Ten oz

As does his draft card. However one is measure at DMV. At least I have never been measured at DMV. They always just ask me what my height and weight are and enter that as my height and weight. Given Trump's long history of exaggeration and vanity it is easy to believe he has been rounding his height up higher for years. The Navy Admiral should be on the outside of that though. He isn't one of Trump's hand picked political loyalists. I find it a bit breath taking that the Doctor would lie. We can't trust anything apparently. I mean absolutely nothing and no one.

Looking at photos of Trump in public over the decades it appears he is probably 5'11 or 6 feet even. I am 6 feet even measured in bare feet to the top of my bald head. In shoes most people take me for 6'1. I Saw Obama in person back in 2012. He walked past me at an event. I took him to be the same height as I am. From the photos and videos I have seen Trump is clearly not any taller than Obama. Actually considering Trump has the big puffy hair and Obama doesn't I would assume Trump is half an inch shorter than Obama. To my best guess that makes Trump shy of 6 feet. Definitely not 6'3. Again, I don't care how tall Trump is in and of itself. I don't care Trump lies about his height. Lost of people lie about they height. I am upset that a Navy Rear Admiral came out and lied about Trump's height.

What is the claim of those who want to end DACA? The only arguments I have heard articulated are that DACA was never meant to be permanent. Same argument made to throw out the 200,000 people here legally from El Salvador since 2001. While true it is also nonsensical considering those making the argument could simply make it permanent. More over it was their opposition in the first place which kept it from being permanent. So the argument is circular. A honest explanation from the opposition doesn't seem to exist; least I haven't seen one.

Navy Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson is the White House's Doctor. Is he lying and if so is that even legal? Can a Navy Rear Admiral knowingly lie to the public? Obviously they can conceal information in the best interest of national security but I struggle to understand how lying about the President's height is in the best interest of national security. It really pisses me off that this administration is so fundamentally dishonest that they'd lie about something so irrelevant.

I agree. The whole "wait in line" argument is nonsense. The systems have different lines for different groups of immigrants. I agree. Let's hope they don't fold. I find it unconscionable that we'd deport individuals who were raised in the this country and have called it home for over a debate. When we discuss DACA specifically we are talking about individuals who attend and graduated from schools here in the U.S. and do not know another other nation as home.

Like other western countries the birth rate in the U.S. In 2017 fertility rates reached record lows. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/health/united-states-fertility-rate.html The U.S. economy and the global stock markets are centered around growth models. Without increases in customers across the board (agriculture, electronics, education, etc) markets begin to fail. Immigration is vital to the U.S. economy as they help grow the population which in turns creates more demand for housing, food, services, and etc. Should the Democratic party hold the line and fight to protect DACA?

Yes, I am trying to focus on whether or not immigration is and has been good for the U.S.

630 × 354 - motherjones.com - Jeb Bush's height is listed as 6'3 - Don King, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are all listed as 6'2 - Obama is listed as 6'1 I understand that this is stupid and conspiratorial - to claim the Trump and his doctor are lying about Trump's height . I also understand that the above photos are not empirical proof of anything as camera angle, shoes, posture, and etc all impact how tall someone looks. That said I am troubled by the idea that a military doctor would bold face lie to the public. It troubles me that I can't trust anything that comes from my govt. Even something silly as Trump's height. Trump has been a public figure for decades. He has been photographed standing next to millions of people. If we look at any number of those photos over the decades it is plainly obvious Donald Trump is not 6'3. Jeb Bush is 6'3 and Jeb Bush has been next to Trump numerous at debates and is clearly taller. We all saw it time and time again. If the doctor lied about Trump's height can we trust anything the doctor said? Does it matter or should the Presidents doctor be able to just lie? Or do you guys believe Trump is 6'3? 4608 × 3072 - vox.com

The primary sticking point for Congress passing a budget is securing an agreement for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Through DACA 800,000 people have been living in the U.S. with work permit working and going to school since 2012. To be eligible for DACA one had to have lived in the U.S. continuously since 2007 , arrived in the U.S. younger than 16yrs of age, have no criminal record, and were enrolled in or graduated from High school here in the United States. Requests to be protected by DACA had to be made through Immigration services. The President and majority of Republicans want DACA ended, all 800,000 deported, and money to start building a physical wall across the Mexican boarder. Democrats are fighting for a deal to continue the protections for those coverage by DACA and do not want any money to go towards a wall. I have followed politics for decades. Immigration only became a divisive partisan issue in the last 10yrs or so. In 1986 Reagan gave amnesty to everyone who had been in the country since 1982 as part of his Immigration Reform Act; 3 million people. Bush unsuccessfully fought for a guest worker program which would have provided immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Bush also authorized the 200,000 refugees from El Salvador into the country legally that the Trump admin is now attempting to deport. Among both parties the debate use to be about security and waiting in line. Everyone agreed immigration was inherently good for the nation as the U.S. was a nation of immigrants. Those who pushed against more protections for undocumented immigrants did so from a position that those immigrants had bypassed the legal system. In 2018 the nature of debate has greatly changed. Those who came here legally as refugees from Haiti and El Salvador are being asked to leave. The military has suspended the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program which enabled immigrants to legally become citizens in trade for service. The Presidents travel ban seeks to limit the ability of targeted Muslim groups to legally travel to the U.S. It appears that Republicans do not care whether immigrants are legal or illegal anymore. The goal simply seems to be less immigration period. Is immigration inherently good; is the U.S. a nation of immigrants? Should the Democratic party fight for the 800,000 people protected by DACA? Is race the primary driver of the Republicans current hard line on immigration; we just need more people from Norway as POTUS suggested? In this environment are there anyways to meet in the middle?

