Oprah Winfrey “our future president”

Shaun-Mullins's picture
Rank: Gorilla | banana points 745

................................................................................................................................

Private Equity Interview Course

  • 2,447 questions across 203 private equity funds. Crowdsourced from over 500,000 mem.
  • 9 Detailed LBO Modeling Tests and 15+ hours of video solutions.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring private equity professionals just like you.

Comments (104)

Best Response
Jan 8, 2018

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

    • 19
    • 31
Jan 8, 2018
ThaJuice:

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

I like Oprah a lot and have a ton of respect for her. Is she smarter than Trump? Yes. But ultimately, we vote for the person who we believe will implement the policies and vision that we support, not necessarily the smartest and most knowledgeable person.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

He misled his voters about what he would do as president. The agenda he has pursued in office is largely different than the one he ran and got elected on.

    • 5
Jan 8, 2018
ThaJuice:

He misled his voters about what he would do as president. The agenda he has pursued in office is largely different than the one he ran and got elected on.

I sort of agree. His policies have been WAAAAY better than I thought they were going to be. His behavior? Maybe a little worse than I honestly expected.

Jan 8, 2018

A little worse? You must've set an extremely low bar, dude just tweeted out over the weekend that he is a "very stable genius" - lmao.

    • 5
    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 8, 2018

It's because I expected bad behavior from Trump already. His behavior has been even worse than my low expectations.

Jan 9, 2018
ThaJuice:

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

True. But so is my 3 year old niece. That's not saying much.

I personally don't think Oprah is tough enough for the job and I don't want to see one amateur replace another

Jan 10, 2018

You sir win the award for "Best liked and Disliked comment".

Absolute truths don't exist... celebrated opinions do.

Jan 8, 2018

........................................................

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
Shaun-Mullins:

I'd rather write in a WSO Chimp than check her box.

I'd like to do a lot more than just check her box. Yeah, I said it.

    • 7
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Oprah is definitely on the "no pull-out" list.

Jan 8, 2018

Her net worth is estimated to be ~$3B, so yeah.. Can't pretend I wouldn't consider an early retirement.

Jan 8, 2018
design:

Oprah is definitely on the "no pull-out" list.

The beauty of Oprah and her big 'ol billionaire titties is that you're not getting her old ass pregnant. I assume you were hoping to be a baby daddy to get $$$$, unfortunately you will just have to be satisfied by banging the largest tittied self made billionaire on the planet. Given the prevalence of junior high school students here on WSO, I hope you understand why I have to point this out. The obvious is not always obvious.

If you have a dick, you have probably wanted to fuck as many different 'types' of chicks as you can. It doesn't get much different than a self-made billionaire with DD+ tits. That's on every good bucket list and is only fufilled by Steadman and (hopefully) me.

I'm going to be as real as I can here: I've wanted to bang Oprah for at least 20 years.....while she was nowhere near worth a billion dollars. Yeah, I wanted to bang Cindy Crawford more back then, but, not by much. That's saying a lot. Oprah was kind of fat (okay, maybe really fat, sometimes) and I wanted to bang her almost as much as one of the objectively hottest women on the planet.

I'm pretty sure Oprah's pussy tastes like pure honey. If I get the chance to try it, I will be sure to let everyone here know. I'm not above kissing and telling.

    • 7
    • 2
Jan 12, 2018
DickFuld:
design:

Oprah is definitely on the "no pull-out" list.

The beauty of Oprah and her big 'ol billionaire titties is that you're not getting her old ass pregnant. I assume you were hoping to be a baby daddy to get $$$$, unfortunately you will just have to be satisfied by banging the largest tittied self made billionaire on the planet. Given the prevalence of junior high school students here on WSO, I hope you understand why I have to point this out. The obvious is not always obvious.

If you have a dick, you have probably wanted to fuck as many different 'types' of chicks as you can. It doesn't get much different than a self-made billionaire with DD+ tits. That's on every good bucket list and is only fufilled by Steadman and (hopefully) me.

I'm going to be as real as I can here: I've wanted to bang Oprah for at least 20 years.....while she was nowhere near worth a billion dollars. Yeah, I wanted to bang Cindy Crawford more back then, but, not by much. That's saying a lot. Oprah was kind of fat (okay, maybe really fat, sometimes) and I wanted to bang her almost as much as one of the objectively hottest women on the planet.

I'm pretty sure Oprah's pussy tastes like pure honey. If I get the chance to try it, I will be sure to let everyone here know. I'm not above kissing and telling.

as Camila Cabello says... 'OMG'

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Jan 8, 2018
DickFuld:
Shaun-Mullins:

I'd rather write in a WSO Chimp than check her box.

I'd like to do a lot more than just check her box. Yeah, I said it.

Also, this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oprah-respo...
"When Terrence Howard sat down for an interview on his latest film Dead Man Down, no one expected him to ardently profess his love for a certain body part of Oprah Winfrey's, but the talk show queen doesn't seem to mind the attention her girls are getting.

"I do have big breasteses." Winfrey told Steve Harvey while appearing on his own talk show to discuss her forthcoming film The Butler, which co-stars Howard and is from director Lee Daniels.

Howard praised Winfrey when talking about the film with Movie Fanatic and was more than pleased that he got the chance to romance her. "To be able to make out with Oprah and to have love scenes with her and those tig ol' bitties... I mean she's very, very, very beautiful," he cheekily admitted."

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

The scary thing is that she could 100% win.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Well, it's this type of attitude that makes the idea so compelling to the huge block of whites that voted for Obama.

Jan 8, 2018

You mean the same people who voted for Trump?

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
LReed:

The scary thing is that she could 100% win.

'could', '100%'

somehow this doesn't add up

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

Jan 8, 2018
Isaiah_53_5:
LReed:

The scary thing is that she could 100% win.

