I thought it may be fun to bring up a topic that got
attention in the United States after Oprah
Winfrey's impassioned speech at the Golden Globe
awards in Hollywood recently. That of her
running for the office of the Presidency. It seems
that President Trump is all for it. As are quite a
few people it seems.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/poll-most-americans-want-oprah-to-run-for-president

What are your opinions?

It’s all starting to seem very Idiocracy-esque to me, Foxy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808

This article sums it up for me:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/biggest-problem-with-oprah-2020/news-story/c283dfaff570cbe07fcca8a45c3c25db

I don’t think Oprah’s friendship with Harvey Weinstein is her biggest problem. After all, Trump bragged about committing sexual assault himself and no-one seemed to care. So, I don’t see how being friends with someone who commits sexual assault would be a hindrance to her campaign, unless women are held to a different standard there.

No, my biggest concern regarding Oprah is her sense of judgment. She has caused a lot of damage by introducing the world to, and popularising, some of the most dangerous quacks and quackery.

Oprah the 'Hero'

Ben Shapiro, "What the kind of risk was she taking? She was standing in front of an entire town filled with sexual abusers and harassers. She said nothing about it for twenty years. She was being cheered by people who said nothing about it for twenty years and there she is, pretending she is leading the fight".

"In what has had she led the fight? I sort of missed it. And just because she said some things last night I haven't seen how things have materially changed. Reece Witherspoon has said that she measures things before Oprah and after Oprah. What changed after Oprah? Oprah said a bunch of stuff. Well, I was under the impression that most of us agreed with that stuff before this broke."

"And she lauded the Hollywood Press Association, but where were they reporting on the harassment and sex scandal for the last twenty years? It is literally their job to cover Hollywood, but it took The New York Times and (?) to uncover all this stuff. So why is Oprah lauding the Hollywood Press association, a woman who is good friends with Harvey Weinstein, being cheered by Meryl Streep, a woman who gives standing ovations to Roman Polanski".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf5Dxe93vpc

Dear AJ,

You've raised some valid points.

Of course we don't know if she's going to run.
She doesn't have to reveal her plans until next
year so it's all currently speculation.

However, you're right. We can question how capable
an entertainment executive or a television professional
would be once she was in the White House.

What does impress is that she was born into a poor home
in Mississippi. She broke through as a television news
and talk show personality in the 1980s and over 30 years
she became the face of TV talk shows. She also has
starred and produced feature films and began her own
network. She has never been bankrupt.

Despite being a trail blazer in so many areas - I guess
there are considerable limits in running for office.
Does she have what it takes to be a viable
Presidential candidate? You have to be able to influence
people, Congress and countries, persuade people into doing
what you want them to do. And so many other behind the
scenes things.

To me, it's not inconceivable that Oprah could become
President given her name recognition, given the support
she has especially among women, her ability to deliver
speeches and lets not forget the money she would have
behind her - being a self-made billionaire.

She's smart, tough, compassionate, hard-working, well-known,
but does she really want the job?

That, we will have to wait to find out.

Recent Oprah 'attainments': appropriated #metoo, it is now, 'Oprah did it all' and, appropriated the Californian mud slide disaster, where is it now, 'Oprah's property could be affected'.

Those self-marketing machines Oprah Winfrey and Degeneres suck for diverting the media attention onto their own 'suffering'(sic) by owning multimillion dollar properties in the vicinity.

Oprah is a TV persona, but even so the totally superficial, cynical and self-serving billionaire behind is evident.

Foxy, "..given the support she [Oprah] has especially among women"

Forgetting the relentless spin of Oprah's marketing empire, specifically what demographic would that be? -The Chenille dressing gown and hair in curlers at 11.00 am set?

leoj,

Take an intelligent guess - given Oprah's status
as a household name, the self-made billionaire,
given her name recognition, the fact that she
became a cultural phenomenon for the past 30 years
there's no doubt to most people that she's a
remarkable woman who's been an amazing trail blazer
for over 3 decades. And her popularity amongst
women can be seen from the packed crowds of women
who make up her audiences. She managed to fill the
Opera House on her visits to Australia. And they keep
wanting her back. These are things that speak for
themselves. And it's funny but there were no photos of
any women in curlers at Oprah's shows. Or at least
I have never seen any. Perhaps you are confusing Oprah
with Pauline Hanson's followers?

