Dr. Effing Oz

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
emd123 said:
538. Nate Silver. Hmm...That's cute.

Same crew that said Trump had a 98% chance of losing nomination. Even after that, he even admitted how badly he royally --cked up during the nomination process and went ahead and did it it all over on election day giving Hillary 3:1 odds of winning! Lol. I mean, the amount of crucial swing states that guy called wrong was mind boggling. In fact, I used to follow that guy's 538 blog for years including throughout the 2016 campaign, and the amount of times he posted the same type of "It's historic how unpopular Donald Trump is!" stuff all through out the campaign, sticks in my mind, because I read them all. So, I don't pay attention to anything that guy says anymore. I don't know what happened, but the wheels totally fell off of his political prognosticating and analysis. He still quotes the same sh** polling companies that were all wrong in 2016.
Click to expand...

Yes disregard everything else that he has analysed and predicted because of Donald Trump election( which the overwhelming number of pollster got wrong)......show me someone that has predicted more accurately over the last 16 years
Members don't see this ad.
 
D76CEB5D-759E-4565-A360-93C3249E6ED2.jpeg
Ducttape said:
If the FBI agents are seeking the truth, then that is their job.

even tho his agents that he directs and commands have had numerous meetings with the one country we know is actively trying to influence our elections, our civil discourse, the core of our country.
Click to expand...

So what? Everyone meets? Even the First Lady right before a Uranium deal and right before an election(i cant confirm when this pic was taken but it sure looks recent). It’s no big deal.

The FBI agents were also judge and jury in the case of Hillary.

Isnt it fun trying to convince each other about things we wont be convinced about? I get to use all these cool pics from my boating website where most are conservative and can take care of themselves without being on the govt tit. Pirates.
 
Last edited:
Ducttape said:
What we need to get back to is balance. With a conservative court, a conservative WH, and a conservative Congress, we have no ideological balance. That leads to disaster.
Click to expand...
The senate is your balance. Without 60 votes, nothing gets done. R's are only 51 right now, which is why legislatively, most of what Trump wants has been blocked, and Dems effectively can shut most things they don't like, down.

Ducttape said:
actually, trumps approval rating by all but the most biased study shows it has remained within 5 points one way or another since he became president. It is stagnant.
Click to expand...
Are you so sure?
Low point of 37% in Dec 2017, with a slow but steady rise into 40%s since then. Average of the major polls:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval
 

Attachments

  • ABFE9D38-3EA2-4CA3-B08C-004B03F872F5.jpeg
    ABFE9D38-3EA2-4CA3-B08C-004B03F872F5.jpeg
    334.6 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
VA Hopeful Dr said:
Ha, OK so the left's equivalent to Breitbart says Gowdy is dirty but I've heard it from no one else.

I mean, I live in his district and have met him before. My mother taught his kids middle school math. He was a very good prosecutor back in the day here. If there was an inkling of reliable trouble with him, I'd have heard about it.
Click to expand...

i was watching "Forensic Files" a few years ago, and he was one of the prosecutors on a case that they interviewed. must have been filmed 15-20 years ago. i was like: WTF is trey gowdy doing on this show?

anyway, i dont think he is completely in the clear, but time will tell
 
lonelobo said:
...show me someone that has predicted more accurately over the last 16 years
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, because there's not been much accuracy in predicting in the pundit class to speak of, in recent years. It's been a race to the bottom.
 
hyperalgesia said:
The next SCOTUS battle will be epic...
Click to expand...

Maybe. They change the senate rules this time so they only needed a simple majority to approve judges, not the 60 votes they used to need.

Not sure why the republicans dont also change the senate rules on legislation so they also need just a simple majority on new laws? If so they could really achieve their legislative goals.
 
bedrock said:
Maybe. They change the senate rules this time so they only needed a simple majority to approve judges, not the 60 votes they used to need.

Not sure why the republicans dont also change the senate rules on legislation so they also need just a simple majority on new laws? If so they could really achieve their legislative goals.
Click to expand...
Because they are smart enough to know it goes both ways, and they may be in minority in in couple years
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
bedrock said:
Maybe. They change the senate rules this time so they only needed a simple majority to approve judges, not the 60 votes they used to need.

Not sure why the republicans dont also change the senate rules on legislation so they also need just a simple majority on new laws? If so they could really achieve their legislative goals.
Click to expand...
I agree with others it's a risky business. I think it's good what they did with judges though.