'could', '100%'

somehow this doesn't add up

I'm gonna kick your ass, little boy

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

If she gives me a free car i would be down

Jan 8, 2018

God I hope she does not run. What a nightmare that would be. She peddled psuedscience for decades on her show. Nice lady, good philanthropist but stay the hell away from the oval office.

    • 3
Jan 8, 2018
DeepLearning:

God I hope she does not run. What a nightmare that would be. She peddled psuedscience for decades on her show. Nice lady, good philanthropist but stay the hell away from the oval office.

Wasn't she also super cozy with Harvey Weinstein? How much did she know about his behavior? If she did know, why did she stay silent?

Jan 8, 2018
Rufus1234:
DeepLearning:

God I hope she does not run. What a nightmare that would be. She peddled psuedscience for decades on her show. Nice lady, good philanthropist but stay the hell away from the oval office.

Wasn't she also super cozy with Harvey Weinstein? How much did she know about his behavior? If she did know, why did she stay silent?

This is exactly why I (as if I ever had a chance) would never run for a major political office, let alone president. A person can be popular and well liked until he or she endures 6 months of brutal negative advertising that delves into--and often manipulates--events and associations throughout one's life. Just not worth it.

Jan 8, 2018

It rarely works this way where the person who is being hyped years in advance ends up winning a major party nomination, Hillary Clinton being a rare exception as the DNC was literally (not even figuratively) working for her. Just looking to recent history:

  • GOP

Trump: no, Romney: maybe, but not really; McCain: no; W Bush: no; Dole: yes, more or less; HW Bush: yes; Reagan: no.

  • Dems

Clinton: yes; Obama: no; Kerry: no; Gore: yes; Bill Clinton: no; Dukakis: no

In the cases where a candidate was a foregone conclusion, in each case they were major elected officials.

In other words, we are so far out right now that there really can be no front runner for the Dem nomination at this juncture.

Jan 8, 2018

Ignoring the obvious "Planet of the Apes" troll, I'd vote for her over Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or The Donald.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Ignoring the obvious "Planet of the Apes" troll, I'd vote for her over Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or The Donald.

If someone put a gun to my baby nephew and told me I had to vote for either Oprah, Kamala, Warren, Bernie, I would go with Oprah. I love her self-made story, her intelligence, savvy, and work ethic. She is pretty liberal, so her policies will suck, but I like her as a person. I cannot say the same for the others.

Jan 8, 2018
ThaJuice:

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

I like Oprah a lot and have a ton of respect for her. Is she smarter than Trump? Yes. But ultimately, we vote for the person who we believe will implement the policies and vision that we support, not necessarily the smartest and most knowledgeable person.

I'm pretty sure this was the first time in American history that a major broadcast network explicitly endorsed someone for the Presidency even before he/she announced the candidacy.

I saw "The Post" this weekend, a stunning movie. It reminded me of how far the media has fallen. Back then, although the reporters were liberal, they took their jobs seriously as guardians of the truth, giving accurate objective news to the public. They were unafraid to criticize Democrats and Republicans alike. Now, the media is a farce; they have become glorified political pundits, explicitly waging a war against the current President after giving the previous President a pass for 8 years, worshipping him as a messianic figure. The media has reported countless inaccurate and downright hysterical stories regarding the current President. It's truly shameful.

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
Rufus1234:
ThaJuice:

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

I like Oprah a lot and have a ton of respect for her. Is she smarter than Trump? Yes. But ultimately, we vote for the person who we believe will implement the policies and vision that we support, not necessarily the smartest and most knowledgeable person.

I'm pretty sure this was the first time in American history that a major broadcast network explicitly endorsed someone for the Presidency even before he/she announced the candidacy.

I saw "The Post" this weekend, a stunning movie. It reminded me of how far the media has fallen. Back then, although the reporters were liberal, they took their jobs seriously as guardians of the truth, giving accurate objective news to the public. They were unafraid to criticize Democrats and Republicans alike. Now, the media is a farce; they have become glorified political pundits, explicitly waging a war against the current President after giving the previous President a pass for 8 years, worshipping him as a messianic figure. The media has reported countless inaccurate and downright hysterical stories regarding the current President. It's truly shameful.

NBC

@nbc
Yesterday a tweet about the Golden Globes and Oprah Winfrey was sent by a third party agency for NBC Entertainment in real time during the broadcast. It is in reference to a joke made during the monologue and not meant to be a political statement. We have since removed the tweet.

Jan 8, 2018
Rufus1234:
ThaJuice:

She is more qualified and fit for the office than Trump so....

I like Oprah a lot and have a ton of respect for her. Is she smarter than Trump? Yes. But ultimately, we vote for the person who we believe will implement the policies and vision that we support, not necessarily the smartest and most knowledgeable person.

I'm pretty sure this was the first time in American history that a major broadcast network explicitly endorsed someone for the Presidency even before he/she announced the candidacy.

I saw "The Post" this weekend, a stunning movie. It reminded me of how far the media has fallen. Back then, although the reporters were liberal, they took their jobs seriously as guardians of the truth, giving accurate objective news to the public. They were unafraid to criticize Democrats and Republicans alike. Now, the media is a farce; they have become glorified political pundits, explicitly waging a war against the current President after giving the previous President a pass for 8 years, worshipping him as a messianic figure. The media has reported countless inaccurate and downright hysterical stories regarding the current President. It's truly shameful.

Love, honor, beauty has been replaced by power and greed. These are just things our society has come to value.