Oprah is a 'big-ass' marketer. It is all about advertising. She is very good at it.

In a swoop, she has appropriated #metoo as hers. Hubris.

Was there ever anything as shameless, to compare with Oprah's and Ellen's - they did a team act - appropriation of the California mud-slide catastrophe?

Oprah would sell anything, including notorious Dr Oz. She dabbles in some very wild speculative gossip too.

What about some discussion of the circle of protection from powerful friends that enables grubs like Winestein to predate for decades?

Oprah Winfrey, with her conspiracy theories, loose in the White House.

leoj,

I'm so glad that you've raised the topic of "marketing."
As well as making the most of publicity.

This is America we're talking about and people don't
make billions by accident. Plus any publicity is
good publicity - Donald Trump is proof of that.
He's an expert at marketing as well - especially himself
and his brand. And look what it got him.

Here's a link on the subject:

http://mfishbein.com/marketing-donald-trump/

Foxy,

'One is as bad/good as the other' opens up the discussion to a range of fallacies that waste everyone's time. Of course you are opposed to Trump, but it is irrelevant.

I don't know that anyone knows where s/he stands with Oprah, her screen persona is so tightly crafted and managed. The glimpses of what is hidden behind that persona are not encouraging.

However if the Democrats want her then there will finally be some examination of Oprah. To my way of thinking that will be a good thing - that Oprah who is very influential is being held up to scrutiny. -Seal's criticisms and then his frightened backdown, indicate there is a lot going on there and there is that (celebrity) circle of protection of the nasties among them and there are politicians involved through political donations (and favours?).

leoj,

Whoa - lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

She hasn't said that she'd run yet and of course if
she does decide to run - she will be scrutinised
and I'm sure that she knows that. We have to stick with
the facts though and not make assumptions that may or may
not eventuate. The facts remain - she is smart, tough,
compassionate, and hard working - she has produced
feature films, began her own network, published her own
magazine - never been bankrupt - and those are not small
things (especially for a black female in the US). She's
an excellent communicator and has been a cultural
phenomenon for the past 30 years - so yes - damn straight,
I think that she has what it takes to be a viable
presidential candidate. Even Donald Trump think so.

The woman is boring and if she stands, stands to be even more boring.

The US. Thousands of universities. Three hundred and fifty-odd million people. Trump. Oprah. Christ almighty.

Is that it ?

Dear Joe,

The US needs a good candidate for the top job.
That's for sure. Unfortunately, they're never
available. Or if they are they usually don't
get very far. As you know in the US - money
talks, so to speak. And without it - unfortunately,
you don't have much of a chance.

Is Mise,

Name some non-boring US Presidents apart from
JFK.

cont'd ...

I've just thought of a few more apart from JFK - who
were definitely not boring.

1) Bill Clinton (I know) but he played the saxophone.

2) Lyndon B. Johnson. I read that he was fond of
pulling his penis out in front of people and asking
"Have you ever seen anything as big as this?" Plus
he loved being interviewed by reporters while having
a bowel movement on the toilet. He could never be
mistaken for a nice man or even a decent one - but
his ability to intimidate others definitely makes
him anything but boring.

3) I guess we'd have to include Barack Obama on this
list. He's the first black US President, and a great
communicator. Definitely not boring.

4) And there's JFK - young, hot, promiscuous,
(maybe an amphetamine addict) wore hip sunglasses, died
tragically, came from a famous family.

That's it for now.

Foxy,

Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln.

'Why don't better people run for U.S. President?' - But better people do run and become President!

