Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:05 AM Jan 2018

Oprah Winfrey Helped Create Our Irrational Pseudoscientific American Fantasyland - Slate

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2018/01/oprah-winfrey-helped-create-our-irrational-pseudoscientific-american-fantasyland.html

Any assessment of her possible presidential bid should consider the irrational, pseudoscientific free for all she helped create.

Forty-eight hours ago, after watching Oprah Winfrey give a terrific, rousing feminist speech on an awards show, millions of Americans instantly, giddily decided that the ideal 2020 Democratic nominee had appeared. An extremely rich and famous and exciting star and impresario—but one who seems intelligent and wise and kind, the non–Bizarro World version of the sitting president.

Some wet-blanketing followed immediately, among the best from the New York Times Magazine writer Thomas Chatterton Williams in an op-ed headlined “Oprah, Don’t Do It.” “It would be a devastating, self-inflicted wound for the Democrats to settle for even benevolent mimicry of Mr. Trump’s hallucinatory circus act,” he wrote. “Indeed, the magical thinking fueling the idea of Oprah in 2020 is a worrisome sign about the state of the Democratic Party.”

Despite the “magical thinking” reference, neither Williams nor other skeptics have seriously addressed the big qualm I have about the prospect of a President Winfrey: Perhaps more than any other single American, she is responsible for giving national platforms and legitimacy to all sorts of magical thinking, from pseudoscientific to purely mystical, fantasies about extraterrestrials, paranormal experience, satanic cults, and more. The various fantasies she has promoted on all her media platforms—her daily TV show with its 12 million devoted viewers, her magazine, her website, her cable channel—aren’t as dangerous as Donald Trump’s mainstreaming of false conspiracy theories, but for three decades she has had a major role in encouraging Americans to abandon reason and science in favor of the wishful and imaginary.


Long article well worth the time to read.