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

This narrative presenting most news organizations as lacking journalistic integrity just isn't representative of the truth. The media as a whole has some issues but you're grossly overstating the amount of inaccurate and hysterical Trump stories. While most major orgs are imperfect they do have standards. It is also important to understand that being fair is not the same thing as being objective. Trump is objectively worse than other presidents by every metric. Trump objectively lies more than other presidents. So the notion that Trump should be covered like other presidents is just absurd. You can not be objective and pretend that his administration is anything but chaotic, incompetent, abnormal, and honestly dangerous....and empirically so. Other presidents may have been wrong but they were at least respectful of the office and thoughtful in action. Trump is reckless in speech and action. That recklessness combined with an inability to understand details and complex issues makes him worthy of negative coverage. That is without mentioning his obvious narcissism, shitty management style, and constant disrespect/mistreatment of others.

    • 9
    • 4
Jan 8, 2018
ThaJuice:

This narrative presenting most news organizations as lacking journalistic integrity just isn't representative of the truth. The media as a whole has some issues but you're grossly overstating the amount of inaccurate and hysterical Trump stories. While most major orgs are imperfect they do have standards. It is also important to understand that being fair is not the same thing as being objective. Trump is objectively worse than other presidents by every metric. Trump objectively lies more than other presidents. So the notion that Trump should be covered like other presidents is just absurd. You can not be objective and pretend that his administration is anything but chaotic, incompetent, abnormal, and honestly dangerous....and empirically so. Other presidents may have been wrong but they were at least respectful of the office and thoughtful in action. Trump is reckless in speech and action. That recklessness combined with an inability to understand details and complex issues makes him worthy of negative coverage. That is without mentioning his obvious narcissism, shitty management style, and constant disrespect/mistreatment of others.

What Nixon did was significantly worse than Trump, as Nixon actively tried to cover up a federal crime and committed obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton also committed perjury and obstruction of justice by lying to a grand jury. Trump has done neither. To say that he is objectively the worst POTUS, displays a shocking ignorance of American history.

The media is not supposed to take partisan sides. They should report the news as accurately as possible, regardless of whether it will make a certain politician or party look bad.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Nixon is worse. There are some very troubling things concerning the Trump campaign/administrations dealings with Russian operatives.

He is objectively one of the worst POTUS in modern history. Harming US world standing, setting dangerous precedents, administrating poorly, and poorly legislating. There are long-term consequences to pursuing regressive policies, maintaining a severely under staffed government, and harming global confidence in the US as well as US leadership. The Trump administration combined with an increasingly reckless congress is leading to an increase in the rate of rot. I'm referring to congress over the last 20 yrs or so.

Agree completely. But the partisanship that people claim exists within the major media outlets is overstated. Major media (mostly tv media) is obsessed with sensationalism and the appearance of being fair. ie CNN always having to represent both sides of every issue even if one side is clearly absurd. People perceive more partisanship than actually exists. Negative coverage is far too often associated with partisanship even if it isn't. both sides do that. Not saying there isn't some partisanship just think its overstated relative to other factors that exist.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
ThaJuice:

This narrative presenting most news organizations as lacking journalistic integrity just isn't representative of the truth. The media as a whole has some issues but you're grossly overstating the amount of inaccurate and hysterical Trump stories. While most major orgs are imperfect they do have standards. It is also important to understand that being fair is not the same thing as being objective. Trump is objectively worse than other presidents by every metric. Trump objectively lies more than other presidents. So the notion that Trump should be covered like other presidents is just absurd. You can not be objective and pretend that his administration is anything but chaotic, incompetent, abnormal, and honestly dangerous....and empirically so. Other presidents may have been wrong but they were at least respectful of the office and thoughtful in action. Trump is reckless in speech and action. That recklessness combined with an inability to understand details and complex issues makes him worthy of negative coverage. That is without mentioning his obvious narcissism, shitty management style, and constant disrespect/mistreatment of others.

I sort of agree in some respect, but the amount of focus on him personally is ridiculous. Swipe left on your iPhone to the news section and 2 out of 3 articles are anti-Trump articles (the other one is covering some other topic). I think a study found that something like 96% of press Trump coverage has been negative. 96%? Seriously? Even if you hate Trump, half the country likes his policies. Do they not actually cover policies anymore?

Even if 96% is an exaggeration, Pew Research says it's 62-5%. 5%? Seriously?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trum...

Jan 8, 2018

Policies don't get clicks and views bro. For people who love business, you guys sure don't want media companies to run a business. His inane tweets and generally terrible behavior gets alot of clicks and views tho. So does conservative hyperboly about the fake news media/ deep state conspiracies etc.

Jan 8, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Policies don't get clicks and views bro. For people who love business, you guys sure don't want media companies to run a business. His inane tweets and generally terrible behavior gets alot of clicks and views tho. So does conservative hyperboly about the fake news media/ deep state conspiracies etc.

Yeah, but I go to the gym--I watch CNN. Even is policies, which are popular with 40-60% of the population (depending on the policy), are pilloried in the rare instances they are covered. They cannot help themselves. Thajuice is basically implying that the media aren't biased because Trump is bad, but they can't even cover his policies, which are mainstream conservative, with balance. 5% positive coverage? 5?

Jan 8, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:
BobTheBaker:

Policies don't get clicks and views bro. For people who love business, you guys sure don't want media companies to run a business. His inane tweets and generally terrible behavior gets alot of clicks and views tho. So does conservative hyperboly about the fake news media/ deep state conspiracies etc.

Yeah, but I go to the gym--I watch CNN. Even is policies, which are popular with 40-60% of the population (depending on the policy), are pilloried in the rare instances they are covered. They cannot help themselves. Thajuice is basically implying that the media aren't biased because Trump is bad, but they can't even cover his policies, which are mainstream conservative, with balance. 5% positive coverage? 5?

It's one thing if they can cover Trump's policies accurately. They can't even do that, resorting instead to hyperbole. For instance, they inaccurately characterized Trump's travel ban as a "Muslim ban" even though religion is not mentioned once in the executive order, those countries were selected for security reasons, and the order applies to people of all religious backgrounds from those countries.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

lmao chill with the travel ban bullshit, it could be fairly characterized as a muslim ban based on Trump's campaign statements, don't be ridiculous. They're all like 90%+ majority muslim countries, he even initially included a religious minority exception (ie. non-muslims since they are majority muslim countries) in the order.

