Oprah

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Not gonna be any traction with the whole omg, she sat with Weinstein...chances are high they never chit chatted about his conquests.

Might want to just work with the issues with this one given she has a massive fan base left and center..and even the women on the right. She very much could be sitting in office come 2021

I tend to agree with that assessment. There really isn't that much on her specific politics beyond general Democrat support. She strikes as potentially an improvement over Obama and the Clintons.

She did go pretty snaky after Trump won with plenty of at least near racist comments. She may have a hard time getting past those, but a definite potential candidate.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oprah and Trump have known each other for a long time it seems....www.youtube.com...

I can imagine her town hall meetings if she became president.....
AND YOU GET A FREE CAR, AND YOU GET A FREE CAR...
EVERYONE GETS A FREE CAR!!
heck, she'd be tapped into federal funds, maybe we'd all get free mansions....

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
Maybe Oprah, didn't know what harvey was like, I mean did you know what he was like until all these women came forward, I bet you guys thought he was great and funny and all that jazz. Some wives don't even realise their husbands are abusing their children until the child opens up about it. Give her a break. Maybe she knew or maybe she didn't.

Valid point.

originally posted by: doobydoll
Not another celebrity for President. Good grief America.

And Harpo? I know she's popular and all, but I get real bad vibes whenever I see her on tv or in pics. Just reading her name on here I got that same feeling. I get an overwhelming feeling/sense that what you see isn't what you get. I 'feel' deceit, concealed badness, deep connections with powerful people who are in the shadows and unseen, not good people. She is useful to them right now, popular and influential. She thinks she's 'one of them' but she's not, she wants to be. She's a willing puppet in return for a place in history as the first black female POTUS.

Whether I'm right or wrong, who knows? But that's what i feel.

Apologies for bring my 'woo' experience to the thread and no offence intended towards anyone, sincerely. I just felt compelled to post it.

There isn't much that can't be 'labeled'. In this case, celebrity. Then there's 'billionaire' , lawyers, professional politicians, nobodies that have done nothing, the list goes on....

a reply to: nwtrucker


Just came across this one. Oprah is a 'depopulation' advocate...it's seems to align with the OP.......

www.infowars.com...

The pictures with her and Harvey Weinstein doom any chances of her running. She's licking his f---ing ear in one picture, and in another picture she looks for all the world like a madam offering one of her girls to Harvey. There's no way she didn't know.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Is this what America has come to we elect Actors, Movie stars, TV personality's as our leaders ? We are doomed .

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: doobydoll
Not another celebrity for President. Good grief America.

And Harpo? I know she's popular and all, but I get real bad vibes whenever I see her on tv or in pics. Just reading her name on here I got that same feeling. I get an overwhelming feeling/sense that what you see isn't what you get. I 'feel' deceit, concealed badness, deep connections with powerful people who are in the shadows and unseen, not good people. She is useful to them right now, popular and influential. She thinks she's 'one of them' but she's not, she wants to be. She's a willing puppet in return for a place in history as the first black female POTUS.

Whether I'm right or wrong, who knows? But that's what i feel.

Apologies for bring my 'woo' experience to the thread and no offence intended towards anyone, sincerely. I just felt compelled to post it.

There isn't much that can't be 'labeled'. In this case, celebrity. Then there's 'billionaire' , lawyers, professional politicians, nobodies that have done nothing, the list goes on....

Exactly like Trump but with good manners and better smiles.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

It's much easier supporting those that would reduce the planet's population or culture when one doesn't have children of their own or relate to others' children. Oprah? No children. Coincidence? I think not.

Yes, because we all know that women should all have babies to be real women.

A big difference between choosing not to have children and being a depopulation advocate.

www.infowars.com...

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: nwtrucker

I will wait to hear her stance on issues. I don't care if she calls herself a lib or a conserve, what are you going to do once elected?

I still think the average plumber can do a much better job that the average ass-hole politician, but the plumber won't swim with the criminals.

Plus the very soon the anti-trust issues that are a-brew'in will have to be dealt with. And since when does voting change a f'n thing? I still have hopes for Trump, but he has some major head winds.


.

Well, here's one that I'd like your take on....

www.infowars.com...

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: nwtrucker

Is this what America has come to we elect Actors, Movie stars, TV personality's as our leaders ? We are doomed .

Pick your poison.....

Racist hypocrit!

I've had my fill of Hollywood personalities being elected. Both parties.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Yes, my original reply was sarcastic. As you saw fit to reply to me a day later, I thought I would look a little deeper into the points you are making rather than just jump to a sarcastic reply that bears little relevance to your points.

Even though your original statement ‘’ It's much easier supporting those that would reduce the planet's population or culture when one doesn't have children of their own or relate to others' children. Oprah? No children. Coincidence? I think not.’’sounded sexist to me, I decided to give your original point more consideration.