But if the next justice to go is RBG, liberals won't go quietly.
 
No, everyone does not meet. Clinton met before she was Sec state and not running for president.

People should not be meeting if they or their candidate are seeking the highest office in the land with direct access to power of POTUS. If you don’t see the please born with that, Then you are blind and deceived...
 
Ducttape said:
No, everyone does not meet. Clinton met before she was Sec state and not running for president.

People should not be meeting if they or their candidate are seeking the highest office in the land with direct access to power of POTUS. If you don’t see the please born with that, Then you are blind and deceived...
Click to expand...
What about candidates running for re-election? Are pres and all cabinet forbidden from meeting all foreign leaders?
 
hyperalgesia said:
I agree with others it's a risky business. I think it's good what they did with judges though.

But if the next justice to go is RBG, liberals won't go quietly.
Click to expand...

They won’t be happy, but if RBG dies tomorrow, what could the liberals do? Only a simple majority is needed to confirm a Justice now, so I’m not sure how the liberals could stop anything.
If the Democrats win their own slim senate majority in the midterms it would be a different story. Trump would have to nominate a centrist to win senate approval.
 
bedrock said:
They won’t be happy, but if RBG dies tomorrow, what could the liberals do? Only a simple majority is needed to confirm a Justice now, so I’m not sure how the liberals could stop anything.
If the Democrats win their own slim senate majority in the midterms it would be a different story. Trump would have to nominate a centrist to win senate approval.
Click to expand...

if the democrats hold a senate majority, they would wait it out 2 years. dangerous precedent was set by mconnell.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Kennedy retiring is a game changer.

Now it will be completely out of balance.


Though the liberals may get lucky in the long run ( see Marshall, Kennedy as prime examples).
 
wet hanky wednesday for liberals today....at least we can stop making those immigrant kids pose for pictures while crying
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
SSdoc33 said:
if the democrats hold a senate majority, they would wait it out 2 years. dangerous precedent was set by mconnell.
Click to expand...
Ducttape said:
Kennedy retiring is a game changer.

Now it will be completely out of balance.


Though the liberals may get lucky in the long run ( see Marshall, Kennedy as prime examples).
Click to expand...

Agree. The court has been nicely balanced for many years with 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and a swing vote.

The republicans know they might lose the senate majority this fall and will confirm a trump nominee before November elections.

The only question is if the two moderate female republican senators will insist on a moderate justice, similar to Kennedy, who will maintain personal social freedoms of abortion, gay marriage, etc.
 
To me, the modern day "conservatives" on the court are more able to separate their emotions/hormones from their job and the law. This is what I like on the court, not "standing up for the little guy because I know what it's like".

There's actually a real job description here that IMO people like Roberts have been faithful to. For better or worse, laws are made by congress, not judges.
 
Last edited:
Doctodd said:
wet hanky wednesday for liberals today....at least we can stop making those immigrant kids pose for pictures while crying
Click to expand...

Makes you feel good to see others suffer? You must have had a really crappy childhood.
 
Ducttape said:
Kennedy retiring is a game changer.

Now it will be completely out of balance.


Though the liberals may get lucky in the long run ( see Marshall, Kennedy as prime examples).
Click to expand...

Yeah. This really sucks
 
SSdoc33 said:
Makes you feel good to see others suffer? You must have had a really crappy childhood.
Click to expand...
That's the thing though, much of this suffering is just histrionics.

I mean, I'm seeing people wishing death upon Kennedy for daring to retire when a republican can nominate his replacement.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
That's the thing though, much of this suffering is just histrionics.

I mean, I'm seeing people wishing death upon Kennedy for daring to retire when a republican can nominate his replacement.
Click to expand...

Nah. It doesnt go that deep. Liberals are upset and that makes doctodd happy. Rejoicing in the disappointment of others is no way to go through life
 
SSdoc33 said:
Yeah. This really sucks
Click to expand...
Thinking more about this, I don't think it's that bad for liberals. The nominee has to get every single Republican Senator to vote yes. I don't think it's gonna be a right wing zealot. Also, Kennedy and Scalia were both chosen by Republicans, so this is really the status quo. As much as you guys hate Trump, he's not a right wing ideologue.

We'll see but I don't think it's time to panic for liberals. So don't stress out.
 