    • 3
Jan 8, 2018

What news? It doesn't even exist, it is purely opinion. No one actually wants news, they just want people to agree with them. This is why Fox is successful, instead of going after the same demographic that your competition is they went after a new market. There are legit small youtube news shows that get more views on a regual basis then Megan Kelly does on NBC.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 10, 2018

I agree. It's just sad to see that every single news organization outside of fox beligerently makes articles about their dislike of Trump. They don't even try to hide their bias anymore. I don't even like Fox, but CNN, Washington Post, etc. have become straight up liberal propagandist platforms so I don't read or watch their stuff anymore. The media in our country is tearing us all apart.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 8, 2018

I would rather have two business leaders face off in the presidential election than two politicians.

"If you're afraid - don't do it, if you're doing it - don't be afraid!"
-- Genghis Khan

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Rome is burning

Jan 8, 2018

I'm long Oprah via WTW

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

She is just another "everything is fine" candidate. Trump will win easily,

Jan 8, 2018

Setting Oprah aside, Trump is in the driver's seat for re-election--if only he would control his absurd behavior. All he has to do is relinquish control over his goddamn Twitter feed and he would be odds on favorite for re-election. I cannot believe Trump's continued self-infliction of political wounds. It boggles the mind.

Jan 8, 2018

Re: self-inflicted political wounds - not really, he's speaking to his base, who love this stuff. He could care less about those that didn't vote for him.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
m8:

Re: self-inflicted political wounds - not really, he's speaking to his base, who love this stuff. He could care less about those that didn't vote for him.

Yeah, well he's not winning in 2020 with the narrow coalition he built in 2016, which was an electoral non-plurality. If that's his strategy then it's an atrocious strategy.

Jan 8, 2018

I'm not sure how you can call it an atrocious strategy, when he just won on this strategy 1 year ago. Narrow coalition? He won the most counties by a republican since Reagan. And who cares if he lost New York and California, he's never going to win there anyway.

He's doing what he's been doing since he started this whole thing, he isn't going to change.

Jan 8, 2018
m8:

I'm not sure how you can call it an atrocious strategy, when he just won on this strategy 1 year ago. Narrow coalition? He won the most counties by a republican since Reagan. And who cares if he lost New York and California, he's never going to win there anyway.

He's doing what he's been doing since he started this whole thing, he isn't going to change.

I'm not sure if you know this, but 2016 wasn't 2012 wasn't 2008 wasn't 2004 wasn't 2000. Electorates and voting totals changed drastically from election to election. Obama's gigantic win in 2008 turned to just barely enough to squeak by in 2012. Winning one election isn't a guarantee for the next. Trump gets wiped out if he has that kind of 2012 collapse. Trump literally has zero margin for error.

Also, as a conservative, I actually care about policies. It's one thing for Trump to trash himself; it's a whole other thing to those of us who are conservatives to run conservatism through the mud because Trump can't control his goddamn fucking mouth. There's absolutely no rational reason for Trump to be so unpopular other than his terrible behavior, and his popularity rubs off on the rest of the party.

I'm shocked every time I read or hear someone defend Trump's Twitter habits. It really is true that Trump has a floor of support that will be with him if he shoots someone in the streets of New York.

Jan 8, 2018

His Twitter habbits are why he won, people don't even realize how his subtle influence affects them. Take Elizabeth Warren for example she used to be front and center for a potential candidaate. Now she is a joke.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

Thank you... totally agree.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
heister:

His Twitter habbits are why he won, people don't even realize how his subtle influence affects them. Take Elizabeth Warren for example she used to be front and center for a potential candidaate. Now she is a joke.

His Twitter habits are why he's wildly (historically) unpopular. I can't believe you would defend this bullshit! Every time there is a good news cycle for Trump he uses his Twitter platform to make an ass of himself. This new book about Trump would have gotten little traction in the media had Trump not gone on Twitter and ranted about it for days on end.

Jan 8, 2018

I never said it wasn't bad, I said it is effective and it is why he won. Those are not mutually exclusive realities regardless of how you feel about it.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
heister:

I never said it wasn't bad, I said it is effective and it is why he won. Those are not mutually exclusive realities regardless of how you feel about it.

You think Trump won because of TWITTER? Really? Even if you believe that, it's clear that his 2017/2018 Twitter habits have not been effective in helping his personal popularity or the popularity of the GOP. The immutable truth of politics is that what worked yesterday may not work today or tomorrow.

You fucking people are brainwashed Trump drones. He could literally declare himself God and you'd be like, "Meh."

Jan 8, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:

You think Trump won because of TWITTER? Really? Even if you believe that, it's clear that his 2017/2018 Twitter habits have not been effective in helping his personal popularity or the popularity of the GOP. The immutable truth of politics is that what worked yesterday may not work today or tomorrow.

You fucking people are brainwashed Trump drones. He could literally declare himself God and you'd be like, "Meh."

I'm just glad that BobTheBaker, the website's resident "liberal BLM guy" (not how I would describe myself but what I believe has become my label) wasn't the one that had to say this. It's become obvious even to other conservatives.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Aside from the fact that I wouldn't care if he did declare himself God that retort is not an actual response to what I said. You refuse analyze this from a rational point of view. Your bias is clouding your ability to read what I am saying and respond to it in a manner that shows you know how to critically read.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

Is no one going to address the elephant in the room? It has become painstakingly obvious that the democrats foremost caters to non-whites and indoctrinated liberals filled with white guilty.