Sid



135 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oprah Winfrey Helped Create Our Irrational Pseudoscientific American Fantasyland - Slate (Original Post) SidDithers Jan 2018 OP
I often wondered what kind of idiots got behind a celebrity personality like Trump. nt LexVegas Jan 2018 #1
Oprah is nothing "like" Trump.. I don't particularly want her as President whathehell Jan 2018 #30
Hmm... Orrex Jan 2018 #2
Hang in there brother HAB911 Jan 2018 #3
The struggle is real. NCTraveler Jan 2018 #5
Despite her 'nicey-nice' TV persona, she's not a particularly nice woman. GoneOffShore Jan 2018 #14
A diva? Beaverhausen Jan 2018 #22
Saw her rip on someone for being polite while Ms W was at the crafts services table on a set GoneOffShore Jan 2018 #108
And what would you call a male actor who did that? Beaverhausen Jan 2018 #122
An asshole. GoneOffShore Jan 2018 #123
Sorry that happened to you. whow. riversedge Jan 2018 #60
It absolutley sucks that a female celebrity... NCTraveler Jan 2018 #4
I'm wondering how many times you can miss the point so spectacularly Orrex Jan 2018 #6
Over and over and over again. NCTraveler Jan 2018 #9
I'm glad that my factual and accurate statement resonates with you Orrex Jan 2018 #11
Let's disagree w/o being disagreeable, shall we? al bupp Jan 2018 #64
LOL SunSeeker Jan 2018 #20
Running or not... Baconator Jan 2018 #23
Agree completely., NCTraveler whathehell Jan 2018 #31
First off, she's not being "vetted". PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2018 #32
I don't know the History Channel exboyfil Jan 2018 #7
You're not saying It's Aliens, are you? hatrack Jan 2018 #10
You have seen V right? exboyfil Jan 2018 #13
. . . hatrack Jan 2018 #111
History Channel for President! rusty fender Jan 2018 #72
I do think it's overstating it a bit to claim she created this platform of legitimacy kcr Jan 2018 #8
It's definitely overstating it.. whathehell Jan 2018 #29
It's not hate. Dave Starsky Jan 2018 #37
Maybe not "hate" but certainly whathehell Jan 2018 #47
Oprah is no more qualified than Ryan Seacrest... Dave Starsky Jan 2018 #68
Are you a dentist, lol? whathehell Jan 2018 #70
Bad anology, by the way whathehell Jan 2018 #71
We've seen what someone without skills does as president. I sure fucking hope the next one has some. X_Digger Jan 2018 #80
Trump is not missing "skills" as much as human qualities whathehell Jan 2018 #82
If that's all you think Trump is missing, you're woefully underinformed. X_Digger Jan 2018 #85
Is that "all" I think Trump is missing, lol? whathehell Jan 2018 #99
Dude, that's great for her and her fans... RedFury Jan 2018 #101
Dude, What is "great for her and her fans"? whathehell Jan 2018 #102
The skills involved. In being President are not "technical". whathehell Jan 2018 #83
The fuck they aren't. Knowing how house committees work to get a bill passed.. X_Digger Jan 2018 #84
Post removed Post removed Jan 2018 #100
As we see with Trump, the voters decide, ultimately, who is or is not qualified. Sophia4 Jan 2018 #65
Is it an overstatement to say that she helped to create it? sl8 Jan 2018 #75
Either way. How do you help create something that already existed? kcr Jan 2018 #125
Fair enough. sl8 Jan 2018 #129
Please, keep Oprah Winfrey far, far away from political office. longship Jan 2018 #12
Thank you so much The Polack MSgt Jan 2018 #15
+1 dalton99a Jan 2018 #17
I can think of people I'd like a lot farther away...Paul Ryan, Donald Trump. whathehell Jan 2018 #33
And Oprah too, please. longship Jan 2018 #41
"profound ignorance of science" my butt. She,'likely knows more than the Republican Congress whathehell Jan 2018 #42
Her mind is open to abject quackery. longship Jan 2018 #43
See you...At least she"s not a Climate Denier, like most elected Republicans and THAT is more whathehell Jan 2018 #44
Trust me. I'm on that issue, too. longship Jan 2018 #45
That's good.. whathehell Jan 2018 #48
The extent that people put forth Oprah as putative POTUS... longship Jan 2018 #49
Enjoy yourself.. whathehell Jan 2018 #52
Non-sequitor. longship Jan 2018 #57
Grammar critique, lol? whathehell Jan 2018 #67
The dreaded iPhone autocorrect: okee donkey! longship Jan 2018 #77
Longship, WHY do you focus hostility against liberals instead Hortensis Jan 2018 #90
I have no hostility toward Oprah personally. longship Jan 2018 #92
Why not criticize Republicans for cause? Hortensis Jan 2018 #105
Oh! I do. longship Jan 2018 #106
No, because Oprah isn't, and couldn't be, the threat that Ryan, Trump & McConnell are whathehell Jan 2018 #54
Not "uniquely unqualified," no. Nonhlanhla Jan 2018 #55
Stop comparing Oprah to the GOP loons. longship Jan 2018 #58
I certainly did not compare her to the GOP Nonhlanhla Jan 2018 #69
LOL, I know Orac's sister in real life. greatauntoftriplets Jan 2018 #74
K&R Gothmog Jan 2018 #16
Every negative article I've read so far about Oprah.... Stellar Jan 2018 #18
That's bullshit... Baconator Jan 2018 #24
The hell it is...Stellar is correct . whathehell Jan 2018 #35
How do you know that? sl8 Jan 2018 #88
Because my experience whathehell Jan 2018 #93
You realize that isn't any sort of confirmation, right? sl8 Jan 2018 #130
NOT CORRECT.....A 3 minute google search and..... USALiberal Jan 2018 #116
Sorry, but misogyny is real whathehell Jan 2018 #50
It can influence their view point but it doesn't automatically mean what they have to say... Baconator Jan 2018 #87
Not "automatically", no, but whathehell Jan 2018 #94
I dismissed it because it was biased and overall a bad idea... Baconator Jan 2018 #127
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2018 #25
You noticed that too? whathehell Jan 2018 #34
Joan Walsh criticised her on TV for the pseudoscience, apparently muriel_volestrangler Jan 2018 #89
LOL, nice try! n.t. USALiberal Jan 2018 #112
Are you saying that I DIDN'T come across those articles... Stellar Jan 2018 #113
Read this article and then self delete your post...... USALiberal Jan 2018 #114
Or read this one and SELF DELETE your post...did you do ANY research?? USALiberal Jan 2018 #115
As I said... Stellar Jan 2018 #117
So you chose not to read any by women, I get it now, carry on! nt USALiberal Jan 2018 #118
Jeebus... you people are rough! nt Stellar Jan 2018 #119
I am not a fan of blanket statements when someone did NO checking at all. n.t. USALiberal Jan 2018 #120
That's unfortunate. nt Stellar Jan 2018 #121
Hi Sid! Long time no see. Are you worried we'll nominate Oprah? SunSeeker Jan 2018 #19
My 19 year old cat radical noodle Jan 2018 #21
Agreed. nt SunSeeker Jan 2018 #26
Thanks for the link. Ellipsis Jan 2018 #27
the law of attraction EllenlogRL Jan 2018 #28
She's not an absolute empiricist -- So what? whathehell Jan 2018 #36
That is hilarious. 'The Secret' is beyond a total scam. GoneOffShore Jan 2018 #107
The Law of Positive Attraction. Dave Starsky Jan 2018 #131
Just the thought pressbox69 Jan 2018 #38
She gave us "Dr" Phil. LSFL Jan 2018 #39
Dr. Oz rpannier Jan 2018 #103
i forgot about him. LSFL Jan 2018 #124
TV is TV: With very rare exceptions: salacious B.S. sells: ratings are everything. Not truth. lindysalsagal Jan 2018 #40
The personalization of reality is both dangerous and a symptom of ignorance. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #46
This is why I hope she runs. sfwriter Jan 2018 #51
Let me append to say that she MIGHT make a great candidate, sfwriter Jan 2018 #53
You must be joking...If they aren't,'t forced to smell it with Trump, they never will. whathehell Jan 2018 #73
Different snake oil. sfwriter Jan 2018 #78
Smarter, classier, kinder & in a Far Less Embarrassing package.. whathehell Jan 2018 #81
I think she could do really well. sfwriter Jan 2018 #86
Yes whathehell Jan 2018 #95
Some people don't want to hear this left-of-center2012 Jan 2018 #56
I can't imagine ever voting for Oprah. democrank Jan 2018 #59
Wow. The GOP is realy scared of her. Next, they will have doctored "groping" photos. McCamy Taylor Jan 2018 #61
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2018 #79
I favor having quite a number of candidates in the primary. Sophia4 Jan 2018 #62
And no, she did not single handedly make America what it is. McCamy Taylor Jan 2018 #63
Thank you. Like you, I hadn't realized that Americans were all rational and scientific pnwmom Jan 2018 #98
Yes. Oprah did highlight some charlatans and they later became wealthy Freethinker65 Jan 2018 #66
+1, 5 out of 5000 turned out to be a toad and she gets lambasted here uponit7771 Jan 2018 #109
Any who speak ill of Oprah ... left-of-center2012 Jan 2018 #76
Nice to see you back. Mosby Jan 2018 #91
Oh, yeah, right. Americans were always perfectly scientific and rational pnwmom Jan 2018 #96
"Inside Philanthropy on Oprah Winfrey" pnwmom Jan 2018 #97
but she is nice . . and that puts her as qualified as PBO . . read it right here so it must be true DrDan Jan 2018 #104
Not everyone who is 'nice' is good. I'm not sure that she's even 'nice'. GoneOffShore Jan 2018 #110
Remember when we had a woman as a candidate ? KTM Jan 2018 #126
I have a 'meh' opinion of Oprah apart from all of this. CakeGrrl Jan 2018 #128
The wellspring of billionaire *vanity candidates* is Citizens United. VOX Jan 2018 #132
She Gave Us Quacks AnnieBW Jan 2018 #133
Ohhhh, ouch Hekate Jan 2018 #134
It's way, way easier to simply look to the opinion of a public figure than ehrnst Feb 2018 #135