An interesting reply to this question, based on resumes for the top job,
http://www.quora.com/Why-dont-better-people-run-for-U-S-President

That should dispense with Foxy's fallacious 'others (men) are just as 'bad' as the Harvey Weinstein loving Oprah Winfrey'. -That circle of protection of errant celebrities by other celebrities and political big knobs needs to be examined!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/oprah-winfrey-seal-golden-globes-speech-sexual-harassment-harvey-weinstein-instagram-hollywood-a8153791.html

Now, returning to Foxy's original post, 'Oprah for President' and putting to one side the adulation of some limp-brained people who swallow the Kool Aid of superficial chat show hosts dispensing presents and exploiting the vulnerable, referring specifically to the awful Oprah and Ellen. What is to be made of a woman who, despite having wealth and superior research and professional advice available to her, gives a podium and support to the Anti-Vaxx movement?
What about Oprah's support of Deepak Chopra, sly quack Doctor OZ, and Doctor Phil?

Amazing how Hillary and Oprah did the celeb suck-ups to Harvey Weinstien, helping to build that celebrity circle of protection and shield against criticism and complaints.

All part of Oprah's resume for her claims to be President. And that is before she is ever tested in that difficult role.

At this stage, no matter who the Dems run, Trump will probably win...if he decides to run again in 2020.

But if Winfrey runs it'll make Trump's victory a certainty...indeed he'll probably win all 57 states.

Just imagining how a similar circle of protection by powerful celebrities, BBC management and politicians protected Jimmy Saville among others, re-victimising and destroying the lives of any who even looked like making a complaint.

What lessons can Australian parents learn from this? Hopefully the first might be not to sit brainless in front of The Box, watching Oprah and passing on the stupid gene (and risky adulation of celebrities bringing gifts) to children.

The whiney Left gets hysterical about Donald Trump, but then puts up a media bimbo as a possible president. Just too silly to think about.

Is Mise,

You listed Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln as two
past US Presidents who you regard as not boring.

I'm not sure that I'd fully agree with Jefferson Davis.
He served as the President of the Confederate States,
was hated by the military, Congress, and
the public, before the Confederacy died on his watch.
Historians argue about whether he was a hero or a traitor,
but they agree he was a lousy President. The city of
New Orleans had a century old Memorial to Jefferson Davis
torn down and hauled away.

As for Abraham Lincoln? Well he did free the slaves, was
tall and depressed and his first Vice-President was named
Hannibal. So yes, I guess he can't be described as boring.
Plus his line, "As a nation of free men we will live
forever..." makes a hell of an intro for a song.

leoj,

Donald Trump's record as a media bimbo and his treatment
of women did not stop him from becoming a US President.
Is he a good example for American kids?

ttbn,

You do know that Donald Trump is a media bimbo?

mhaze,

It will be interesting to see how far Oprah can get - if she
decides to run for office. You're probably right though -
she won't win. Still that's what they said about Donald
Trump.

Foxy is so confused by gender issues that she doesn't know that there is no such thing as a male bimbo. Bimbo is as is exclusive to females as is the vagina. Besides, Trump was a successful business man before his tv era.

Speaking of gender bending and idiocy, American Chelsea Manning, a transgender soldier who spent time in a military prison for passing secrets to Wikipedia, is after Democrat nomination for the U. S. Senate. She is only out of the brig because of clemency, not a pardon, granted by leading anti-American, Barak Obama. Sexual confusion is one thing, but a traitor?

Ttbn,

Trump. Oprah. Manning. None of the above. Surely the American people, 350 million of them, can come up with someone better ?

Joe

ttbn,

Actually, the term "Bimbo" initially came into
being in the United States in 1919 and referred
to an unintelligent or brutish male.

So it does suit the current US President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimbo

As for Chelsea Manning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

I would not be leaping to her defence so quickly if I were you.

The Clintons are ominously silent. Popcorn anyone?

Foxy,

Well, there you are, anything but boring!!

How about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams?
None of them boring by a long shot.

James Kunstler recently wrote;
"Politics has become entertainment and entertainment has become politics !"

