I'd vote for Oprah. How about you?


breal said:

He is the duly elected president.  Efforts, by any means necessary, to destroy him while he is in office--they hurt more than just him, and I wish they would stop.   I find the media landscape these days unrecognizable.  
 


The focus should be on getting the duly elected president to act like a president -- a duty he is manifestly incapable of performing.  Given this reality, the duty of anyone who believes in this country is to contain him and, if possible, get him removed.



breal said:

He is the duly elected president.  Efforts, by any means necessary, to destroy him while he is in office--they hurt more than just him, and I wish they would stop.   I find the media landscape these days unrecognizable.  

The focus should be on running a candidate who can beat him.  

I would vote for Oprah Winfrey over Donald Trump.  Because:

1.  She is the executive of huge and powerful company that she herself built, which proves she is a very smart and very shrewd and hires good people.  It goes without saying that she must also fire bad people. 

2.  If she held a rally, people would show up.  

3.  She's not a politician.

4.  She means well. 

With regard to Commander in Chief duties, she is steelier and more ruthless than you think.  


This is sad that people think we have to resort to a media star to win against Trump.  How about instead we can run a candidate who has policies people desperately want and need like single-payer medical, and free college and a living wage and someone who is not beholden to corporate interests.  That's is what will get people excited about getting out to vote.  Oprah running against Donald will just be a non-issue, media Sh*t Show.  The Democrats are excited about Oprah, because they can run her, and have a good chance of winning without having to change their Republican LIte message.  So, we can think we beat Trump and then she can vote for mass surveillance, charter schools, more money for the military and less for people, no estate tax and whatever else her rich buddies have on the list.  In other words, similar to Trump with a better personality.  No thanks.




breal said:

He is the duly elected president.  

He is the duly selected President.  One thing we should be focussing on is insuring that, in the future, candidates who lose the popular election are not selected by the Electoral College.


What a load of crap. Trump exhibits signs of mental illness. The pathological lying, the delusions of grandeur.  And there is a huge difference between a person who acknowledges their illness and then functions well with mental illness via therapy and medication and one who has no idea or won't face the fact that they are mentally ill. I don't think the latter is someone to uphold as an example of successfully living with mental illness. 

It's like saying Alcoholics Anonymous would be excited and proud to have an open alcoholic who hasn't faced addiction and continues to spiral out of control embarrassing themselves and everyone around them being the face of alcoholism. 

Starsong said:

The hypocrisy of throwing around the term "mental illness" due to not enjoying Trump's behavior.  He was voted because he is the anti-politicican.  Apparently it was time. Ding dong. Sure he can be cringe-worthy, but you can't turn away, and no holds are barred. So here we are.  Like it or not. That said, if he does have a mental illness, every foundation and non-profit relating to mental illness awareness and education, should extol the fact someone with "mental illness"  can run and win the presidency against an old machine!! HE WON!  So I'm running with that. Not because I enjoy Trump per se, hardly, but because it's an unfair assessment to label your non-candidate as having mental illness solely because your candidate didn't win, and he just pisses you off. (not YOU C&R, but well, anyone claiming "he exhibits characteristics of a person with mental illness".  I mean we can point to people right here on this forum, that have obvious or potential "mental issues" by the way they treat people who say come here with innocuous questions or seeking advice, only to be met with vitriol by, I don't know, some of us.  Consistently.
conandrob240 said:

Well, it’s not really a joke. It is an actual concern that he exhibits characteristics of a person with mental illness.



mtierney said:

I wonder how millions of Americans who struggle with mental illnesses react to the jabs against POTUS that he is mentally compromised! The term should not be fodder for late night joksters.
nohero said:



mtierney said:

would fat jokes be banned?

No, but your GOP friends would probably go back to the watermelon, gorilla, and witch doctor jokes they guffawed over during the Obama Administration.

As for leadership competencies- it would be awesome if they were created for this job. Few companies hire senior level positions without defining them. 




Personality is a whole different story. It’s tough to measure. The best tests aren’t very good measures of personality constructs. And personality tests aren’t great predictors of behavior. But perhaps a basic test of psychometric stability might be a good start. There are a few that measure for major personality derailers. I’ll bet Trump has many. Then, a defined set of leadership competencies and some minimum experience requirements.

















Tulsi Gabbard and Rev William Barber go outside the box to provide real leadership to solve problems. Gabbard and Barber in 2020!



Is Tulsi Gabbard age-eligible to be President? 



brealer said:

Is Tulsi Gabbard age-eligible to be President? 

Yes, she'll be 37 in April.


Tulsi Gabbard talking to Jake Tapper about the erroneous nuke tweet and speaking out against regime change.  Refreshing. I saw another version of this where she says overthrowing Gadhafi in Libya was a mistake, but that seems cut off from this version.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.