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
30. Oprah is nothing "like" Trump.. I don't particularly want her as President
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:08 AM
Jan 2018

Last edited Sat Jan 13, 2018, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)

but she is an intelligent, compassionate person, and unlike Trump, a- hugely successful, self made billionaire.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
2. Hmm...
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:14 AM
Jan 2018
Any assessment of her possible presidential bid should consider the irrational, pseudoscientific free for all she helped create.
When I pointed this out a few days ago, I was called a racist and a misogynist.

I might need to slap on some Kinoki pads to deal with the toxicity.


k/r

GoneOffShore

(17,391 posts)
14. Despite her 'nicey-nice' TV persona, she's not a particularly nice woman.
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 12:36 PM
Jan 2018

Worked with her on a film. She's a diva.

GoneOffShore

(17,391 posts)
108. Saw her rip on someone for being polite while Ms W was at the crafts services table on a set
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 10:31 AM
Jan 2018

Then had her assistant rip on the same person as a follow-up and told them that if they even looked at Ms W she would have that person sacked and escorted off the production.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
4. It absolutley sucks that a female celebrity...
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:18 AM
Jan 2018

Can't deliver an excellent speech without then being relentlessly attacked or elevated to deity status.

#oprahspokeforme

Oprah has shown no intentions of running for President. She is being vetted because she gave a speech. A speech that speaks for most of us.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
9. Over and over and over again.
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:32 AM
Jan 2018

Nice to see you.

"vaguely non-dismissive of her possible presidential aspirations" Orrex



You keep responding to me in a way that makes me smile. I appreciate it.

You go vet big bad Oprah as her "inner circle is vaguely non-dismissive of her possible presidential aspirations."

That is a great line.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
11. I'm glad that my factual and accurate statement resonates with you
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:44 AM
Jan 2018

It's your only moment of lucidity in this entire discussion.

I know that you're not an idiot, so I must conclude that you're missing the point on purpose.

al bupp

(2,222 posts)
64. Let's disagree w/o being disagreeable, shall we?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:44 PM
Jan 2018

Is there not room, madam or sir, for seeing the situation differently? Oh, and I agree about the loveliness of your phrase.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
31. Agree completely., NCTraveler
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:12 AM
Jan 2018

Last edited Sat Jan 13, 2018, 05:04 AM - Edit history (1)

I see a lot of resentment here and I don't think it's all about the content of her shows.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(26,043 posts)
32. First off, she's not being "vetted".
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:20 AM
Jan 2018

Secondly, looking closely at her and her background and what she's supported is NOT being relentlessly attacked.

exboyfil

(17,894 posts)
7. I don't know the History Channel
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:30 AM
Jan 2018

is giving Oprah a run for her money. I first remember when the specialty science and social studies channels first came onto cable. They offered meaty documentaries full of facts.