Foxy,

Where did I say I would defend Manning? He she or it is a disgrace. As for, 'bimbo', I can't say for sure that the Wikipedia entry is wrong, but the site has often been abused by people making stuff up, as you will be aware. As the term is generally used these days to refer to a blonde female, my use of it for the lady in question was wrong, and as she didn't put herself up as a possible presidential candidate, I should have confined my criticism to the to Trump-hating weirdos who did suggest it.

Joe,

While I can understand your dislike of Trump the person, I do not understand your dislike of Trump the politician. Who the hell gave you the idea that politicians had to be - even could be - likeable? Trump is president because the Yanks were sick of the line of no hopers since Ronald Reagan who dragged their country down. Despite what the Democrat dills say, Trump is gradually bringing hope and pride back.

Ttbn,

Trump the "politician" ?! Let's see: he's pissed off the Europeans, the Africans, the Caribbean and Latin American nations, Canada, Pakistan (fair enough), the Middle East, perhaps the South Koreans, dropped his guts to the Chinese, sucked up to Putin, nearly provoked a war with North Korea (which the South Koreans are now, far more adroitly, smoothing over) and blown it with Iran. Some "politician".

He's a slime, a narcissist, not too bright, and inherited big money, all of which I would despise. He has probably committed sexual assault, or if not, then done a lot of serial banging of all manner of women, even while his wife is giving birth; he's a liar, cheat and braggart. He's bone-lazy, pig-ignorant and always ready to drop someone else in his poo.

But apart from that, he's probably a nice guy.

Surely the Yanks, 350 million of them, can do better than either Trump, Clinton or Oprah ?

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise,

Great choices -

1) Thomas Jefferson - He wrote the Declaration of
Independence when he was 33 (which makes him a nerd)
however he was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase
so without him American wouldn't have New Orleans -
The First City of Jazz.

2)George Washington - Yeah, he pretty much drew the
blueprint for how a President should be - war hero,
tall, (easily rendered through shading). Not hip, exactly,
but no one's going to talk crap about George Washington.

3) John Adams - Yep - by becoming President first, the
man tried to ensure his son - John Quincy could never top
his old man. Classic non-boring dad move.

4) John Quincy Adams - First President to have his photo
taken, cut his hair short and wear pants instead of culottes.
Three great milestones.

leoj,

The Clintons no longer care.

Hillary's too busy book signing. Her book has become the
No. 1. Bestseller. She's busy signing books in the long
lines in New York City.

ttbn,

Read your second post on page 4 regarding Chelsea
Manning. You give us a different impression as to
your feeling about her.

On Trump's influence, the younger George Bush is supposed to have said that he thought Trump was great: he made young George look as good as Washington.

Dear Joe,

Here's a few links on Trum:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-president-usa-lying-twitter-outbursts-government-distrust-a8084231.html

And -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-white-house-liar-us-president-dishonest-history-richard-nixon-robert-dallek-oval-office-18073036.html

"A Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullsh!t in such a short span on that your opponent can't address let alone counter all of it."

So I won't try to counter all of Loudmouth's monumental misunderstandings, half-truths and outright fabrications. So let's just pick on one...Putin.

Apparently Trump has "sucked up to Putin". So let's see how he 's done that:

1. Well he's decided to sell weapons to Ukraine because Putin really really wants his closest enemy to have more and more advanced weaponry.

2. He's bolstering the commitment to the Baltic states and emphasising a new US commitment to treat a Russian attack on those states as an attack on all NATO countries. Putin really really wants the Baltic states to feel safe and secure from Russia so this is just another example of Trump doing Putin's bidding.

3. He's maintain the Magnitsky sanctions and added more of Putin's supporters to the list of people on the blacklist because, despite years of trying to overturn the sanctions Putin really really secretly wants them maintained.

4. Began sending US natural gas supplies to Poland because there's nothing Putin would want more than for Poland to no longer have to rely on Russian gas supplies.

5. Russia's most important product and main (only real?) export earner is oil. So clearly Putin must be thrilled that Trump's fracking policies and decisions to open up more areas for oil exploration are causing oil prices to remain low and probably will do so for years to come.

