I am not keen on any of this, but it is what it is. The problem of celebrity and the prospect that a future President would be just a celebrity has been well understood for a very long time. The last election which pitted one of the most corrupt figures in recent political history against a celebrity was hard comforting. It is hard to imagine a Trump v. Oprah race could be any worse.

I like the New York Times' David Brooks. He's been for me the model of a judicious thinker. What I said a few posts back about not getting carried away by anti-Trumpism was probably influenced by hearing Brooks speak on the matter on the PBS News Hour. I believe he has good reason to warn the anti-Trumpers (he's one himself ) not to fall prey to the same sort of partisan-fueled vitriol and exaggeration that has come from Trump (interestingly, little of it has come from the rest of his administration). He might be advising us all to remain critical thinkers about even what we tend to want to believe, not just about what we are predisposed not to like. Brooks has expanded on his oral remarks in the following NYT column. He begins with Three "inconvenient observations" about the actuality of the Trump White House.

I also have in mind the surge for Oprah Winfrey when reading Brooks. Isn't believing that celebrity is the magic quality to look for in a leader following the lead of Trumpism?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/opin ... .html?_r=0

geo wrote:

ant wrote:You people may be in luck.

Oprah might take this personally and you will have your candidate to cheer on.
I don't think Hilary could beat her.

If it came down to Oprah versus Trump, I would probably just go live in the woods. The American experiment would be over.

I'm about ready to design and print some bumper stickers. Here's one - anyone interested?

Alec Baldwin - President 2020
Tina Fey - VP

You have to shake your head at the effrontery of the man. He wants to make it easier to sue for defamation, the New York Times, for instance. Has he thought of the fact that many of his tweets are way out on the defamation limb? It doesn't matter which medium of writing a person employs to make his or her charges. But maybe Trump is sly like a fox. His lawyer claimed recently that a sitting president can't be sued for libel.

DWill wrote:You have to shake your head at the effrontery of the man. He wants to make it easier to sue for defamation, the New York Times, for instance. Has he thought of the fact that many of his tweets are way out on the defamation limb? It doesn't matter which medium of writing a person employs to make his or her charges. But maybe Trump is sly like a fox. His lawyer claimed recently that a sitting president can't be sued for libel.

You mean a corporation like the NYT suing Trump for defamation?

It ain't happening. It wouldn't even have one leg to stand on.

Litwitlou has written: "The problem is not Trump's policies as President; the problem is that Trump is President. I'm not saying Mrs Clinton is pure as the driven slush fund, but Donald Trump, really? REALLY?"

Really. I voted for him and deem the choice obvious. Hillary is not fit for the job and I am glad she did not get elected.

ant wrote:

DWill wrote:You have to shake your head at the effrontery of the man. He wants to make it easier to sue for defamation, the New York Times, for instance. Has he thought of the fact that many of his tweets are way out on the defamation limb? It doesn't matter which medium of writing a person employs to make his or her charges. But maybe Trump is sly like a fox. His lawyer claimed recently that a sitting president can't be sued for libel.

You mean a corporation like the NYT suing Trump for defamation?

It ain't happening. It wouldn't even have one leg to stand on.

He says the NYT has defamed him. He wants to be able to sue them. I doubt the NYT would have anything they'd want to sue him for. But individuals targeted by his tweets could, especially if libel laws were loosened up as he proposes.

TEKennelly wrote:Really. I voted for him and deem the choice obvious. Hillary is not fit for the job and I am glad she did not get elected.

I know many teenagers more fit to be president than Trump. The majority of America is more fit to be president than Trump. Hillary is/was far more fit, by orders of magnitude. Even if you're diametrically opposed to her policy positions, her fitness is light years beyond that of Trump.

Interbane wrote:

TEKennelly wrote:Really. I voted for him and deem the choice obvious. Hillary is not fit for the job and I am glad she did not get elected.

I know many teenagers more fit to be president than Trump. The majority of America is more fit to be president than Trump. Hillary is/was far more fit, by orders of magnitude. Even if you're diametrically opposed to her policy positions, her fitness is light years beyond that of Trump.

Clinton represents the rise of a dangerous global neo-communist tendency.

Cancer displaces healthy cells with metastasis. So too, the advancing tumour of the public sector crowds out the healthy economy, replacing growth with stagnation, self-reliance with an overweening state, and facts with lies. The task of good government is to cut taxes and provide moral incentive for entrepreneurial business activity, against the howls of the socialist elites.

DWill wrote:You have to shake your head at the effrontery of the man. He wants to make it easier to sue for defamation, the New York Times, for instance. Has he thought of the fact that many of his tweets are way out on the defamation limb? It doesn't matter which medium of writing a person employs to make his or her charges. But maybe Trump is sly like a fox. His lawyer claimed recently that a sitting president can't be sued for libel.

And you believe Trump or his lawyers?? Yes, a sitting president can be sued for libel, just like he can be made to testify, just like he can be sued for fleecing people of their money by founding a phony university. As long as the libel was committed either before he took office or outside of the regular exercise of his duties, he can be sued. Obama could sue Trump for the accusation that Obama tapped his campaign but could produce no evidence--not even bad evidence--none at all. That's libel. Since the accusation did not fall within his presidential duties, Obama could file a suit. Why doesn't he? Because he's a lawyer and he knows full well what the consequences may be and has thought the better of it. He's pretty much unflappable and shows remarkable restraint which I think really burns Trump's big, red, shiny ass.