|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it.
There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down?
|
If Trump truly wishes to deflect concerns regarding his heath releases, he needs to stay away from Dr. Oz lol
|
On September 15 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it. There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down?
They just want to shift talk away from Clinton's health.
|
On September 15 2016 01:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week. Has nobody bothered to tell him that Dr.Oz isn't a real doctor? Dr. Oz and Harold Bornstein are both real, professional, medical doctors. You haven't even seen what he's going to reveal and it's not enough. Tell us beforehand what would satisfy you so you can't move the goalposts. Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also as the hardcore trump supporter you are, I don't think you want to bring up the word "birther." It's just not in your best interests, given trump never took back his birther comments about Obama. He's never going to take it "back" because he believes he won by getting him to release something. That's why he hasn't brought it up for four years, Obama released his birth certificate so that was it. This is not about Trump, it's about not being a hypocrite. Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also apparently he's not revealing his physical results, or so I've heard. I've heard he's only worth $5 which is why he won't release his tax returns.
Again, Dr. Oz is not a real doctor, he's a TV doctor. If trump wants to be taken seriously then he would release his medical records. He's #1, not doing that, and #2, when he said he would, would be on a fiction TV show. That's like if Obama said he would release his birth certificate on CSI:Miami or something. Secondly, trump "winning" means jack shit, he didn't win, he started a movement based on bullshit, and did not admit to being wrong. If you think that's a win, then we're done here and you can go back to your trump reality.
|
United States42016 Posts
On September 15 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it. There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down?
Given that Trump has definitely made donations to politicians through his foundation and then recorded them as donations to charities which he never actually made, isn't it somewhat appropriate that they check with charities to see if he donated? This isn't blind searching. This is digging up the whole yard after you already found one body buried there.
|
On September 15 2016 01:39 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it. There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down? They just want to shift talk away from Clinton's health.
Of course they want to change the narrative. Trump has had them on the run since his Mexico trip, and the Democrats need to stop the bleeding. My only point here is that I think that it is absurd to believe that Trump has been under insufficient scrutiny.
|
On September 15 2016 01:39 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it. There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down? They just want to shift talk away from Clinton's health.
By preemptively doing that days before Clinton feinting?
|
On September 15 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers. Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him. The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that. The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did. So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it. There's a guy randomly calling charities to see if Trump has donated to them, and you don't think that the media has thrown enough manpower at digging up dirt on Trump and taking him down?
That is the only way to find out what charities Trump donated to. Trump REFUSES to release that information to back up his claim. He refuses to provide evidence that he is charitable, which shouldn't be hard. He refused to provide evidence he is under audit. Hell, the guy refuses to provide anything at all unless forced by a court to do so. He just expects people to believe what he says and not back it up.
Every time he lies, someone has to be assigned to the story to prove him wrong. Muslims cheering on 9/11, that needs a reporter because Trump was non-specific as to where the cheering took place. Rapists and Murderers from Mexico, someone needs to dig through goverment records to find out if Trump is full of shit. Calls a federal judge biased, well now they need to run a story on the Judge. Obama is the founder of ISIS, well that one is easy, but they still need someone to write that story.
The man creates lies faster than the media can keep up. And then people also demand that they provide some sort of balance, but Trump is saying he would commit acts of war if an Iranian ship flips a US destroyer the bird. The media isn't out to destroy Trump, but rather find some evidence for all the shit he claims about himself. Unless you think they shouldn't be digging into what charities he donated, since it is apparently close to zero.
|
On September 15 2016 01:42 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:36 oBlade wrote:On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week. Has nobody bothered to tell him that Dr.Oz isn't a real doctor? Dr. Oz and Harold Bornstein are both real, professional, medical doctors. You haven't even seen what he's going to reveal and it's not enough. Tell us beforehand what would satisfy you so you can't move the goalposts. On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also as the hardcore trump supporter you are, I don't think you want to bring up the word "birther." It's just not in your best interests, given trump never took back his birther comments about Obama. He's never going to take it "back" because he believes he won by getting him to release something. That's why he hasn't brought it up for four years, Obama released his birth certificate so that was it. This is not about Trump, it's about not being a hypocrite. On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also apparently he's not revealing his physical results, or so I've heard. I've heard he's only worth $5 which is why he won't release his tax returns. Again, Dr. Oz is not a real doctor, he's a TV doctor. If trump wants to be taken seriously then he would release his medical records. He's #1, not doing that, and #2, when he said he would, would be on a fiction TV show. That's like if Obama said he would release his birth certificate on CSI:Miami or something.
Dr. Oz graduated from medical school 30 years ago, is a thoracic surgeon and academic (professor). Harold Bornsein has been Trump's doctor for 30 years.
On September 15 2016 01:42 hunts wrote:
Secondly, trump "winning" means jack shit, he didn't win, he started a movement based on bullshit, and did not admit to being wrong. If you think that's a win, then we're done here and you can go back to your trump reality.