The idea that Trump is sucking up to Putin is the victory of fondest wishes over plain facts. The fact is that Putin's international position is immensely worse now than at the close of 2016. But LM doesn't want that to be true, therefore it isn't.

Mhaze,

Sales to Ukraine ? Do you mean these sales organised before Trump took office:

https://www.unian.info/society/2338432-american-weapons-could-already-be-on-ukraines-front-line-dfr-lab.html

Or the rocket-launchers and anti-tank 'offensive' weapons like in this story:

http://www.worldtribune.com/trump-approves-sale-of-lethal-weapons-to-ukraine/

Ani-tank weapons are 'lethal' ? I suppose so if you get hit by one. Like a Russian tank in the Ukraine might with a bit of luck. Okay, Mhaze, fair enough.

As for commitment to the Baltic states, this suggests otherwise: https://www.forces.net/news/us-jets-raf-lakenheath-end-nato-mission-baltics

US gas to Poland ? Okay, there's this:

http://energyfuse.org/polish-refinerys-imports-u-s-crude-send-strong-signal-moscow/

I suppose it's called business. But then, there's this:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-more-dependent-on-russian-gas-than-ever-despite-bid-to-diversify/

Win some, lose some. Not exactly devastating to Putin.

Joe

Where is page 4, Foxy? You must have a layout that I do not. I don't recall mentioning Manning previously.

Joe,

You are far too sensitive. All those people deserve to be pissed off. Trump isn't a diplomat. He is trying to to repair the damage Obama wreaked on America.

Mhaze,

So Trump isn't a politician. He isn't a diplomat. He isn't a statesman. Hmmmm ..... as President of the most powerful country in the world, what's left ?

I think I covered that in a previous post :)

But don't get me started on either of the Clintons.

Surely, SURELY there are better presidential candidates in all of America ?!

Surely ?

Dear Joe,

I guess we shall have to wait and see what happens
at the 2020 American elections. Perhaps as you suggest
someone will come forward, some unexpected talented
person who may surprise us all.
One can only live and hope.

In the meantime - I noticed that I made a typo on the second
link that I gave your earlier - so here it is again:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-white-house-liar-us-president-dishonest-history-richard-nixon-robert-dallek-oval-office-a8073036.html

ttbn,

Your second comment on page four of this discussion is
what I was referring to.

I think the think that makes Trump different, is he really doesnt need to be president
because he has plenty of money and power, without being president.
Thats why he is so straight and honest when he gives an opinion, he really doesnt care
if he stays president or not. He really has nothing to lose, at 70years old he is a selfmade man money wise and power wise already.

A lot of people at 70years of age are outspoken, because they simply know that their years are running out and they can no longer be bothered playing the games society expects.

He is right, Africa is not a well run country. Nor are the muslim countries.
In fact they are very backward countries due to male leaders who seem only to look after themselves.
How do I feel about Oprah being president.
Hard to say, depends if she can rule for black and white equally, I like her a lot and she seems pretty fairminded.
But if she is running because she has extreme left wing views and shares the globalist hippie, ideology then I couldnt vote for her.

What Trump says is the truth. Its the truth about biased newspapers.
Fake News....true
Little Rocket Man...true
Antifa is just as violent if not more so than the alt right.......true
A lot of countries that people runaway from.....are badly run, overpopulated, no life prospects,no schools, no work, with corrupt leaders and in Africa, rampant rape. I think the term s...holes is an accurate description .....true
Ive called them hellholes in my posts on here a few times, a slightly less crude term, but meaning the same.

As for black lives matter, 98% 0f black people killed in America are killed by blacks, and
nearly half of the white people killed are killed by blacks too.

Makes the, "black lives matter" demonstrations,seem like a huge over-reaction.

Foxy,

I still don't 'get this "page 4" of yours. Where is page 4? I have never seen marked pages on OLO.

ttbn,

The pages are listed at the bottom of each post.

sorry, I meant to say - they're listed at either
the top or the bottom of each page.