    • 5
    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

It has become painstakingly obvious that the republicans foremost cater to whites and the financially well-off. The fuck is your point bro? I love how people act like identity politics are something new, politicians have been doing that shit for generations and because people coined a new word it's become something new lmao. If you prefer the policies of the dems then vote for them, if you prefer the policies of the conservatives then vote for them. That simple.

    • 3
    • 3
Jan 8, 2018

No, not really. My point is, BRUH. Whites in general are a lot less in-group bais than e.g. blacks. Whites thus have a greater adherence to meritocracy, objectivism and similar virtues. While blacks - as evident by Obama and Winfrey - need to be persuaded by a black candidate in order to even consider to vote.
More importantly, you need to view politics from a metapolitical perspective.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

Ugh, why did I bother to take you seriously? Let me respond BRUH (lol).

"Whites in general are a lot less in-group bais than e.g. blacks."

When you've gone through generations of opression you tend to band together and look at stuff as "us" vs "them". In this context, there is no surprise that black people display more group bias than whites. With that said, while blacks generally want to help and love other blacks, this doesn't mean they hate non-blacks. There is alot of hate of non-whites among whites, just look at the number of white hate groups vs. other hate groups, I mean look at this "Planet of the Apes" quip.

"Whites thus have a greater adherence to meritocracy, objectivism and similar virtues'

Let's assume I agree with your premise (which I don't). Easy to espouse meritocracy when you've already installed a system in which you've built in advantages. There's a reason whites value SAT test scores more when compared to blacks than asians, in other words they want test score meritocracy where they have the percieved advantage (generally higher than blacks) but want a holistic approach when they have the perceived disadvantage (generally lower scores than asians).

"be persuade by a black candidate in order to when consider to vote"

Voting is mostly correlated to education (blacks are less educated than whites/ asians when looking at attainment of degrees etc., although the gap has been closing for decades). What black person wouldn't be excited at the prospect of a first black president who's also running from the same party they prefer anyway? Makes sense turnout went up. I'd expect the same of the first serious asian candidate for president or the first serious hispanic candidate for president (as long as they're democrats and not republicans).

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Ugh, why did I bother to take you seriously? Let me respond BRUH (lol).

"Whites in general are a lot less in-group bais than e.g. blacks."

When you've gone through generations of opression you tend to band together and look at stuff as "us" vs "them". In this context, there is no surprise that black people display more group bias than whites. With that said, while blacks generally want to help and love other blacks, this doesn't mean they hate non-blacks. There is alot of hate of non-whites among whites, just look at the number of white hate groups vs. other hate groups, I mean look at this "Planet of the Apes" quip.

"Whites thus have a greater adherence to meritocracy, objectivism and similar virtues'

Let's assume I agree with your premise (which I don't). Easy to espouse meritocracy when you've already installed a system in which you've built in advantages. There's a reason whites value SAT test scores more when compared to blacks than asians, in other words they want test score meritocracy where they have the percieved advantage (generally higher than blacks) but want a holistic approach when they have the perceived disadvantage (generally lower scores than asians).

"be persuade by a black candidate in order to when consider to vote"

Voting is mostly correlated to education (blacks are less educated than whites/ asians when looking at attainment of degrees etc., although the gap has been closing for decades). What black person wouldn't be excited at the prospect of a first black president who's also running from the same party they prefer anyway? Makes sense turnout went up. I'd expect the same of the first serious asian candidate for president or the first serious hispanic candidate for president (as long as they're democrats and not republicans).

I actually agree more with BobTheBaker on this exchange. Politically, blacks are monolithic due to the unique legacy of slavery and segregation and the fact that a Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Blacks used to vote Republican due to Lincoln and the Democrats being the party of slavery. FDR in 1936 was the first Democrat to win the black vote because the New Deal put a lot of blacks back to work in the midst of the Great Depression. A Republican has not won the black vote since. But until 1964, the gap was not as nearly as lopsided as it is now. For instance, Eisenhower got around 40% of the black vote, and Nixon in 1960 got 32%. The turning point was in 1964 when GOP nominee Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act, and the GOP share of the black vote plunged to 6%. The legendary Jackie Robinson was a lifelong Republican but endorsed LBJ in 1964 and voted for Democrats until his death, due to the party's stance on civil rights. I do wish the GOP did better with blacks, but I just don't see a feasible reality where a GOP presidential candidate gets higher than 15-20% of the black vote. In general, blacks are much more in line with the Democrats on policies, due to the party's emphasis on big government programs, wealth redistribution, affirmative action, etc. As a group, whites are wealthier than blacks, and a higher % of them are small business owners, so it makes sense that they would be more open to the GOP's message.

BobTheBaker also has a valid point on affirmative action. Lot of whites oppose affirmative action in principle, but they get uneasy when Asians dominate elite high schools and colleges and complain that it's getting "too Asian" and eroding the school's character and culture. In SF Bay Area, white flight is a common phenomenon, not from blacks but from Asians because their kids can't compete academically with the Asians.

As for the last point, I don't see what's so mysterious about Obama crushing it with the black vote. They vote Democratic anyways, and then you have a smart charismatic black man running for POTUS. Are you shocked that the black vote surged? A more interesting hypo is the following: would blacks vote for a white male Democrat over a black Republican? I'm pretty confident the answer is Yes. So it's not that blacks are obsequiously voting for someone just because they are black but rather they are voting for Democrats, and it so happens that a very high % of blacks are Democrats.

    • 4
Jan 9, 2018

Very concise and accurate historical account. The 1964 election was a watershed moment in terms of the black vote. Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act has had a clear enduring effect and comeuppance on the relationship between black support and the Republican party.

However, it was not just Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act, but much of the conservative thought leadership at that time, including the lauded William Buckley. Albeit, it should be mentioned that Buckley's stance quickly and drastically evolved in the succeeding decades renouncing and reforming much of his earlier views on the matter.