Then the History channel became the Hitler channel.

Now it is the ET channel.

Oprah is an entertainer that needs to get eyeballs on the screen. She is working to meet the demands of her audience. She will need to answer for those decisions if she decides to enter the political ring.

kcr

(15,399 posts)
8. I do think it's overstating it a bit to claim she created this platform of legitimacy
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:31 AM
Jan 2018

As if that didn't exist before she came along. But otherwise, I agree with the overall assessment regarding Oprah. She would be terrible. But, I won't be a bit surprised when we end up with President Oprah because Trump has caused us to lose our ever loving minds.

Dave Starsky

(5,914 posts)
37. It's not hate.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:18 AM
Jan 2018

She's just not qualified. Period.

And before anyone says, "B-b-b-but Trump--!", I will remind them that yes, that's exactly the point.

I would no more want Oprah to be President than I would want Ryan Seacrest to put braces on my kids' teeth.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
47. Maybe not "hate" but certainly
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:51 AM
Jan 2018

an unwarranted disdain.

I've heard it from other men and I think it's fueled, in no small part, by
jealousy, misogyny and an overall ignorance of who she is.

Your comparison of her to someone like Ryan Seacrest tells me
you actually know little about her.

As I said, I don't favor her for President, but I'd take her over ANY Republican any day of the week.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
71. Bad anology, by the way
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 01:25 PM
Jan 2018

Dentistry is a profession requiring specific medical and technical skills, none of which are required to be president.









X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
80. We've seen what someone without skills does as president. I sure fucking hope the next one has some.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 05:30 PM
Jan 2018

I hope the next president has the technical skills to be a president. You know, level-headed, intelligent, familiar with how government works, etc etc.

Sometimes this place makes me weep for the future. Jesus fucking christ.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
82. Trump is not missing "skills" as much as human qualities
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 05:50 PM
Jan 2018

of intelligence, curiosity, self-awareness & compassion...Oprah has all of these . She basically lacks only experience -- Comparing her to Trump is absurd.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
85. If that's all you think Trump is missing, you're woefully underinformed.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:32 PM
Jan 2018

Him and his morons can't run a fucking conference call, much less a branch of the government. The dumbass doesn't even know how executive orders differ from actual laws.

Oprah has no government experience (let's set aside all the woo that she's peddled.)

First and foremost, I want a candidate that can do the fucking job. I don't have to want to sit down and have a beer with them.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
99. Is that "all" I think Trump is missing, lol?
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 07:27 AM
Jan 2018

Um, no, but it is more than the "lack of skills" you offered.

Do take your surly, deliberate misreading of my post elsewhere.

I don't give a flying who you want or don't want as a candidate.

RedFury

(85 posts)
101. Dude, that's great for her and her fans...
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 07:42 AM
Jan 2018

...but I'm neither looking for a guru nor a touchy-feely presidency. And it's disturbing that it's even being discussed.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
102. Dude, What is "great for her and her fans"?
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 07:50 AM
Jan 2018

I don't know what you are talking about...Please define what is so "great for her and her fans".

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
83. The skills involved. In being President are not "technical".
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:10 PM
Jan 2018

and Oprah, while in no way a first choice, is not someone whose presidency I would "weep' over, nor should any other democrat.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
84. The fuck they aren't. Knowing how house committees work to get a bill passed..
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:29 PM
Jan 2018

.. knowing how appropriations work, knowing the powers and responsibilities of the justice department, or the regulatory power of the executive branch w/r/t Immigration and Customs. Knowing how other countries' governments work, knowing what treaty obligations the US has, knowing how import and excise taxes work.

Not 'technical' my ass.

Response to X_Digger (Reply #84)

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
65. As we see with Trump, the voters decide, ultimately, who is or is not qualified.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:50 PM
Jan 2018

Who knows what they/we might think of Oprah when we see her opponents if she decides to run.

Would I vote for Oprah if my choice was Oprah or Trump? Yes. Wholeheartedly though I think the selection will be broader than Oprah v. Trump.

I have no idea what kind of platform, what policy stances or issues Oprah would run on, but she has the right kind of personality, of personal appeal.

We need a candidate who reaches out to people with a lot of caring and love. I know that's hard for policy-wonks to understand. But many people vote based on the candidate's personality, not based on the candidate's expertise or experience. We saw that with Trump. It may seem unfortunate to many here, but it is the truth.

We need a JFK type who combines personality, experience and understanding of policy. We need, also, a Democrat with a big heart. Voters need a candidate whose personality seems to embrace them. I would also like a candidate with Obama's steadiness and maturity.

sl8

(15,309 posts)
75. Is it an overstatement to say that she helped to create it?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 02:08 PM
Jan 2018

I may be picking a nit, but the author doesn' t claim that Oprah created the "American Fantasyland", but only that she helped create it.

