering you a "neo liberal"
Everything must be black and white regardless of the shade of Grey.
I was once called a neoliberal shill for implying austerity is a tool to be used conditionally just like fiscal expansion. If you're at full employment and interest rates are starting to climb, a little reduction in spending would be good. Austerity was used incorrectly in Europe after 2008 when they should have been doing fiscal expansion just like the US.
If you're not calling for the reduction of the welfare state and calling for massive deregulation of the markets, I have a hard time considering you a "neo liberal"
Everything must be black and white regardless of the shade of Grey.
By DY_nasty Go To PostI mean I'm kinda okay with letting ppl define it before shutting it down lol
That it has to be defined is the issue. It's become a platitude and not something with actual meaning. Once upon a time I could have called someone that and it would have meant something. Now I gotta suss out what the person means when they use it.
It's become the left's version of the word "cuck"
Sorry for my ignorance but what's the point of having borders if you're for free trade? Might as well be for free movement of people too, as trade is just an extension of the people who have to participate in it, innit?
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostSorry for my ignorance but what's the point of having borders if you're for free trade? Might as well be for free movement of people too, as trade is just an extension of the people who have to participate in it, innit?
Free borders is the smart choice, economically. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who disagrees and this spans across multiple schools of thought.
Like just google "Economist Open Borders" and you'll have about a billion relevant links. It's not politically feasible though. Most people don't undersand the economics of it and find open borders to be something to fear economically. Open borders also upset the more nationalist / racist members of society. There are some legitimate concerns regarding security too. Economically though ...
I'll never be a fan of open borders.
You either enable mega corporations to fuck the world an entirely new scale or truly believe that governments won't rewrite the book on slavery.
You either enable mega corporations to fuck the world an entirely new scale or truly believe that governments won't rewrite the book on slavery.
Neoliberal as I understand it and use it: someone in favor of a the general trend since Thatcher/Reagan of deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics.
A mainstream US liberal, basically.
A mainstream US liberal, basically.
By KingGondo Go To PostNeoliberal as I understand it and use it: someone in favor of a the general trend since Thatcher/Reagan of deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics.Oprah fits into that how?
A mainstream US liberal, basically.
Dealing with Zuck doesn't in any way place you into a laissez-faire or privatization box. The South Africa stuff... we hear much more off the wall shit from lifelong politicians too.
I'm just not getting it as you're laying it out. Maybe I'm missing something.
By KingGondo Go To PostNeoliberal as I understand it and use it: someone in favor of a the general trend since Thatcher/Reagan of deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics.You have a pretty myopic (maybe even twisted) view of today's landscape. I'd say that might've been true in late 90s up to mid-2000s but to throw out those terms and say "mainstream liberal" is pretty fucking hilarious.
A mainstream US liberal, basically.
What Dem has been for Austerity and Laissez Faire Economics in the last decade? Do you think Austerity is always "neo lib"
A dem who's for interventionism is actually a Neocon, not a neo liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Deregulation can be good or bad depending on what you're deregulating and how much regulation was there first. Was the regulation superfluous or redundant?
Democrats aren't "neo liberals". The terms actually more closely reflects those that think parallel with groups like the Heritage Foundation.
Like I said ... it's a terms that means "you're not pure democratic socialist so I'm going to put you in this blanket statement category"
It's the lefts version of "cuck"
A dem who's for interventionism is actually a Neocon, not a neo liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Deregulation can be good or bad depending on what you're deregulating and how much regulation was there first. Was the regulation superfluous or redundant?
Democrats aren't "neo liberals". The terms actually more closely reflects those that think parallel with groups like the Heritage Foundation.
Like I said ... it's a terms that means "you're not pure democratic socialist so I'm going to put you in this blanket statement category"
It's the lefts version of "cuck"
By KingGondo Go To PostNeoliberal as I understand it and use it: someone in favor of a the general trend since Thatcher/Reagan of deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics.The great neoliiberal enemy Ezra Klein and his ilk believe none of these things.
A mainstream US liberal, basically.
Ron Wyden -- a "mainstream liberal" -- is most definitely a guy I would describe as being all about deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics in Alternative Universe ∑.
Neoliberals --- and by extension "mainstream liberals" --- are basically goons who aren't hurt by Republicans being in office like everybody else is hurt by Republicans being in office.
Neoliberals and mainstream liberals, conflated together, are basically privileged Democrats. Congrats on the privileges of surviving without universal healthcare, brehs.
Neoliberals and mainstream liberals, conflated together, are basically privileged Democrats. Congrats on the privileges of surviving without universal healthcare, brehs.
neoliberal
new-liberal
this just means liberals who were either a) born recently or b) converted recently
stop arguing lads
new-liberal
this just means liberals who were either a) born recently or b) converted recently
stop arguing lads
By DY_nasty Go To PostI never know what the Fuck you're actually talking about lolI think he uses a random post generator
By DY_nasty Go To PostI'll never be a fan of open borders.
You either enable mega corporations to fuck the world an entirely new scale or truly believe that governments won't rewrite the book on slavery.
MEhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you're so far off into pessimism land ....
https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724907-yes-it-would-be-disruptive-potential-gains-are-so-vast-objectors-could-be-bribed
Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.
“Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.
“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.
You can't exploit that poor person making shoes in Cambodia if they can move to somewhere where they will be exploited less. It's actually a counter measure to the negative effects of globalization.
Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.
There's lots more on this.
Ron Wyden is definitely one of the least mainstream of liberals, by the way. He's so different from the rest of the mold. He actually has a spine, for one.