You're not fucking listening to me and trying to use "hardcore" as a pejorative. I'm not a "hardcore" Trump supporter. I'm a likely voter. I do not and have never given a single fuck about suspicion that Obama wasn't constitutionally eligible to be president. What I am talking about is the brazen hypocrisy of your selective birtherism.
|
Dr. Oz' resume means very little when you look at the ridiculous, utter nonsense claims he has entertained and pushed himself. He is an entertainer. Some of the stuff he has said is about as close to medical consensus as Jill Stein.
|
Use of the term "hardcore" notwithstanding, your posts regarding Trump, oBlade, do not support the proposition that you are merely "a likely voter," particularly if that designation is meant to suggest that you have no partisan leanings. And yes, like Mohdoo points out, Dr. Oz's resume does not change his dive into a homeopathic, quackery-lite style of promoting health through product endorsement.
|
If only Democrats showed as much interest in Hillary's health before she publicly collapsed as they are now showing in Trump's health. But hey, inquiries into her health were the stuff of conspiracy theories, right?
|
On September 15 2016 02:05 xDaunt wrote:
If only Democrats showed as much interest in Hillary's health before she publicly collapsed as they are now showing in Trump's health. But hey, inquiries into her health were the stuff of conspiracy theories, right?
Yes? Because she has pneumonia.....
And people don't give much of a shit about Trumps health, just his choice of venue to get some level of credibility about the records he is releasing.
|
Between the Clinton family foundation, the emails, and the Clinton health stories, today's voters are getting a very clear picture of the way Hillary Clinton & husband operate and what the next four years could look like. The most transparent election, ever, I swear. No joke, the clear pattern from both of them tells you exactly what you're getting.
|
On September 15 2016 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 02:05 xDaunt wrote:
If only Democrats showed as much interest in Hillary's health before she publicly collapsed as they are now showing in Trump's health. But hey, inquiries into her health were the stuff of conspiracy theories, right? Yes? Because she has pneumonia.....And people don't give much of a shit about Trumps health, just his choice of venue to get some level of credibility about the records he is releasing.
You're still taking at face value what she says about anything that may affect her campaign? Haven't we all seen enough at this point to know that that isn't a good idea?
|
I voted for Obama, but go on.
We're moving from "he's not a real doctor" and likening him to CSI to "but he's not a real real doctor." I appreciate that nobody likes someone selling organic banana powder to cure aging, but let's wait and see what actually comes out. There aren't many doctors on TV. But why TV? Because it's Trump. The only other options, if they were even available, would be to do something like a 15 minute segment on 60 Minutes.
|
On September 15 2016 02:13 Danglars wrote:
Between the Clinton family foundation, the emails, and the Clinton health stories, today's voters are getting a very clear picture of the way Hillary Clinton & husband operate and what the next four years could look like. The most transparent election, ever, I swear. No joke, the clear pattern from both of them tells you exactly what you're getting.
so you name scandals that were created by the republican media machine and republican lawmakers, that were shot down and proven untrue, and say "see! she's untrustworthy!" This is the equivalent or trump taking a gun, shooting himself in the foot, and going "look what Clinton made me do!"
|
On September 15 2016 02:16 oBlade wrote:
I voted for Obama, but go on.
We're moving from "he's not a real doctor" and likening him to CSI to "but he's not a real real doctor." I appreciate that nobody likes someone selling organic banana powder to cure aging, but let's wait and see what actually comes out. There aren't many doctors on TV. But why TV? Because it's Trump. The only other options, if they were even available, would be to do something like a 15 minute segment on 60 Minutes.
The obvious point is that Trump is going on Dr. Oz for the exposure. People watch Dr. Oz.
|
On September 15 2016 02:19 xDaunt wrote:
The obvious point is that Trump is going on Dr. Oz for the exposure. People watch Dr. Oz.
I thought that was apparent at the outset.
IDK why that has anything to do with Dr. Oz's medical credentials though.
|
On September 15 2016 02:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 02:09 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 02:05 xDaunt wrote:
If only Democrats showed as much interest in Hillary's health before she publicly collapsed as they are now showing in Trump's health. But hey, inquiries into her health were the stuff of conspiracy theories, right? Yes? Because she has pneumonia.....And people don't give much of a shit about Trumps health, just his choice of venue to get some level of credibility about the records he is releasing. You're still taking at face value what she says about anything that may affect her campaign? Haven't we all seen enough at this point to know that that isn't a good idea?
I see little reason to lie at this point, the damage was done already. If she is concealing some horrible medical problem from me, I’m willing to risk that over voting for a self serving bully.
I don’t completely trust Clinton. But that is not enough to make me even considering the pro-nationalist, xenophobic nightmare that is Trump and the people supporting him. That is not the path I want America to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