Foxy,

All I get is a list of posts. No pages. No numbers, top or bottom. And, while I'm about it, I have always been intrigued by your news paper column like format.

Well that wasn't too hard, was it Loudmouth?

In the space of one post we've gone from you asserting loudly and confidently that Trump is "sucking up to Putin" to you admitting quietly and reluctantly that Trump hasn't (yet?) succeeded in "devastating" Putin.

See, when you look at the facts and examine what he's done rather than meekly adhere to the propaganda, you quite easily arrive at the truth.

As I said before, I can't address the whole of your rant. But perhaps one more...

"nearly provoked a war with North Korea"

"“I give President Trump huge credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I’d like to thank him for that,” [SK President]Moon said at a news conference in Seoul."

ttbn,

When you get into the General Discussion Index and
you click onto the discussion of your choice -
for example - "Oprah Winfrey for President?"
under that title you will come across a set of icons
for example - "New Post" "New Discussion" and so on.
Then under that you will come up with Pages listings -
1,2, 3 4, and so on.
And then the various posts follow.

All you have to do is click onto the page you want -
from the earliest (page 1) to the latest (page 8).

As for my style of posting?
Well, it's just something I've gotten used to - and
feel comfortable with. There's no other reason.

Thanks, Foxy. I don't mind the ladies being more tech-savvy than I am. It's the football and cricket playing that browns me off.

Some confusion on pages I think.
The numbered blocks have the word "Page" appear when you select it.
They are in a row at the top & bottom of each page of posts.
Foxy is I think refering to the index that you get when you select
"On Line Opinion" or "Forum" at top of browser page.

Now where was I ? I have lost my train of thought !
Winney the election winner ?
Surely not, I think the US electors have become much over actors
all standing up pontificating like they understand it all.

Mind you our lot of pollies do not give much confidence.
Mine for instance "We have good commercial arrangements" Paul, gawd !

We should really try and find leaders from among the lower level
pollies as at least they will have heard all the rumours and will
understand how it all works. That is why the Labour party are all
ex-trade union executives. They are practised in back stabbing etc.
If I had my way I would ban all trade union leaders and lawyers from being members of parliament.

ttbn,

Thank You for the lovely compliment but I'm not
really tech-savvy. I have a very old computer
which suffices for my needs. It's very limited in
what it can do but I'm used to it and it suits
me. Anyway, I hope that I was of some help.

Foxy,

While on the subject of apologies I posted this on another thread. However If I was out of line here too it is worth a quote,

@Foxy, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 3:38:29 PM

Quite obviously our posts crossed. Heavens, I have no problem at all with apologies and withdrawing my posts where a poster is feeling personally offended.

So please accept my apologies, made without reservations and I will cease posting to this thread.
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 4:16:26 PM

Dear Bazz,

Because we are still a young country - our
many achievements are still in front of us.
This gives our aspiring leaders plenty of time in the
years that lie ahead. So far we have been served well
as a country. Yes we've had our failures and although
we've made mistakes - we are the envy of the world -
and there is still plenty more room for young people
to achieve. We owe a debt to those who went before
and made this country what it has become - and it is
a reminder to those who will take on the task in the
future that there are still many glories to be won in
every sphere of life as long as our country continues.
May we continue to stand up for our values and
traditions and not be swayed by undue influences.

I'm sure that none of us would want our country to become
another USA.

Foxy, compared to the majority of countries we are so far out in front
in that we have a great basis on which to build the future.
Our biggest problem is to get the public and the politicians to understand
how difficult it is going to be to negotiate the wind down in cheap energy.

The latest knowledgeable opinion seems to be that we are approaching
Seneca's cliff, which is the theory that it takes a long time to build
a system but that it collapses very quickly.

Our ability to manage a big increase in world population, major
increases in energy costs with the resultant increasing cost in food
will be tested to the limit.
Some will try and write in here climate change, but the reduction in
fossil fuel use will remove that problem.

