5 ms·

If it's Oprah vs Trump 2020, I feel like we're rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451 crazyland politics (just specifically the politicians, nothing else about the

by dmoy 9y ago

If it's Oprah vs Trump 2020, I feel like we're rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451 crazyland politics (just specifically the politicians, nothing else about the book).

ixtli 9y ago
I would say that one very important mitigating factor is that Oprah has clearly demonstrated that she's capable of delegating tasks in order to achieve something larger than what would otherwise be possible with the force of her own personality. This is a material and important skill in a leader. People's view of trump as a success at building businesses by any reasonable measure is absurd but Oprah has been wildly successful by many metrics the right has consistently agitated for in their leaders. To be clear I'm a pretty staunch socialist so I find little solace in the idea that she could be president, but I also think it's not quite right to say that they are steps down the same path: if I had to make this sort of a metaphor it would be that Trump yields Fahrenheit 451 and Oprah yields a cyberpunk dystopia something akin to Blade Runner.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  People's view of trump as a success at building businesses by any reasonable measure is absurd but Oprah has been wildly successful Forbes says Oprah is worth $2.8B.. and Trump is worth $3.1B. Oprah is 63; Trump is 71... so they've had about the same amount of time. By what reasoning is one a failure and the other wildly successful?
  - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
    Trump started out by inheriting his money, and he would have made much more by investing it in an index fund than he has by playing businessman.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      Yes... but even accounting for that.. the return for trump is roughly 8% annually since '82. Oprah posted some great growth numbers early in her career with her TV show.. but if you start from when she reached $1B in 2004 to today, she has a return of 7.63% annually. If I had to pick, IMO Oprah is more impressive. But it isn't like we're comparing Bill Gates and the owner of the local dry cleaner. Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund. If we're really looking for business leaders with good growth numbers, it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.
      - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund. You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want. Oprah went from $0 -> billionare. If she'd investive passively, she'd still have basically nothing. Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare. If he'd invested passively he'd be ahead. In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point. > Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. > ... it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing. This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They're not supermen. Running the country is not something I'd want any of them to be doing. Running a government sub-bureaucracy, maybe, but only one without much policy-making power.
        ixtli 9y ago
        >This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. _Yes._ A person with a billion dollars does not work a billion times harder than a person with 1 dollar. A programmer should be keenly aware of this, I think, given what a monumentally complex task it is to evaluate the value of labor in our industry. I also do not begrudge an individual their success carte blanche even if I am highly critical of capitalism (best to judge them for the specifics of their actions) but we should be clear about whether or not someone has shown evidence of being better than a coin flip before we start saying they're qualified for something.
  - learc83 9y ago
    Oprah is a Black woman born into poverty at a time when being Black and a woman was even more of a disadvantage than it is today. Trump is White, male, 3rd generation millionaire.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
Jedd 9y ago
For those not familiar with Bradbury's work, Seth Macfarlane's comment is a concise summary of the problem: "Oprah is beyond doubt a magnificent orator. But the idea of a reality show star running against a talk show host is troublingly dystopian. We don’t want to create a world where dedicated public service careers become undesirable and impractical in the face of raw celebrity."
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  If the likes of Oprah and Trump become the norm, it will have seemed obvious in hindsight that politics always was showbizz. Politician in democracies seem to lose more from specific bad events they gain from good ones. This gives them an incentive to push responsibility away from themselves out to unelected officials (regulators, judges, cops) and non-government lobbies (big businesses, NGOs, public-sector unions). And this pushing has been progressing for decades and decades already. So by now, while politicians collectively could seize the reins of their own power, they don't actually have them in their hands. In such a world, the "job" of the politician is then engage with the public, putting on a show of attacking the system, while not having, or even desiring, the power to change it. Who better for that job than Trump and Oprah?
dcposch 9y ago
Oprah v Trump would be straight-up two cable television stars running for “leader of the free world”. (A phrase that already sounds even more ridiculous than it did a few years ago.) One popularized the racist Birther / “born in Kenya” meme. The other is biggest promoter behind Dr Phil, probably the most prominent modern American quack doctor. They’d be representing opposite parties, but they have a lot in common. Both have publicly promoted the uniquely damaging lie that vaccines cause autism. Both are media people first and foremost, hucksters, promoters, peddlers of false hopes and false fears. Waves of dangerous Mexicans are not, in fact, “pouring across our southern border”. Dr Phil does not actually have a magic solution for weight loss. Trump does not now, and never did have a plan to “Make America Great Again”. It’s all for show. — Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US?
- akkat 9y ago
  > Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US? Based on the amount of people who promised to move to Canada if Trump won, my guess is next to nothing.
  - mc32 9y ago
    And it's a bit odd. IIRC, when Bush won, it was the same. I mean, I had hoped he'd lose, but I wasn't about to run just cuz. Beside, when was the last time a conservative said, dammit, Bill won, or Obama won, I'm off to [some country]. It's mostly Dems who almost never actually go through with it. Sure, you get a very small trickle but nothing like they promise.
    - ckarmann 9y ago
      The equivalent for conservatives is to consider secession. There were a good number of petitions for some states in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_seces...
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
To what degree are Facebook and Twitter responsible for this?
diogenescynic 9y ago
It’s closer to Idiocracy than Fahrenheit 451.
mc32 9y ago
I can see the Dem machine in action now. If Oprah were to run, they would run her out of town. I think they are afraid of her because she'd provide a weak candidate against Trump. I have read a few are actually wishfully hoping H runs again. But who do the Dems even have? I mean Warren is a bit too left for most Americans. Bernie, I don't think he'll go another go after they threw him under the bus like that.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But who do the Dems even have? I mean Warren is a bit too left for most Americans. Bernie, I don't think he'll go another go after they threw him under the bus like that. Warren is less left than Sanders, who AFAIK remains the single most popular politician in the country. Sanders might not want to make another run at his age, but while he might have a grudge against the former DNC leadership, he and his supporters have been actively engaged in DNC reform efforts and made some significant advances; I don't see any reason to expect he wouldn't continue to positively engage with the national party. As for other candidates, Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) has been hailed as a rising star and potential near-future Presidential candidate. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (IL) likewise has been floated as a potential candidate. Rep. John Delaney (MD) is certainly running, and not obviously implausible as a nominee. Actually, rather than going on, I’ll just drop the WaPo’s lost of potentials (which I just found, and overlaps mine; I don't necessarily agree with their ranking, but they are mostly plausible and, but for Dwayne Johnson and Oprah, experienced candidates.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/22/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020-ranked/?utm_term=.3ebf927b6bca https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/22/th...
  - mc32 9y ago
    Of all those, perh Patrick or Sanders. Defo not Harris. She's a progressive's progressive and does not really represent me in many instances. I like Sanders because he truly cares about Americans, the jobs unions represent (not that I like unions, they are corrupt). Now, he is a bit idealistic, and I think that's his fatal political flaw. He's also an anti-globalist and I'm alright with that.
dragonwriter 9y ago
More Idiocracy than F451, IMO. And not just the politicians.