To me, at least, there's a significant difference.

kcr

(15,399 posts)
125. Either way. How do you help create something that already existed?
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 10:30 AM
Jan 2018

I think it's more accurate to say she contributed to a problem that already existed. And now she will contribute to the same problem Trump is. The notion that all you need for POTUS/high national office is name recognition. That is what really bothers me about the whole thing.

sl8

(15,309 posts)
129. Fair enough.
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 07:21 PM
Jan 2018

When they said "helped to create", perhaps they meant the state of affairs today. You're right, it's not a new problem. People have believed silly shit since there have been people.

longship

(40,416 posts)
12. Please, keep Oprah Winfrey far, far away from political office.
Thu Jan 11, 2018, 10:53 AM
Jan 2018

I give you Orac's opinion. (That's oncologist, Dr. David Gorski).

Anybody Remember Pseudoscience Quackery She's Promoted

She may have a good social conscience, but her ignorance of science is frightening.

I'll leave it there.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
33. I can think of people I'd like a lot farther away...Paul Ryan, Donald Trump.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:31 AM
Jan 2018

Mitch McConnell....Need I go on?
.

longship

(40,416 posts)
41. And Oprah too, please.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 10:23 AM
Jan 2018

She is uniquely unqualified, plus supports all sorts of woo-woo. Her profound ignorance of science is a non-starter for me.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
42. "profound ignorance of science" my butt. She,'likely knows more than the Republican Congress
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 10:45 AM
Jan 2018

Beyond that, she's not an absolute empiricist -- Her mind Is open.












longship

(40,416 posts)
43. Her mind is open to abject quackery.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 10:53 AM
Jan 2018

That's the rather big problem.

The Secret!!! The fucking Secret!!!

John of God!!! Fucking John of God!!!

Dr. Phil!!!
Dr. Oz!!! Fuck them both!

Jenny fucking anti-vaccination McCarthy!!!!!!!!

Nope. No can support anybody as blinkered ignorant as Oprah Winfrey.

Anyway, she's not going to run, so the whole thing is elementary anyway. However, I have to stand up forcefully against pseudoscience.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
44. See you...At least she"s not a Climate Denier, like most elected Republicans and THAT is more
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:15 AM
Jan 2018

pertinent to our current political concerns., You're time would be better spent bashing that present danger than an intelligent liberal who is not, and likely will not, ever seek office.

longship

(40,416 posts)
45. Trust me. I'm on that issue, too.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:25 AM
Jan 2018

For me, either you support science, or you don't.

Oprah might support climate science, but she ignores science-based medicine in favor of utter rubbish. For Christ sakes, she supports John of God with his cheap carny tricks and claims that he cures fucking cancer!!! There is no excuse for such a thing. None whatsoever.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
48. That's good..
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:54 AM
Jan 2018

so maybe you should be spending your time dealing with that instead of Oprah. Just sayin'.

longship

(40,416 posts)
49. The extent that people put forth Oprah as putative POTUS...
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:58 AM
Jan 2018

is the extent that I will post in opposition to it.

No POTUS Oprah? No longship response. It's really simple.

Hope everything is well with you.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
52. Enjoy yourself..
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:06 PM
Jan 2018

and, for your sake, at least, I hope that "opposition" draws a bit more interest
than 36 recs.

longship

(40,416 posts)
57. Non-sequitor.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:16 PM
Jan 2018

I only care about putting a competent, experienced person in the job as POTUS. Anybody who ignores science and supports medical carny tricks as cancer cures, anti-vaccination kooks, and the fucking Secret is a non-starter for me.

Apparently to some, that is just okee donkey.

Not for me it isn't.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
90. Longship, WHY do you focus hostility against liberals instead
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 09:06 PM
Jan 2018

of those dangerous right-wing bastards who are trying to dismantle our democracy?

COUNTDOWN TO NOVEMBER 6: 296 days.

Tomorrow will be 295 days to when we will find out if Republicans continue to hold Congress until 2020.

GET it at all?

longship

(40,416 posts)
92. I have no hostility toward Oprah personally.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 09:20 PM
Jan 2018

I just have hostility to anybody that scientifically ignorant in the White House.

Her social conscience is beyond dispute. However, her science education is abysmal! And that matters a whole lot when one aspires to the presidency of the USA. At least to some people.

Oh! And I am all over the 2018 mid-terms.

And I tend to ridicule those trotting out 2020 presidential candidates at this stage, especially celebrities, especially those that make their careers on championing pseudoscientific woo-woo rubbish.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
105. Why not criticize Republicans for cause?
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 08:21 AM
Jan 2018

I promise jf you look right you'll find more than a little worthy of fighting. And we are in a war for the future of our nation, after all.

longship

(40,416 posts)
106. Oh! I do.
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 09:19 AM
Jan 2018

But I also criticize those who promote ignorance in science. They really piss me off, because science education is one thing that the USA has managed to do right. When people get that wrong, it harms our country.