The struggle to maintain living standards, handle massive immigration
problems, Islam trying to take advantage of the opportunities would
seem to present military challenges of great magnitude.

Of course if energy is too difficult even armies will be restricted.
If ever it was time for up drawbridge that time is coming.

Dear Bazz,

I agree with you. There are quite a few problems
that we need to solve. There's the water
problem. We are one of the driest continents on
earth. Scientific, economic, and engineering reform
will be essential to fix this problem. We are also
an ageing society, we need to rebalance - hopefully
not just rebalance but have a larger population,
one though that is sustainable, and one that is not
divisive, so we do have to be selective in our choice
of immigrants. This will be of enormous importance
to Australia's future.

Then there's also the problem of lifting our indigenous
people from the margin to the mainstream. Many have
tried - many people of goodwill have tried, and there
has been no shortage of resources, this is not a
question of spending. How to fix this problem is
something that will have to be dealt with in the future.

Dearest Foxy,

Perhaps your statement needs to be slightly re-phrased". ".... Indigenous people lifting themselves from the margin to the mainstream."

With more than fifty thousand university graduates, clearly many Indigenous people are doing just that. If they can, so can others, with the right supports, and co-ordinated efforts of parents, community, education departments and Indigenous support and recruitment programs at universities. The low-hanging fruit, those finishing Year 12, mainly in the cities, are already going on to university, so university support programs can't keep dipping into that pool, claiming credit for people simply going through the turnstile: they still have the far bigger job of reaching communities and parents in rural and remote areas.

Being hopelessly naive, I've always thought that Indigenous 'self-determination' meant that people do as much as they can for themselves. Surely that meant that education departments, communities and parents put standard pressure on children to go to school and put some effort in. Education departments and school systems seem to be doing the best THEY can, so - as it happens, again and again - the onus comes back to communities and parents. Why do they seem to be so gormless ? Are they really, or are they consciously practising some cack-handed form of oppositionalism, that their children's education should be stuffed up for yet another generation in the name of 'resistance' ?

Pity the children.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

That's exactly what my family has been telling me
all along. And I have to bow to your knowledge on
the subject. What I would still want to know though
is how do we inspire those who are not successful
to succeed. To do something about their various
situation? Is there an answer? I certainly don't have one.

Loudmouth, I have to pick you up on a point you made.

'50 thousand (abo) university graduates'? There aren't that many abo's left.

I hope your not referring to the 'wannabe' generation that abo elders have refuted again and again.

On the question of Oprah for President. I can believe she would think she was Presidential material because she has been so full of herself for so long she has lost the plot, like Clinton, years ago. She is far from someone who I would sing her praises. She is no different than, a con-man, comes to mind.

She has created nothing, (nothing worthwhile) she produces nothing, (nothing worthwhile) and she has absolutely nothing to offer. When you compare her to Bill Gates, he at least produced something of real value that has enriched and made life better for the whole world.

Now he deserves all the wealth that has befallen him. He did not stand there day after day spewing bullsh!t and ingratiating himself at the expense of the public.

I can only say that thank God people like Presidents and Prime Ministers do NOT actually run the country. They are mere messengers of the parliament and deliver final outcomes of the parliament through one person such as Presidents and PM's.

It still beggars belief that she can be so arrogant and stupid to even think about running.

Boy politics have fallen through the floor. Where are the honest people or are they too smart or wary of getting into the snake pit for fear of attack.

Altrav, life's too short to argue with morons.

Joe

Dear ALTRAV,

May I politely suggest that you read the facts
of Oprah Winfrey's life and her achievements
before making sweeping generalisations that are
not correct. Here's just one link to give you an
overview:

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/oprah-winfrey-2484.php

Foxy, I read your link. The information contained within merely describes a very determined person who was going to have her way no matter what.

I already knew most of this information about her. I was not of the opinion that she was deserving of all the accolades she was receiving.

She has done nothing to deserve her current status. She may be throwing money around these days because she can afford to. Her success has been due to her pushy nature and a determination to succeed at any cost.