You linked to an article about the leaders of Europe and how it is being surmised that they have little desire to have children because they will all be taken care of in their old age by immigrants. The author of the article is
Giulio Meotti.
Meotti is known for having very pro-Israel views and for being very critical about Islam, multiculturalism and political correctness. He describes himself as a liberal conservative.
The first thee names referenced in this article are
Douglas Murray who wrote the book ‘’ Neoconservative: Why We Need It

Mathieu Bock-Coté,
is a conservative Canadian sociologist and columnist.

Joshua Mitchell is a conservative writer writing in the premier issue of a new conservative publication
I looked no further into this link as for me at least, the biases are already established.

But enough about the biases of the link you offer and on to your next reply.
You say. ‘’

''A big difference between choosing not to have children and being a depopulation advocate.’’ I don’t know what this means. What is the big difference between a person who chooses to not have a child and one who advocates for depopulation. I can find none. Even a small difference. For that matter I can quickly come up with a similarity. A person who believes in depopulation might easily decide to not have children. But I will wait for you to give me any difference between the two.



But best of all is your link from Inforwars.

i know you did not ask for my take on that article as you did of others, but here it is anyway.



That headline reads ‘’ Scandal: Oprah’s World Depopulation Scheme Dashes Presidential Hopes
In the article, the only reference to where this information was collected was from The Sunday Times.
Clicking on that link I found the article it was gleaned from. Guess what. The New York Times.

So Inforwars,, who I am supposing you do not consider ‘’fake news’’ has to resort to gathering information from a source that many consider the hallmark of fake news.

That Times headline reads this. 8/1/10 6:29 PM
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation - Times Online


May 24, 2009
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

Notice that the discrepancy between the two different headlines is glaring. Infowars says ‘’depopulation while the article it referenced only speaks of curbing ‘’overpopulation.
In fact, throughout the whole Times article, ‘’depopulation’’ is never mentioned while finding ways to stop ‘’overpopulation is mentioned numerous times.

Also, if we read the original article, we find that this idea to curb overpopulation was not Oprah's idea but rather Bill Gates idea. The Infowars twist would have us believe it was all her planning. So we go from Gates idea of curbing overpopulation to Winfrey’s plans to depopulate the world of poor people.

The meeting, was reported at that time was a meeting of philanthropists, discussing how they might better organize their philanthropy to better serve the world. Now we may question that motive or the veracity of their intent, but we have no proof of it being anything other than what that article offers.
Yet Inforwars has turned it into a smoking gun as to Winfries desire to kill of the poor people of the world.
Oh, here is a link to that article if you like.
pbble.com...

All of that aside, back to what's her name. Do you KNOW that she decided to not have children? If so, where do you know this from. Maybe she can't. I don't know, nor do I really care to. That decision,if indeed it is a decision is her business, not mine.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Much of my views are based on personal experience. I try not to rely on links too much as it's both tempting and rather easy to find links that support one's views. Yes?

On your point of can't find any difference between remaining childless and a depopulation advocate is troubling to me in that your relying on 'finding' rather than thinking and logic.

Simply put, without link, one is a personal choice. The other is a promoter of an action that would be imposed on everyone else. Ergo not a personal choice but rather a draconian imposition on a planet-wide basis.

Having a child changes one's viewpoint and attitudes like no other single act I can think of. Having grandchildren magnifies that change into their futures. Their lives and, hopefully their children...so on. Future.

Not having children is perfectly fine with me on a personal level. Logic demands a difference in attitude between the childless and those with children. Perceptions different. Per force.

The article refers to both men and women leaders without children. The points strike as valid irrespective of who wrote them.

If you think a leader without children can relate to millions of families with their crosses to bear as well as a leader that has children Then I suggest you re-look at that aspect. I can assure you that it highly improbable.

Move to the depopulation advocate and now your talking either world war, a pandemic of near extinction levels or outright economic collapse. The agreed upon goal is 500 million people remaining planet-wide. No more.

The difference between the two should now be very clear.

Your call, your choice. Mine is already very clear.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: nwtrucker

Is this what America has come to we elect Actors, Movie stars, TV personality's as our leaders ? We are doomed .

Ronald Reagen and Donald Trump were/are good leaders.

Not sure how Schwarzneger, Eastwood, Ventura, Franken, performed.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: carewemust

Oprah Da Pimp ....Hmm.......

I think female Pimps are called Madams?

"She is self made, as is Trump."

Trump inherited millions from his Dad and born into wealth. How was he 'self made'?

a reply to: Kromlech


I just showed your video to an Oprah fan (my wife). She thought that it was produced by a Donald Trump fan, LOL.