Oprah Winfrey for President?

[Chase]

This was mostly in response to notion that celebrity presidents can't be effective - as even Trump has been. People wouldn't know it because the news wants to talk about the mean things he says or the things that fail instead. I'm still game for having fun and maybe I'll brainstorm some targets if my own.

 

---

 

Firstly - "wins for Republicans" matter. The more promises Trump fulfills to his previous voters the more likely they are to vote for him again. Trump doesn't need to expand his base or campaign as hard as his challenger because his record is a part of the campaign itself. This clears his primary challenger slate and gives the GOP a resounding majority candidate. Typically - you want to be an incumbent with party wins.

 

Gorsuch is a huge one. Trump assuaged fears that the law would be re-interpreted from the Judicial bench and preserved conservative presence in the branch for years to come. NeverTrumpers give him this one on our side.

 

Actually - that protectionism of American businesses is either more likely non-partisan or more of a Democratic cause depending on which candidate you are looking at. During the campaign - Trump used this to sound extremely different from other Republicans, and gave him an avenue to reach out to Bernie Sanders voters during the election. Free trade is a traditional Republican stance and quite a few Democrats support it as well. While it's not "Trumpian politics" - these deals are a win for conservatives and for all American consumers. It also proves Trump can still makes deals.

 

I'll look into them more. Watch this space.

 

The quickest way for ANY party to lose following and support is to change healthcare. By instating the Affordable Care Act Obama insured he would lose his congressional majority. Republicans took the bait though and made promises to burn the law to ashes - and that's caused some overeagerness from many a Republican to act irrationally for an immediate repeal. I APPRECIATE Sen. McCain not repeating the Democrats' previous example of exclusion by voting the bill down. This one matters for all of us and input should come from all of us. I don't count this as a win for Trump because it's not one. That being said - Healthcare isn't the only thing I as a voter care about.

 

I for one do not think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ours as Americans to determine - but we are allied with Israel as you said. We don't have to further the conflict to re-affirm our allegiances. Obama's "apologizer-in-chief" approach to foreign affairs was noble - but largely ineffective as he continued to send troops to the Middle East and we continued to fight in conflicts there. When he was aggressive - conflicts improved. That's been more effective than being the whole world's diplomats. Why make our allies nervous if we already know who to ally with? I'd rather both sides know where we stand before we get to the table to negotiate. This conflict has gone on for decades. The answer for past presidents hasn't been to solve it. Why should it be for Trump?

 

[Shamitako]

TBH, would probably vote for Oprah.

 

Would also prefer to not set the tone for a stream of celebrity presidents. I don't think one is as bad as people make it out to be, but it can't become the standard.

[5hift]

Crisis averted!

[Ruby Riding Hood]

Honestly I think a lot of you are missing what a president needs to be and what qualities they need to show. It shouldn't matter as much if they have experience as long as they know what they're getting into with going into the role of presidency. It's not just another job that forces you to deal with people you may not like or understand, it's a spot of importance that says "You are the LEADER of these people." 

 

I put an emphasis on leader because that's the big thing that the president should be. we shouldn't look for someone who tries to rally one type of people, but someone who can unify the nation and possibly the world with a showing of respect, honor, and dignity. The president should want the job to do things like that as well as make the world a better place for the next generation. Make earth healthy while still allowing people to enjoy what they have. Set the standard on what it means to be truly large and give the people the one thing they have not had in a long time, which is someone who is not just good, but great. A person who exudes greatness with every breath they take and commands respect with every word spoken. Do not confuse this for perfection, as no one person is perfect, but some can be perfect for a certain role. When you look back in history, a lot of past presidents have been good, but have any actually been great? Did they do great things for the country as a whole? For the people living in their country? For the world at large? These things do take time, and that's why one reason the legal age is 35. As we've seen however, a mature person age does not make. Maturity in itself is subjective though, as some people may say that playing video games is immature, even though video games are a great way to unwind, though saying that to a community full of gamers is fairly redundant I feel. 

 

As far as Oprah being a presidential candidate, I'm sure she'd be good, but the real question is why would she run? At this point, anyone running has to clean up Donald Trump's mess as well as finish cleaning up the mess that Bush left and fine-tune what Obama was trying to do. Another question I feel needs asking is how long will color be a factor? I know racism is a thing, but going into presidency as a minority is fairly dangerous enough as is. You not only have to deal with possible racism from already existing political figures, but also from your own nation as the split is NEVER just Minority vs Majority or Black vs White or whatever categories happen to pop up. That person must also be ready to die at a moment's notice as assassinations are still a very real threat to the life of someone that big.

 

I know a lot of what I've said can't possibly be achieved by just one person, no matter how great they are, but if that one person can influence how the next person goes about it, and start a chain of having great leaders, then maybe, just maybe, that world of peace won't seem like will never exist. Now, who is that person of greatness....? WEEEEELLLLLL.....

 

[Chase]

I think there are a lot of questions that we as Americans need to answer about ourselves to determine which leader fits the role of the presidency best.

 

1. Is the role of the presidency supposed to be most important to the people of the United States or should they focus on being an emissary for the entire planet?

 

Part of the reason President Trump was successful in 2016 is that Americans are undecided on what role America should play in the world. Democrats tend to believe that America should be a part of a global community that strives to protect the entire planet from various threats, where Republicans do so only at the extent of enriching the value of American goods, services, and lives. It also likely that Trump took this a step further and played to the idea that America should be somewhat isolationist when it comes to priorities, adopting liberal policies regarding trade and applying it to a nationalistic "America First" canvas. It's a little blasé to assume Americans that only vote for American interests are shallow minded. The presidency is only a national position, despite having global impact. Therefore, it's reasonable to consider all options. It's also true that America is merely a location on Earth, and that it has neighbors, some of which value and depend on America greatly.

 

2. Is there a group of people that Americans should form their policy for - or should Americans put value on everyone in the tent?

 

This one comes down to budgeting concerns - and it's kinda funny how this mindset applies to the political parties in America at the moment. Democrats take a very capitalist approach when it comes to Education, willing to invest and spend much in order for America to make it back later (despite recently turning their back on capitalism as an economic system among younger voters and liberal activists). Republicans would rather spend on security measures, such as bolstering national defense or improving border security, despite having a very "frugal" intent when it comes to spending in general.

 

It's very likely the appropriate president -here- would be willing to spend equally on Security -and- Education while also trying to budget responsibly, but no candidate has come out with that intention because it strays for both parties' norms.

 

3. What is considered a "successful" tenure as President?

 

The answer to this question is easily the most important when trying to have an idea of what the ideal presidential candidate is.

 

If Trump's term officially ended today, he would be seen as a successful president when it comes to the nation's economy and job growth, while a failure when it comes to relations with leaders of other countries. His service is enough to embolden Republicans and energize Democrats. It's hard to tell just how good or bad Trump did.

 

If you let the media decide for you - then Trump is clearly a poor president. However, the media isn't the only one with a valid opinion.