My education was in science, so it is natural that I would have this opinion. But how many world leaders have promoted crap like The Secret or John of God?
Or quackery like Dr. Oz or anti-vaccination like Jenny McCarthy.

We are seeing a lot of anti-education crap with Drumpf, and his edumacation secretary Betsy Wetsy DeVos. DOE Secy Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE before he became its Secy and found out that it controlled all of the US nuclear arsenal. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

IMHO, ignorance is no excuse in matters such as these. We don't learn by our mistakes. Apparently.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
55. Not "uniquely unqualified," no.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:14 PM
Jan 2018

Unqualified, yes, but not uniquely or even particularly so. Compared to the entire GOP, including The-Critter-Currently-Occupying-The-White-House, and the list of male celebrities (Tom Hanks, Mark Zucherberg, etc.) regularly paraded as political options, Oprah is actually not uniquely unqualified. In fact, unqualified though she may be (due to the promotion of quackery and her lack of political experience), she is nevertheless a lot more qualified than a lot of people in politics.

Perspective.

longship

(40,416 posts)
58. Stop comparing Oprah to the GOP loons.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:28 PM
Jan 2018

She is head-over-heals better. Rather compare her to competent presidents. There she utterly fails. And on medical science, and science in general, she is woefully ignorant. That's a big deal killer for me. Her history on the subject is absolutely horrible.

One cannot ignore her record on these issues. She doesn't get a Get out of jail free card merely because she just so happens to be on the right side of the science on climate change.

She is 180 degrees wrong on science and medicine.

That should be a deal killer for any rational person.

My best to you.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
69. I certainly did not compare her to the GOP
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 01:07 PM
Jan 2018

My point was to dispute the phrase "uniquely unqualified," which would suggest that she is more unqualified than most people who run for office. She clearly is not uniquely unqualified. Most of Congress is in the hands of complete incompetents (also known as the GOP), which means that to add "uniquely" to saying Oprah is unqualified is an undeserved insult to her.

I have been defending Oprah against this kind of attack for several days now, despite the fact that I do not think she should run. As I said in my previous post, I don't think she is qualified, both because of her lack of political experience and because of her fondness for scientific quackery. But compared to most people in office, or most people who have been mentioned as potential presidents, she is actually fairly qualified.

Baconator

(1,459 posts)
24. That's bullshit...
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 03:26 AM
Jan 2018

Find a logical , factual point to work with or shut your mouth.

Are they right or wrong? If so... Why?

That's what matters and not the authors gender.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
35. The hell it is...Stellar is correct .
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:52 AM
Jan 2018

and how dare you command anyone here to "shut your mouth"?

That is totally out of line.

sl8

(15,309 posts)
88. How do you know that?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 07:19 PM
Jan 2018

Last edited Sat Jan 13, 2018, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Stellar claims that the only articles they have read have been written by men. That's fine, I have no reason to doubt them.

How is it that you're able to confirm what Stellar has or hasn't read?

sl8

(15,309 posts)
130. You realize that isn't any sort of confirmation, right?
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 07:30 PM
Jan 2018

Last edited Mon Jan 15, 2018, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Just because you also have only read the negative pieces written by men, doesn'tconfirm that's what anyone else has or hasn't read.

There are plenty of recent pieces written by women about why Oprah for President is a bad idea.

Edit to add:

A quick search turns up recent opinion pieces written by women, against the idea of Oprah running for President, in the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Vice and others.

Baconator

(1,459 posts)
87. It can influence their view point but it doesn't automatically mean what they have to say...
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:44 PM
Jan 2018

... should be dismissed out of hand.

I say again... Unless you can make a logical, factual and rational point about their bit then it's better to shush until you are ready.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
94. Not "automatically", no, but
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 06:32 AM
Jan 2018

when virtually ALL the naysaying come from a group (men) whose negativity is in inverse proportion to their familiarity with the subject (Oprah), it"s suspicious.

It was you who dismissed Stelar's comment "out of hand" and with great rudeness.

As to setting the criteria and parameters of this discussion, who are you to make the rules?

I'll say it again -- It"s out of line.


Baconator

(1,459 posts)
127. I dismissed it because it was biased and overall a bad idea...
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 05:33 PM
Jan 2018

Not because of gender...

See the difference?

I don't set the rules. The standards of intellectual honesty and ethical debate are long established.

I was just referencing them and pointing out where they were violated.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
34. You noticed that too?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:37 AM
Jan 2018

No one will convince me there's not at least some level of misogyny coupled with jealousy going on. So she's not an absolute empiricist, so what?

By the way, no one here has the right to tell you to "keep your mouth shut". What gall.

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
117. As I said...
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 11:05 AM
Jan 2018

Every article that I read so far a man had written it.

You do understand the term 'so far' don't you? It was just an observation.

I WILL NOT SELF DELETE.

Sorry if it bothers your eyes.