Being black she obviously had a very large audience before people began talking about her. Then white women came on board. I maintain she is undeserving of her current social standing and wealth because she has done nothing to justify it all.

She is just another determined TV show host who has become popular because she is in your face every day. There are hundreds more just like her. About 356 roughly.

If we are going to have a TV presenter as President elect I would rather one like say, Jay Leno. OK don't like him well there's another 350 odd to choose from. Knock yourselves out. But not Oprah Winfrey.

Dear ALTRAV,

There may be many TV hosts but not many have succeffully
founded their own companies, TV networks, published
magazines, acted in films, or given so much to charitable
and worthy causes. So I beg to disagree with your take
on this very remarkable lady who rose from poverty to
become a cultural phenomenon in the United States for
over 30 years no less. Plus she has never been bankrupt.
You don't achieve all that by accident.

Foxy, you may hold her in high esteem. You cannot give such praise without knowing the truth behind her, unusual and surprisingly strong rise to fame and fortune.

I have lived long enough to know when something is outside the historical parameters of 'reasonable', there are 'always' some other forces at play.

I see 'nothing' special about her that one could attribute to her current level or status. Where-as Bill Gates has every right to be where he is. We can see what he did and he did it himself and his every move was scrutinised to within an inch of his life.

I have reservations about little Miss Winfrey. You choose to take her at face value, I don't. I don't trust people like her. You praise her for having struggled from poverty to where she is today.

I on the other hand, would question her and look into her background in search of the true story of her meteoric assention to where she is today.

I have watched shows like hers, god knows there are millions of them and other presenters have also done the things she has, eg; acting and so on, and I get the sense that 'somethings crook in Tellaruk'.

But Foxy we will never know for as long as she has faithful followers like yourself, she will always be held in high esteem, whether justified or not.

350 million people, one of the most advanced education systems in the world, and the US can throw up only Trump or Hilary or Oprah ? Does everybody else hate the job so much ? God help America. And, like it or not, the rest of us.

Well, for me this discussion has now run its course.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions.
I look forward to our other discussions.

Cheers.

Loudmouth, exactly my sentiments. The political scene has been a joke for many years, now it's becoming stupid. I am talking internationally not just one or two countries.

The thing about the job of politician is that because corruption is the main requisite for the job, if you are not like minded, you will not be accepted or entertained because they cannot trust you to not expose them.

So you have to be corrupt to be in the 'club', then and only then can you engage in these back door dirty backhanders, worth millions. Once they have done a deal with you, they then have you, in case you go bad.

As I put up earlier politics has become entertainment and
entertainment has become politics.

Malcolm, Bill on an evening comedy act on ABC.
Nicole Kidman for PM & Magna Szabanski for treasurer.

Peter Costello in his book, "The Costello Memoirs,"
writes:

"My eighteen years in Parliament - in Opposition and
in government - have confirmed me in the conviction,
formed in my youth, that politics, for all its rough edges,
is a civilised and civilising calling. Despite all the
obloquy shovelled on the head of politicians, they are the men
and women who work the machinery of our liberal democratic
way of life. They reflect public opinion - and at their best
lead public opinion - and transmute it into laws that shape
our society and our country..."

"I have devoted myself in Parliament to liberalising our
economy, to laying a basis for the prosperity of future
generations, and to heightening the respect the world pays
to, and owes our country. I have discussed some of the
unresolved problems that face us, especially addressing
indigenous disadvantage and dealing with the structure of our
federalism. We must deal with these to move forward as a free,
fair and vibrant society. I have no doubt we can find the
solutions that suit us, provided we do not succumb to the
siren calls of demagogues, charlatans and ideologues."

"The achievements of the past decade have laid an extraordinary
foundation. Properly preserved and built on, we now have
opportunities we never had before in Australia's history.
The best years for our country are still in front of us."

'Malcolm, Bill on an evening comedy act on ABC. Nicole Kidman for PM & Magna Szabanski for treasurer.' sounds like the Clintons on steroids.