However, to your original point, it's a legacy that time has seemed unable to wash away.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
Schreckstoff:

Very concise and accurate historical account. The 1964 election was a watershed moment in terms of the black vote. Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act has had a clear enduring effect and comeuppance on the relationship between black support and the Republican party.

However, it was not just Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act, but much of the conservative thought leadership at that time, including the lauded William Buckley. Albeit, it should be mentioned that Buckley's stance quickly and drastically evolved in the succeeding decades renouncing and reforming much of his earlier views on the matter.

However, to your original point, it's a legacy that time has seemed unable to wash away.

What's interesting is that around 80% of House and Senate Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a higher % than Democrats. The Southern Democrats were obviously staunchly opposed to it. Goldwater was thus a minority within his party. His opposition was based on federalism and fear of federal government intrusion rather than racism. Goldwater voted for every civil rights bills afterwards, and before he entered politics, he de-segregated his family business. Nonetheless, the Goldwater nomination did a lot of damage to the GOP's standing with blacks, one that we have not recovered from.

Jan 8, 2018

The black vote was solidly Democrat 30 years before the Civil Rights Act. Blacks have voted D for 80 years because they prefer Dem policy/rhetoric on economics.

Jan 8, 2018

.

    • 2
    • 3
Jan 8, 2018
Shaun-Mullins:
BobTheBaker:

Ugh, why did I bother to take you seriously? Let me respond BRUH (lol).

"Whites in general are a lot less in-group bais than e.g. blacks."

When you've gone through generations of opression you tend to band together and look at stuff as "us" vs "them". In this context, there is no surprise that black people display more group bias than whites. With that said, while blacks generally want to help and love other blacks, this doesn't mean they hate non-blacks. There is alot of hate of non-whites among whites, just look at the number of white hate groups vs. other hate groups, I mean look at this "Planet of the Apes" quip.

"Whites thus have a greater adherence to meritocracy, objectivism and similar virtues'

Let's assume I agree with your premise (which I don't). Easy to espouse meritocracy when you've already installed a system in which you've built in advantages. There's a reason whites value SAT test scores more when compared to blacks than asians, in other words they want test score meritocracy where they have the percieved advantage (generally higher than blacks) but want a holistic approach when they have the perceived disadvantage (generally lower scores than asians).

"be persuade by a black candidate in order to when consider to vote"

Voting is mostly correlated to education (blacks are less educated than whites/ asians when looking at attainment of degrees etc., although the gap has been closing for decades). What black person wouldn't be excited at the prospect of a first black president who's also running from the same party they prefer anyway? Makes sense turnout went up. I'd expect the same of the first serious asian candidate for president or the first serious hispanic candidate for president (as long as they're democrats and not republicans).

Please tell me where you work so I can ensure zero of my assets are in your indirect reach.
Dumbest shyt I've ever read on the internet.

@AndyLouis
@WallStreetOasis.com

Are we nominating the worst WSO members of the year yet?

    • 6
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

It's my bad bro, I always seem to feed the trolls.

    • 4
Jan 8, 2018
BobTheBaker:

It's my bad bro, I always seem to feed the trolls.

I wish I could disagree with you. Obviously, as a rational truth telling human being, I can't.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

I'm serious and my concerns are valid, especially since whites will become a minority in the US. And, the freedoms, virtues and ideals which are taken for granted might not survive.

My answer respond both to Rufus1234 and BobTheBaker.

The slavery hypothesis simply doesn't hold true, in order for it to hold true it would only be applicable in US, which it's not. The same in-group preference is seen through the world, regardless of black's history or the situation of the diaspora, in France, Denmark, Belgium, Africa, etcetera. Nor is history by any means hereditary or their trauma anything unique. I'm not blaming blacks for preferencing in-group behaviour but it does create an imbalance if every ethnicity exercise it except for whites. It creates a disadvantage for us. Therefore I hope we'll be more inclined towards it, in the future.

Contrary to your beliefs regarding asians, I have noticed Pat Buchanan and far more right-leaning spectrums (which logical should be most "pro-white") tend to praise asians - east asians - for the academical achievements. The jargong is more similar to "asians are next in line" and discrimination in college admissions than jealousy and belittlement.

Jan 8, 2018

Who said anything about slavery bro bro, I mentioned oppression. Blacks have been oppressed and continue to be hated the world over. As for your "whites becoming a minority" statement, who cares? Blacks are the majority in Brazil (the most Africans by descent outside of Africa reside in Brazil), they are largely the poor and marginalized in that society. Black women literally marry men of a lighter hue and pray that their children come out looking like the man so they get better opportunities in life than they did. As long as whites drive the economic car they will have built in societal advantages.

"Contrary to your beliefs regarding asians, I have noticed Pat Buchanan and far more right-leaning spectrums (which logical should be most "pro-white") tend to praise asians - east asians - for the academical achievements. "

Are you this naive? This doesn't mean they want a true meritocracy, research proves that. They are using Asians as a prop to bolster their bullshit about there being no racism in America and to belittle other minorities who claim such a thing exists. They don't give an actual fuck about Asians. You have to be joking with this post.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 10, 2018

It is true that the most slaves went to Brazil, but they are actually only about 8% of the population there currently, according to World Factbook.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Please link. AFAIK Brazil is a majority black country.

Jan 8, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Please link. AFAIK Brazil is a majority black country.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Br...
Black Brazilians are defined as people who are solely, or mostly, descended from former African slaves, or immigrants. According to the 2010 census, there are 14,517,961 Afro Brazilians, which make up 7.61% of Brazil's population, although a larger number of Brazilians have some degree of African ancestry.[12]

But, also:
Pardos make up 43.13% or 82.3 million people of Brazil's population. Multiracial Brazilians live in the entire territory of Brazil. Although, according to DNA resources, most Brazilians possess some degree of mixed-race ancestry, less than 45% of the country's population classified themselves as being part of this group due to phenotype.[39]

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

Point taken, the idea is that the lighter you are in Brazil, the less marginalized you are in society. And the lightest are typically the societal "elites".