by dmoy 9y ago

If it's Oprah vs Trump 2020, I feel like we're rapidly approaching Fahrenheit 451 crazyland politics (just specifically the politicians, nothing else about the book).

ixtli 9y ago

I would say that one very important mitigating factor is that Oprah has clearly demonstrated that she's capable of delegating tasks in order to achieve something larger than what would otherwise be possible with the force of her own personality. This is a material and important skill in a leader. People's view of trump as a success at building businesses by any reasonable measure is absurd but Oprah has been wildly successful by many metrics the right has consistently agitated for in their leaders. To be clear I'm a pretty staunch socialist so I find little solace in the idea that she could be president, but I also think it's not quite right to say that they are steps down the same path: if I had to make this sort of a metaphor it would be that Trump yields Fahrenheit 451 and Oprah yields a cyberpunk dystopia something akin to Blade Runner.

rgbrenner 9y ago
People's view of trump as a success at building businesses by any reasonable measure is absurd but Oprah has been wildly successful Forbes says Oprah is worth $2.8B.. and Trump is worth $3.1B. Oprah is 63; Trump is 71... so they've had about the same amount of time. By what reasoning is one a failure and the other wildly successful?
- DashRattlesnake 9y ago
  Trump started out by inheriting his money, and he would have made much more by investing it in an index fund than he has by playing businessman.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    Yes... but even accounting for that.. the return for trump is roughly 8% annually since '82. Oprah posted some great growth numbers early in her career with her TV show.. but if you start from when she reached $1B in 2004 to today, she has a return of 7.63% annually. If I had to pick, IMO Oprah is more impressive. But it isn't like we're comparing Bill Gates and the owner of the local dry cleaner. Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund. If we're really looking for business leaders with good growth numbers, it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing.
    - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
      > These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. After 2004, Oprah--just like Trump--could have earned more money in an index fund. You're just picking and choosing to get the comparison you want. Oprah went from $0 -> billionare. If she'd investive passively, she'd still have basically nothing. Trump went from something like $500 million -> billionare. If he'd invested passively he'd be ahead. In conclusion: Trump is a shitty businessman, which was really my only point. > Neither is growing like Facebook or Google. These numbers aren't substantially different. Both have subpar returns. > ... it's probably a better idea to turn off the TV and start looking at the people building companies that are actually growing. This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. They're not supermen. Running the country is not something I'd want any of them to be doing. Running a government sub-bureaucracy, maybe, but only one without much policy-making power.
      - ixtli 9y ago
        >This is weird valley-think. Those people were lucky more than anything, being in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills. _Yes._ A person with a billion dollars does not work a billion times harder than a person with 1 dollar. A programmer should be keenly aware of this, I think, given what a monumentally complex task it is to evaluate the value of labor in our industry. I also do not begrudge an individual their success carte blanche even if I am highly critical of capitalism (best to judge them for the specifics of their actions) but we should be clear about whether or not someone has shown evidence of being better than a coin flip before we start saying they're qualified for something.
- learc83 9y ago
  Oprah is a Black woman born into poverty at a time when being Black and a woman was even more of a disadvantage than it is today. Trump is White, male, 3rd generation millionaire.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