SunSeeker

(52,476 posts)
19. Hi Sid! Long time no see. Are you worried we'll nominate Oprah?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:06 AM
Jan 2018

I'm not. I don't think we'll do that. Dems want a different nominee, as a recent poll demonstrated:

When it comes to whether she should run, not all Democrats were on board — 40 percent of Democrats said she shouldn't, compared with 47 percent who do. That could spell a potentially tough primary against a more politically qualified opponent.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/12/577456987/oprah-beats-trump-in-npr-poll-but-most-americans-dont-want-her-to-run-for-presid I don't know why some people are losing their shit over Oprah.

I certainly think we have way better potential candidates. But if she does run (highly unlikely) and miraculously wins the primary (also unlikely), I would walk over broken glass to vote for her OR ANY DEMOCRAT running against Trump. Wouldn't you?
 

EllenlogRL

(16 posts)
28. the law of attraction
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 03:55 AM
Jan 2018

Oprah helped promote bogus things like The Secret, which is a total scam of a book. According to the logic of that book, starving people in 3rd world countries "attracted" their poverty to themselves.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
36. She's not an absolute empiricist -- So what?
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 04:59 AM
Jan 2018

Most people aren't and tthe claim that The Secret is a "total scam of a book" is, I believe, a matter of opinion.

GoneOffShore

(17,391 posts)
107. That is hilarious. 'The Secret' is beyond a total scam.
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 10:26 AM
Jan 2018

It's a carny trick to get money from the gullible.
No way is it a 'matter of opinion'.

Dave Starsky

(5,914 posts)
131. The Law of Positive Attraction.
Fri Jan 19, 2018, 07:21 PM
Jan 2018

It is not a physical law. The laws of physics work in the opposite direction. Opposites attract in the natural world. Positive electric charge flows to negative electric charge. Physical conditions flow from a state of higher gradient to a lower gradient over time.

The Law of Positive Attraction works in that you really can make some money convincing some people that they can get rich visualizing the wealth they will have, while you cash their checks on the backside.

pressbox69

(2,252 posts)
38. Just the thought
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 07:30 AM
Jan 2018

of Oprah making a 2020 run is driving the republiklans insane, and that's good. I don't think she'll run but it's obvious they hate the idea of a strong black woman winning the White House. Perhaps Oprah should support someone like herself but with experience.



LSFL

(1,112 posts)
124. i forgot about him.
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 06:27 PM
Jan 2018

I sometimes have to run interference to keep my wife and in-laws from falling for his quackery.
I believe that Oprah is a decent and reasonably honest person. Her weakness is she assumes everyone else is too.

lindysalsagal

(21,109 posts)
40. TV is TV: With very rare exceptions: salacious B.S. sells: ratings are everything. Not truth.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 09:46 AM
Jan 2018

If you're looking for truth, ignore 99.9% of what's on tv.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
46. The personalization of reality is both dangerous and a symptom of ignorance.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 11:29 AM
Jan 2018

When did consensual reality take a back seat to "I'm right and everyone else is wrong?" What role did television play?

 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
53. Let me append to say that she MIGHT make a great candidate,
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:08 PM
Jan 2018

but she would need a mea culpa for this sort of pseudoscience and that public discussion would be of great value.

whathehell

(29,315 posts)
73. You must be joking...If they aren't,'t forced to smell it with Trump, they never will.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 01:34 PM
Jan 2018

I don't want an inexperienced person for the presidency, but she beats out any and all
Republicans, and most certainly Trump.



 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
86. I think she could do really well.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 06:35 PM
Jan 2018

And I think a lot of Dems fear that. I worry about the anti axing and doctor Phil crap, but she could dispel th m in one speech.

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
56. Some people don't want to hear this
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:16 PM
Jan 2018

She is the magical answer for 2020.
Ask no questions.
Cast no doubt.
Just get in line.



Oh, one more thing :

democrank

(11,125 posts)
59. I can't imagine ever voting for Oprah.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:30 PM
Jan 2018

Oprah deserves credit for all she has accomplished and for any good she has contributed to society.
From where I sit, Oprah seems to have a tendency to latch onto fads and gimmicks. I lean toward a little less Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and a little more downhome, dirt-under-your-nails grit. Plus, I'd rather see Gail King stay at CBS instead of having Ivanka's desk at the White House.





McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
61. Wow. The GOP is realy scared of her. Next, they will have doctored "groping" photos.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:38 PM
Jan 2018

And John Solomon will interview her hairdresser.

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
62. I favor having quite a number of candidates in the primary.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:38 PM
Jan 2018

And we should not choose our candidate too early.

Once we choose him or her, we should unite behind the candidate, so let's choose a candidate that unites us.

If Oprah is that candidate, I will support her.

Hillary had a great disadvantage in that the Republican Party and her own conduct made her a very controversial candidate. The Republicans had years and years to place her integrity and history in doubt.

