U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 09-17-2016, 09:32 AM
10,608 posts, read 13,382,632 times
Reputation: 17158


Originally Posted by Blind Cleric View Post
Trump could lose more like 40 lbs.

Yes, they're both overweight but otherwise appear to be physically healthy enough to serve as president.
Yeah, possibly.

Nobody was running around flailing that Huckabee was too fat to be president LOL. In fact nobody ever said a single word about him. Christie eclipsed him.

Teddy Kennedy was enormous.

Bill Clinton had plenty of overweight years. And everyone thought his fast food addiction was charming. At least Trump has personal chefs who cook real food for him - but everyone ignores that. (like Bill)

etc etc.

I'm not into tweaking everybody to perfection. My kid is 6.3 and weighed 170 for awhile and looked pretty bony.

Yet the antiquated BMI range says anything from 150 to 200 is normal range. I assume that low end of the range is for young people who haven't even finished "growing" yet.

But yeah, both appear to be healthy enough to serve and both have VPs who are qualified and "younger" enough.

It's only a four year term - heck, McCain is still kicking around and you would have thought he had only 6 months to live if you listened to the media in 2008 LOL. And Cheney had his first heart attack at age 37. If he didn't know tingling fingers meant heart, he would have been dead. His story is actually a remarkable study in how far medicine has come since the 1970's.

Hillary's also a testament to that. Having survived 3 DVTs - one in the brain.

Old 09-17-2016, 09:36 AM
10,608 posts, read 13,382,632 times
Reputation: 17158
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Reagan served as governor before seeking national office. One could question his competence as governor, or the intellectual gravitas of his views. But at least he had political experience and a political record. He said some pretty provocative things during his campaign, but shied away from championing ambitious and revolutionary executive actions. Every candidate to some extent advocates for change; otherwise, why run for office? But it's not since 1932 that we've seen a campaign where one of the candidates regards the status quo as being thoroughly broken and in need of a radical reassessment of policy.

In the present campaign, I am persuaded that it is the Democrats who are the more conservative and - paradoxically - the more Republican. They have become the party of "morning in America" and of incremental, moderate changes. The titular Republicans, on the other hand, are channeling William Jennings Bryan. Their position is that something is grossly awry, and that intense and expeditious action is necessary, lest we outright collapse.
Really? You missed President Obama who has been doing that for eight years and also feels the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and should be changed to be OPPOSITE of what it is.

The difference is, I guess, you cited "campaign". The brilliance of Obama was he only alluded to it during the campaign with dog whistle and obtuse comments and the public "hoped for the best". He poo-poo'd Reverend Wright as just some old man from back in the day but then represented Rev Wrights beliefs and rhetoric when he became President. The list goes on.

And Hillary is right there behind him.

I imagine if people think it's perfectly okay for the IRS and other unelected bureaucrats and agencies to target citizens for political gain, then there's no discussion to be had.
Old 09-20-2016, 08:48 AM
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
9,865 posts, read 8,007,103 times
Reputation: 11215
She already has. Nothing happened. If she loses this election, she has no one to blame, but herself.
Old 09-20-2016, 04:28 PM
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
5,602 posts, read 3,469,469 times
Reputation: 7803
This thread should be retitled from "If Hillary Falters" to "Hillary Has Faltered". Mentally and physically she is a goner. A genuine nutcase with a façade that only fools the left. Well, most of the left that is.
Old 09-21-2016, 10:16 AM
2,303 posts, read 2,123,145 times
Reputation: 3827
Thread has reached the point of being a pure political argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top