Jedd 9y ago

For those not familiar with Bradbury's work, Seth Macfarlane's comment is a concise summary of the problem: "Oprah is beyond doubt a magnificent orator. But the idea of a reality show star running against a talk show host is troublingly dystopian. We don’t want to create a world where dedicated public service careers become undesirable and impractical in the face of raw celebrity."

adrianratnapala 9y ago
If the likes of Oprah and Trump become the norm, it will have seemed obvious in hindsight that politics always was showbizz. Politician in democracies seem to lose more from specific bad events they gain from good ones. This gives them an incentive to push responsibility away from themselves out to unelected officials (regulators, judges, cops) and non-government lobbies (big businesses, NGOs, public-sector unions). And this pushing has been progressing for decades and decades already. So by now, while politicians collectively could seize the reins of their own power, they don't actually have them in their hands. In such a world, the "job" of the politician is then engage with the public, putting on a show of attacking the system, while not having, or even desiring, the power to change it. Who better for that job than Trump and Oprah?

dcposch 9y ago

Oprah v Trump would be straight-up two cable television stars running for “leader of the free world”. (A phrase that already sounds even more ridiculous than it did a few years ago.) One popularized the racist Birther / “born in Kenya” meme. The other is biggest promoter behind Dr Phil, probably the most prominent modern American quack doctor. They’d be representing opposite parties, but they have a lot in common. Both have publicly promoted the uniquely damaging lie that vaccines cause autism. Both are media people first and foremost, hucksters, promoters, peddlers of false hopes and false fears. Waves of dangerous Mexicans are not, in fact, “pouring across our southern border”. Dr Phil does not actually have a magic solution for weight loss. Trump does not now, and never did have a plan to “Make America Great Again”. It’s all for show. — Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US?

akkat 9y ago
> Just curious, if it comes to Trump v Oprah 2020, how many of you currently in America would consider starting or joining a venture outside the US? Based on the amount of people who promised to move to Canada if Trump won, my guess is next to nothing.
- mc32 9y ago
  And it's a bit odd. IIRC, when Bush won, it was the same. I mean, I had hoped he'd lose, but I wasn't about to run just cuz. Beside, when was the last time a conservative said, dammit, Bill won, or Obama won, I'm off to [some country]. It's mostly Dems who almost never actually go through with it. Sure, you get a very small trickle but nothing like they promise.
  - ckarmann 9y ago
    The equivalent for conservatives is to consider secession. There were a good number of petitions for some states in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_state_petitions_for_seces...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

To what degree are Facebook and Twitter responsible for this?

diogenescynic 9y ago

It’s closer to Idiocracy than Fahrenheit 451.

mc32 9y ago

I can see the Dem machine in action now. If Oprah were to run, they would run her out of town. I think they are afraid of her because she'd provide a weak candidate against Trump. I have read a few are actually wishfully hoping H runs again. But who do the Dems even have? I mean Warren is a bit too left for most Americans. Bernie, I don't think he'll go another go after they threw him under the bus like that.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> But who do the Dems even have? I mean Warren is a bit too left for most Americans. Bernie, I don't think he'll go another go after they threw him under the bus like that. Warren is less left than Sanders, who AFAIK remains the single most popular politician in the country. Sanders might not want to make another run at his age, but while he might have a grudge against the former DNC leadership, he and his supporters have been actively engaged in DNC reform efforts and made some significant advances; I don't see any reason to expect he wouldn't continue to positively engage with the national party. As for other candidates, Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) has been hailed as a rising star and potential near-future Presidential candidate. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (IL) likewise has been floated as a potential candidate. Rep. John Delaney (MD) is certainly running, and not obviously implausible as a nominee. Actually, rather than going on, I’ll just drop the WaPo’s lost of potentials (which I just found, and overlaps mine; I don't necessarily agree with their ranking, but they are mostly plausible and, but for Dwayne Johnson and Oprah, experienced candidates.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/22/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020-ranked/?utm_term=.3ebf927b6bca https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/22/th...
- mc32 9y ago
  Of all those, perh Patrick or Sanders. Defo not Harris. She's a progressive's progressive and does not really represent me in many instances. I like Sanders because he truly cares about Americans, the jobs unions represent (not that I like unions, they are corrupt). Now, he is a bit idealistic, and I think that's his fatal political flaw. He's also an anti-globalist and I'm alright with that.

dragonwriter 9y ago

More Idiocracy than F451, IMO. And not just the politicians.