I dont rejoice at or cause liberals to throw tantrums.....u guys do it all by yourselves. But this country was going to crap with the previous president and Hillary about to be next, and the country said no to socialism and globalism. You have no idea how close we were to the brink of destruction. At the same time all the liberal goons were exposed for their propaganda and foolishness, so the country knows how divisive and hateful they/you really are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
hyperalgesia said:
Thinking more about this, I don't think it's that bad for liberals. The nominee has to get every single Republican Senator to vote yes. I don't think it's gonna be a right wing zealot. Also, Kennedy and Scalia were both chosen by Republicans, so this is really the status quo. As much as you guys hate Trump, he's not a right wing ideologue.

We'll see but I don't think it's time to panic for liberals. So don't stress out.
Click to expand...

thanks. i kind of agree. if trump gets a nominee through before the midterms, it will most likely be someone center-right. i have trouble believing that collins or murkowski will confirm a pro-lifer. we only need one senator to dissent. but its not impossible. the dream scenario is that trump and the GOP cant agree on anyone, the midterms go by, the senate goes blue, and we stall for 2 years. i put that possibility at maybe 5-10%.

it is really hard to imagine that abortion may actually become illegal in the states. this isnt a huge issue foe me, but it is really hard to believe that this is where the country may be going.

RBG totally screwed us by not retiring in the middle of obama's term.
 
i have no problem with abortion...they mostly vote democrat anyway(what color font for kidding?). Instead we should just kill funding for planned parenthood abortion clinics since they are frauds anyway. But seriously, only CNN is making you worried about Roe vs Wade. Turn off the propaganda.
 
Doctodd said:
i have no problem with abortion...they mostly vote democrat anyway(what color font for kidding?). Instead we should just kill funding for planned parenthood abortion clinics since they are frauds anyway. But seriously, only CNN is making you worried about Roe vs Wade. Turn off the propaganda.
Click to expand...



"Trump: I will be appointing pro-life judges"

then again, he lies about everything, so maybe he wont.
 
SSdoc33 said:


"Trump: I will be appointing pro-life judges"

then again, he lies about everything, so maybe he wont.
Click to expand...


did u go over his list of 25 nominees yet? And what are their stances on abortion?....ill wait
 
Ducttape said:
President Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court List

list of 25 potential nominees.

now of course anyone chosen can change his/her mind when s/he becomes SCOTUS member, but i believe he chose these nominees in large part based on their prior stance on abortion and LGBT rights.
Click to expand...

so you are saying you know what Trump was thinking(in large part) when he chose those nominees? And you think it was(in large part) due to their stance specifically on LGBT rights and abortion?
 
Doctodd said:
so you are saying you know what Trump was thinking(in large part) when he chose those nominees? And you think it was(in large part) due to their stance specifically on LGBT rights and abortion?
Click to expand...
Really think he is going to appoint a pro choice person?..really?
 
How important are these social issues to you guys really? I mean whether or not abortion and LGBT marriage is left to states. It's like splitting hairs to me. I see both sides and don't care. More important things to worry about like taxes and security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
bedrock said:
I think the two female republican senators from Maine and Alaska, who are pro choice, and who blocked the Obamacare repeal because they didn’t like it, would not confirm a pro life justice.
Click to expand...

Short Memory... Who do you think voted for (pro-life)Gorsuch
 
lonelobo said:
Short Memory... Who do you think voted for (pro-life)Gorsuch
Click to expand...

They did but that was to maintain the balance of the court as Gorsuch and Scalia were so similar.

This upcoming confirmation is different as it could dramatically change the Supreme Court.
A lot more at stake this time around.
 
u guys say he constantly lies about everything and anything, so why believe him about this lol
 
like i said, i dont really care about abortion politically, and i dont care about LGBT rights as long as we dont pay for their "confusion" such as in the military
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so today the liberal media is saying Trump is fundamentally changing the country while mocking him for some of his comedic statements. They dont tell you that liberals are trying to change the country from it's conservative values, and the past president's slogan was Hope and Change. And MSNBC today is saying the Constitution doesnt specify justices on the SCOTUS(it was amended in the 1800's a few times to 7 and back to 9).....and Mika is prodding Congress to change the number of Supreme Court Justices as soon as democrats take control of the house and senate. Sounds like a temper tantrum to me. Gotta also love Time and other magazine covers denigrating Trump. They just dont get it.
 
