one side of an argument.* But it was helpful.* I don't like
   quoting ppl without their permission.* I quoted E.T. once.
   Hollywood, musicians and sports figures are the American
   equivalents of Royalty. We need Royalty. They entertain us with
   their antics when they're not working and we pay them for it.
   Why do we need them? Because nobody cares about politicians.
   -Kenneth Udut, quoting himself again, Apr 24 2015
   Oprah Winfrey. Dr. Oz. DR PHIL?
   Celebrities? No power? Ok. I'll bite. My internal analogizer has
   them as variations on the same concept. I'm not being
   argumentative, but I'd like to know the distinction better from
   your perspective. Might help me clarify mine. "King: kill that
   man.
   Pundit: That man should be killed." Same result. Man gets
   killed. Still not seeing the difference. One is a command, one
   takes the "should be" route, which gets in people's heads and
   causes them to act for the pundit without even realizing it
   themselves. I'm wrong:
   "The Constitution explicitly assigns to the president the power
   to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces,"

   Everything else he does, is on the same level of Oprah Winfrey:
   Influence. Influence Congress, etc. Going by Wikipedia: Notice
   Influence/Soft Power, which equates to Oprah-Power-Level:
   You have convinced me of the distinction between Power and
   Influence. It was useful and I thank you.
   My internal analogizer NOW has

   Power=On/Off - switch flipping
   Influence=Programming.

   I don't like using analogies sloppily, so it was helpful - thank
   you Ah. Now that's interesting.
   You have legally supplied authority, which has power, and then
   you have Authority figure, which carries influence. An authority
   figure has the shadows of power; a figure being "figurative" -
   "seemingly" - "apparently" - a nebulous cloud of "something
   powerful" but it is created by the implicit agreements of
   others.

   as opposed to

   a legal authority, which has literal authority, explicit
   agreement. Legal. Neat Got it. The position has the power. The
   system of law being embedded within the structure of our
   nationhood gives it a stability that only an overthrow of the
   nation could replace.

   It is also temporary (all things come and all things go), but
   given that it's multigenerational, it is as close to a permanent
   authority granting structure as one could achieve.