Jan 8, 2018

As I mentioned the reply was made to you and Rufus1234.

So you believe me to be naive while you espouse that pseudointellectual nonsense of there being an unspoken global consensus of oppressing black folks, across all cultures, irrelevant of time - as evident by the Chinese lunar festival. Yes, you're absolutely correct, all white man sits and contemplate whether that black man he met were more of "seal dark" or a "light skin niggah" and thereafter judges his performance.

Simply because a black diaspora can't compete with native population doesn't constitute a system of oppression or similar. It simply means that the black diaspora can't compete with the native population, this is particularly true for academic and intellectual achievements.

Jan 8, 2018

I suspect most of the respondents here have never watched Oprah's show or traveled Trump country. Oprah has managed her brand exceptionally well (ownership, reputation, endorsements) but she's not demonstrated real economic savvy. Her network OWN is still losing money and nearly all wealth gains are related to media syndication and the Weight Watchers stake. She's admitted lacking decision conviction and demonstrated disinterest in significant "black" issues.

I also can't recall president who is unmarried and/or has no children. Subconsciously, voters are skeptical of who diverge so fr from traditional hetero normative standards. I grew up watching Oprah (I was raised by black single mother). She doesn't have the temperament to campaign in red states and would become less likable when shifting from interviewer to interviewee.

    • 3
Jan 8, 2018

Question: why the fuck did you grow up watching Oprah?

Jan 8, 2018

Black mother

Jan 8, 2018

I, too, have a black mother, haven't seen a single episode of Oprah

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Oprah went off the air when you were about 15. I'm 36 and was around for her peak. Some of my family is from Chicago (her home base) and were big fans. Oprah was a prominent figure in black culture. If you missed that, I'd guess you had a non traditional black upbringing.

Anyway, Oprah is bi sexual and was once a prostitute. She don't want that shit coming to the fore.

Jan 8, 2018

Isn't her past already common knowledge though?

Jan 8, 2018
HazelJ:

Black mother

Respect.

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018

As popular as Oprah is her status alone won't propel her to the White House anytime soon. I'm sure if she's serious she'll have time to craft a campaign message but what does she stand for? Is she going to give out free college education, homes, etc like she gives out cars and other prizes (which she isn't paying for out of her own pocket)?

People can hate President Trump all they won but he ran as a candidate for the Reform Party and even in 2016 had a specific goal in mind and a consistent message. He ran because he had serious concerns about the direction of this country and was quite vocal about it.

I haven't heard much from Oprah until now with the #MeToo and I can't see her being taken seriously on the world stage.

By all means the Democrats should run her so President Trump can all but be guaranteed another 4 years.

    • 4
Jan 8, 2018

Oprah KNEW about Harvey Weinstein's abuse of women and so she was covering up for it. She is a hypocrite!

Jan 9, 2018

Fucking libtards and their political fantasies.

    • 3
Jan 9, 2018

It's scary that we're even considering making the celebrity president a habit after the last two

Jan 8, 2018
zanderman:

It's scary that we're even considering making the celebrity president a habit after the last two

True. Mostly Liberals who are lost and don't understand how their beloved HRC could lose to that big meanie.

    • 1
Jan 9, 2018

@TNA what do u think of this

Jan 9, 2018

PT 1

Kamala Harris will be the nomination. Oprah is a fucking joke.

1) Trump is lambasted for being a "reality TV star" - forgetting that he started and continues to be a real estate developer.

2) Trump, like him or hate him, has been involved with politics for a while, ran on a platform that was a combination of Republican and old school Democrat ideals.

3) Has experience as a negotiator and business man. He is also pragmatic and really just wants to make a deal and sign legislation.

Oprah is mainly a TV personality. She is now more business woman, but her evolution is basically the opposite of Trump.

1) What is her platform going to be other than liberal Democrat issues?
2) What is her economic plan?

Oprah also has a lot of issues that will alienate her from woman.

1) No kids
2) Bisexual
3) Prostitution admission when she was younger

So Oprah will effectively get the black vote and NYC and California.

This is a story that is driving the press who wants only to either shit on Trump or stroke fantasies of him losing.

Kamala is 1) educated, 2) experienced, 3) black, 4) a woman, 5) has actual political and policy stances.

Booker is 1) educated, 2) experienced, 3) black, 4) a man (gay?), 5) has actual experience

Who should Dems be focusing on? Yeah, I rest my case.

Jan 8, 2018
TNA:

PT 1

Kamala Harris will be the nomination. Oprah is a fucking joke.

1) Trump is lambasted for being a "reality TV star" - forgetting that he started and continues to be a real estate developer.

2) Trump, like him or hate him, has been involved with politics for a while, ran on a platform that was a combination of Republican and old school Democrat ideals.

3) Has experience as a negotiator and business man. He is also pragmatic and really just wants to make a deal and sign legislation.

Oprah is mainly a TV personality. She is now more business woman, but her evolution is basically the opposite of Trump.

1) What is her platform going to be other than liberal Democrat issues?
2) What is her economic plan?

Oprah also has a lot of issues that will alienate her from woman.

1) No kids
2) Bisexual
3) Prostitution admission when she was younger

So Oprah will effectively get the black vote and NYC and California.

This is a story that is driving the press who wants only to either shit on Trump or stroke fantasies of him losing.

Kamala is 1) educated, 2) experienced, 3) black, 4) a woman, 5) has actual political and policy stances.

Booker is 1) educated, 2) experienced, 3) black, 4) a man (gay?), 5) has actual experience

Who should Dems be focusing on? Yeah, I rest my case.