We need a candidate that makes it hard for the Republicans to put the candidate in a questionable light. We need a surprise but very good candidate. It's important that a presidential candidate have a strong, outgoing personality if possible.

Obama won in part because he is not stuck on himself and has a very "light" feeling, that is people feel comfortable in his presence or when they watch him in videos. We need a candidate with that kind of personality who also has good stances on the issues.

That kind of personality is important because many people who don't follow politics closely, who are not well informed about the issues and personalities, vote based on the candidate's personality, vote based on their impression of the candidate gained from very little exposure. So a candidate who makes a good impression on voters is likely to win. That's what we need -- a winner. People like Oprah and would probably vote for her. But I have no idea what her views are on the issues.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
63. And no, she did not single handedly make America what it is.
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:40 PM
Jan 2018

She just produces shows designed to entertain Americans. Can we stop with the paranoid "one person is responsible for everything that is wrong with us" fantasies?

pnwmom

(109,198 posts)
98. Thank you. Like you, I hadn't realized that Americans were all rational and scientific
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 06:58 AM
Jan 2018

before Oprah came along. She "created" magical thinking. Wow.

Freethinker65

(10,458 posts)
66. Yes. Oprah did highlight some charlatans and they later became wealthy
Sat Jan 13, 2018, 12:51 PM
Jan 2018

She also highlighted non-charlatans, medical/scientific/academic/literary professionals, celebrities, and everyday individuals she felt had compelling stories for her audience. She also built a media company and other businesses that I believe fairly pay their employees, and honor contracts, and try to avoid bankruptcy, and pay taxes. I do not remember her charitable foundation(s) except perhaps for a school(?) getting into problems (but even then, I do not believe it was an issue of her using the foundation as a personal slush fund or to launder money).

Honestly at this point Oprah would not be on my short list for President, but I am not basing this on the fact that she promoted Dr Phil, Dr Oz, and “the Secret”. I would have to know much more about what she planned to do as President vs. other primary candidates, before casting my primary vote.

pnwmom

(109,198 posts)
97. "Inside Philanthropy on Oprah Winfrey"
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 06:54 AM
Jan 2018
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/glitzy-giving/oprah-winfrey.html

EDUCATION: According to Forbes, Winfrey had given away approximately $400 million to educational causes by 2012, including nearly 400 scholarships to Morehouse College, and more than $40 million in operating support for the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy in South Africa. She’s also given at least $10 million to A Better Chance. Its mission is to improve access to quality education for students of color, and has given $1 million or more to at least nine different charter school organizations in a number of different areas throughout the country. Mentoring programs have also received support.

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
104. but she is nice . . and that puts her as qualified as PBO . . read it right here so it must be true
Sun Jan 14, 2018, 08:06 AM
Jan 2018
 

KTM

(1,823 posts)
126. Remember when we had a woman as a candidate ?
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 11:43 AM
Jan 2018

And she was awesome.

So the Republicans were all, "Oh, you want a Woman ? Ok, here is Sarah Palin!" and we all and made fun of them for thinking "Just give them any Woman" and we were all "LOL they just don't get it."

And then we had a Black Guy, and he was awesome.

So the Republicans were all "Oh, so it's Black Guys now ? Ok, here is Herman Cain!" and we all and made fun of them for thinking "Just give them any Black Guy" and we were all "LOL they just don't get it."

And then on a fluke the Republicans won with an Inexperienced Celebrity, and...

...this feels like that.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
128. I have a 'meh' opinion of Oprah apart from all of this.
Mon Jan 15, 2018, 05:40 PM
Jan 2018

I think she's too caught up in Hollywood showmanship and has some poor character insights.

She's too easy to create oppo against. Dems are woefully slow on the uptake when it comes to getting ahead of their opponents. I've already seen pics of her planting a kiss on Harvey Weinstein's cheek, and appearing to broker a contact between Weinstein and a fresh-faced actress.

Shortly after Trump's election, he gave some interview (full of lies, of course), after which she said something to the effect of 'I think we can all breathe now', as if to say "See everybody? There's nothing to worry about. Trump will do well!"

Nope. I hope she doesn't run.

The Dems need someone that the GOP/Russia cannot easily exploit, distract or obscure with innuendo.

VOX

(22,976 posts)
132. The wellspring of billionaire *vanity candidates* is Citizens United.
Fri Jan 19, 2018, 08:36 PM
Jan 2018

It certainly greased the wheels for Trump’s candidacy. Billionaire Mark Cuban is currently considering a run. Billionaire Tom Steyer is being coy (I like Steyer, but have no clue if he could efficiently oversee our government).

There will be more (and FAR worse) of these vanity candidates, because you can buy your way into politics pretty quickly these days.

Ending Citizen’s United would provide some protection against this foolishness, but Republicans will never go for it.

 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
135. It's way, way easier to simply look to the opinion of a public figure than
Sun Feb 25, 2018, 05:09 PM
Feb 2018

to research and think for oneself.

As we have seen.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oprah Winfrey Helped Crea...