Compare:
“Yes we can!”

With:
“Lock her up!”
“Build the Wall!”
“Drain the swamp!”
“Make America great again!”

Nothing to do with positivity at all.

All negative, aggressive slogans that reflect only that there is something bad out there that needs to change. The aggressiveness and negativity that is currently pervasive in our society is from trump, with quite a bit of help from our future masters Putin and Russia
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
i dont agree.....we arent talking slogans. We are talking multiple media channels who are clearly biased and telling you what to think. The principles of socialism advocate controlling healthcare, dividing the population by pitting them against each other(rich vs poor, white vs black, etc), making the people dependent on the govt, and having a propaganda microphone. Democrat party follows those rules to the T.

Russia hasnt affected my life in the slightest....yours neither. It's just a scare tactic to get you riled up....and it worked. And we are still waiting on that evidence of Russian collusion.

If you are talking about the Clintons and their relationship with Russia and how she allowed Uranium 1, or how Bill was paid $500k for a speech in Russia, then im agreeing with you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ducttape said:
Compare:
“Yes we can!”

With:
“Lock her up!”
“Build the Wall!”
“Drain the swamp!”
“Make America great again!”

Nothing to do with positivity at all.

All negative, aggressive slogans that reflect only that there is something bad out there that needs to change. The aggressiveness and negativity that is currently pervasive in our society is from trump, with quite a bit of help from our future masters Putin and Russia
Click to expand...
I also disagree completely.

I won't deny there is SOME negativity from Trump but I attribute it more to his style in that he attacks opponents DIRECTLY, rather than through proxies, like all other politicians. His twitter feed is about 80% POSITIVE. His twitter today addressed our solidarity with the victims of the shooting. Yesterday it was celebrating America is open for business, and new jobs. As Doctodd says, you will NEVER see this positivity because your media sources are filtering the news. I'm not sure you want to see it.

"Make America Great Again" is no different than "Change we can believe in". They are generic lines that say the same thing but you are choosing to make one negative because of your bias.

The other crowd chants could just as easily have been Obama crowds, just substitute "Dick Cheney" for "her", etc. The wall is around America, it's not dividing Americans.

I find Trump, this 72 y/o guy, who has waaaaay more energy than me, to be aspirational in many ways. I don't talk like him and don't agree with everything he says/does, but overall, I think he is a POSITIVE person.

The negativity for me would be the people who DWELL incessantly on our differences. They scour the country to find remnant KKK members and white supremacists and act like they are everywhere and out to get you. They frame everything in the WORST POSSIBLE racist, sexist, divisive light in order to anger their base. Everyone is the enemy in their fake identity wars.

Actually, let's see the positive message Democrats are using for the mid-terms....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lessons learned from Cuba and Venezuela....Democrats, the liberal press, Hillary and Obama studied and followed Alinsky's playbook....Trump not so much

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.

The first is the most important.1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun control – Remove people’s ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of people’s lives (food, housing and income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to; take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.
8) Class warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
hyperalgesia said:
I find Trump, this 72 y/o guy, who has waaaaay more energy than me, to be aspirational in many ways.
Click to expand...

trump is everything you don't want your kid to be: spoiled, mean-spirited, narcissistic, entitled, poorly mannered, a philanderer, a cheater, a thrice divorcee, a liar, a bully, and fat. if you aspire to be like trump...... what does that make you?
 
SSdoc33 said:
trump is everything you don't want your kid to be: spoiled, mean-spirited, narcissistic, entitled, poorly mannered, a philanderer, a cheater, a thrice divorcee, a liar, a bully, and fat. if you aspire to be like trump...... what does that make you?
Click to expand...
You seem to have articulated the Democratic campaign slogan for 2018.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

epidural man
Dr. Death (again)
Replies
1
Views
709
Laryngospasm
Laryngospasm
epidural man
Ozempic, pain, study design
Replies
8
Views
762
epidural man
epidural man
bedrock
One of the true “side effects” of Obamacare
Replies
42
Views
2K
hyperalgesia
hyperalgesia
bedrock
Lumbar RFA efficiency
2
Replies
90
Views
6K
nvrsumr
N
TeslaCoil
Good Reliable and Cost Effective C-arm
Replies
2
Views
763
TeslaCoil
TeslaCoil
Top