I respect Oprah for being a self-made black billionaire and for her work ethic and savvy. She's undoubtedly very intelligent. But let's not fool ourselves. She's a diehard liberal Democrat, even moreso than Barry Hussein Obama. When she did talk about policy, it was absurd. For instance, she compared the vicious beating and death of Emmett Till to Trayvon Martin's case.

The Democrats will most likely never nominate a straight white male for the Presidency. They are no longer the party of JFK and Bill Clinton but the party of illegal aliens, radical Muslims, radical SJWs, socialists, and endless identity politics. To them, straight white men are the problem.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 9, 2018

PT 2

Take a look at the following links:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections... https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections...
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections...
Voting by groups - last 3 elections

Trump

Black Vote - 8%
Hispanic -29%

Romney

Black Vote - 6%
Hispanic - 27%

McCain

Black Vote - 4%
Hispanic - 31%

So lets see. Trump got a higher % of the Black vote than Romney and McCain, all while being portrayed as a bigot, KKK member, etc. Trump got higher or the same Hispanic vote when maligned as calling all Mexicans rapists (misquote), build the wall, etc.

Why?

1) Hispanic =/= Mexican
2) Blacks care about jobs and have lower educational attainment and higher low income type job employment than other groups.

So if Trump gets GDP up to 4%. If wages increase. If marginal manufacturing comes back to the US (which lower taxes will help bring jobs on the edge back), if he continues with his policy issues which are largely economic focused, either he will win or another Republican will win.

Liberals freak the fuck out about everything Trump does, but outside of NYC and Cali people just want jobs. And the news ruined themselves to the point people just tune it out.

So instead of pushing Oprah, instead of focusing on Russia, instead of acting like hyperbolic children, Dems should go back to their roots, talk to union works, work to bring jobs back, retrain people, help their old school base and develop an economic plan other than "raise taxes", and then they can win.

None of this will happen as the Democrats (I am shocked as I thought the Tea Party would sabotage the Republicans) have been kidnapped by the fringe right. They are focusing on social issues that matter to San Fran and NYC, but mean nothing to the massive voting blocks of this country.

In conclusion, no one will care, people will win and lose, and all I focus on and you guys should focus on is making money and paying as little to the government as possible. Who gives a fuck. Obama was a shit president and I made more money than ever before. I love Trump and the market might collapse. I am sure someone else will be elected and promise people the sun and the moon and deliver nothing. Oh fucking well.

Jan 8, 2018
TNA:

PT 2

Take a look at the following links:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections... https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections...
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections...
Voting by groups - last 3 elections

Trump

Black Vote - 8%
Hispanic -29%

Romney

Black Vote - 6%
Hispanic - 27%

McCain

Black Vote - 4%
Hispanic - 31%

So lets see. Trump got a higher % of the Black vote than Romney and McCain, all while being portrayed as a bigot, KKK member, etc. Trump got higher or the same Hispanic vote when maligned as calling all Mexicans rapists (misquote), build the wall, etc.

Why?

1) Hispanic =/= Mexican
2) Blacks care about jobs and have lower educational attainment and higher low income type job employment than other groups.

So if Trump gets GDP up to 4%. If wages increase. If marginal manufacturing comes back to the US (which lower taxes will help bring jobs on the edge back), if he continues with his policy issues which are largely economic focused, either he will win or another Republican will win.

Liberals freak the fuck out about everything Trump does, but outside of NYC and Cali people just want jobs. And the news ruined themselves to the point people just tune it out.

So instead of pushing Oprah, instead of focusing on Russia, instead of acting like hyperbolic children, Dems should go back to their roots, talk to union works, work to bring jobs back, retrain people, help their old school base and develop an economic plan other than "raise taxes", and then they can win.

None of this will happen as the Democrats (I am shocked as I thought the Tea Party would sabotage the Republicans) have been kidnapped by the fringe right. They are focusing on social issues that matter to San Fran and NYC, but mean nothing to the massive voting blocks of this country.

In conclusion, no one will care, people will win and lose, and all I focus on and you guys should focus on is making money and paying as little to the government as possible. Who gives a fuck. Obama was a shit president and I made more money than ever before. I love Trump and the market might collapse. I am sure someone else will be elected and promise people the sun and the moon and deliver nothing. Oh fucking well.

One of the most underrated stories from the 2016 election was Trump doing better with minorities and worse with whites than Romney. There was actually a massive shift from Romney to Clinton amongst college educated whites making $250K+year, a group that is highly concentrated in the big blue cities and their suburbs. This played a role in Trump doing worse in WA, CA, IL, VA, MD, MA, than Romney and hurt his national popular vote total. Trump, however, won non-college whites by 39 points, a stronger performance than even Reagan 1984.

Jan 10, 2018

Can't stand Oprah. Billionaire leverage, far left, feminist, black entitlement/african-american complex, etc. No thanks.

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

I'm sure she is super entitled, that's how she went from abject poverty to billioniare. By just waiting for things to be handed to her. Lol @ african-american complex.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018
TheROI:

Can't stand Oprah. Billionaire leverage, far left, feminist, black entitlement/african-american complex, etc. No thanks.

Oprah is not the typical African-American by any stretch of the imagination. I do agree that in general, blacks tend to blame whites and society for their failures and want the government to bail them out. It's one reason why they vote for Democrats by such wide margins.

    • 1
Jan 8, 2018

Oh at @Rufus1234" don't even try to hide your disdain. Don't even attempt nuance. Sweeping generalizations are like manna from heaven with you, they keep you going.

    • 2
Jan 10, 2018

Trump went to a target school, Oprah didn't.

    • 2
Jan 8, 2018
Jan 11, 2018
    • 3
Jan 8, 2018
Jan 11, 2018
Jan 8, 2018
Jan 12, 2018
Jan 13, 2018