In 2018 we literally have that opportunity with the house. Sadly the majority will keep their jobs.

That really shouldn't be a politician's job.

If my whole life was public and I ran for office it would be very easy for a opponent criticise things I have done. What a Politician advocates for in real-time should be more heavily considered that what they may have done in decades past. Provided those actions of old are not prosecutable. Obama admittedly used drugs in his youth. He was still and excellent President in my opinion. If Oprah runs I will evaluate her message and policy ideas. I am nervous about her running because I believe they are millions if her fans which might take a Oprah or nothing position which may hurt Democratic turnout if she failed to win the nomination. That said if she has good ideas and rallies her fans around the party and not just herself than it could be a really good thing.

Saying everyone has a lean lumps together those who diligently try to ensure they are producing a truthful and transparent product with those who knowing just obfuscate reality and push a specific ideology. I don't think that is fair. There are journalists and researchers out there who go out of there way to produce unbiased work. That is one of the reasons why quality editorials and papers list the numerous materials sourced. As for PBS specifically I have not personally follow it. As Swansont mentioned Republicans have made various attempts over the years to cut their funding. I suppose it is possible that as part of the GOP's attempt to bring PBS down they infiltrated it on some level.

We can enforce safety. Discouraging "wrongdoing" is a relative goal. What each individual considers to be wrongdoing varies greatly. All obvious crimes which people mostly all agree are crimes like rape, murder, vandalism have a safety component to them where people, property, or the environment is being protected. Laws which are not directly about safety tend to be divisive laws that are more detrimental to the targeted groups than they are good for society at large. For example outlawing gay marriage has no obvious safety component. One must do mental gymnastics to explain how two individuals marrying impacts the safety of other individuals. In my opinion the enforcement of law should only be about safety. At attempt to use law to provide punishment, justice, at as a deterrent, and etc miss the mark; those goals are not possible. What might discourage you from doing something may not discourage me. What punishment might be a slap on the wrist to you may induce anxiety or depression in me. Laws can keep us safe but can't accurately moderate behavior; encourage or discourage anything.

Laws do not fall from the sky. Often those in power attempt to deify laws in an attempt to maintain the status quo. The Constitution for example gets treated with religious scale reverence and our founding fathers are view as perfection incarnate. Reality is laws are made by humans. Laws are can be poorly designed, ill conceived, burdensome, or cruel. Society should always be willing to reconsider and change laws. None should ever be deified. This may have made more sense in philosophy. There is not a pointed political position here. Perhaps something in the subtext be nothing clear. Philosophical I think retribution, revenge, punishment, justice, and etc are all selfishly flawed ways at finding catharsis following victimization. Justice is impossible. In WW2 the Nazi's were stopped but was that just for all those who had been killed? Did the Emancipation Proclamation provide justice for all those who had already died? Wrongs never can be reversed. Arresting a rapists and imprisoning them doesn't repair the emotional and physical damages imposed on their victims. In my opinion viewing the execution of law as means of dulling out justice is an error. At best laws simply protect us. When evaluating crime protecting society should be the primary focus and not avenging those who have been wrong. Only people who pose a threat to society should be placed in jail and only those things which endanger society should be outlawed. One can seldom ever be compensate for damages. My stolen car can be returned but the psychological impact of it being stolen in the first place will always remain. Tit for tat punishments resolve nothing. Things like free speech at worst are only an inconvenience to those who disagree with the speech. If we exclusively view law through the filter of safety physical (person/environment/property) speech does threaten anything and no law should restrict it. Things like protests potentially could damage the environment or property by overwhelming infrastructure so it makes sense laws would restrict them.

CharonY, Black and Asian suicide rates are mostly unchanged. Since 2000 they have not risen or fell by more than half a percent. The change in trend has been among whites. https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ I see 2 different conversations being blurred together here.There is a conversation about recent increase and a conversation about suicide in general. All recent increases are among the white population. It is one and perhaps the only thing which regarding recent increases. That said if we look at suicide overall it impacts every community. Even groups which have not experienced increases still are experiencing suicide. No group has fallen to zero. So what is the OP asking; why the increase or why does suicide happen period? I don't see how we can address the increases without acknowledging it is specific to race. I have a theory about the increase among whites. It is based on my own experiences traveling within the country. I cannot and am not claiming it as fact. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. I worked in the San Francisco financial district for the first 6yrs of my working adult life. Then I moved to Boise Idaho for 4yrs. There was a lot of culture shock moving from someplace like San Francisco to Boise. One of the biggest culture shocks was the prominence of conservative talk radio. In San Francisco people typically had on music around the office. As a young person I thought AM radio was just weather and local news. I wasn't aware of the laundry list of conservative talk radio personalities. At work, in the local coffee shops, and seemingly everywhere I went conservative talk radio was always on in Boise. As a result of the continues stream of the divisive content I noticed a lot of people were visible put into bad moods over what they were listening to. Sometimes it was subtle as an eye roll or shaking of the head but other times it was vocal complaints about the state of the nation or society at large. It was a very different reaction than I had seen among those listening to music around the office in San Francisco where foot tapping or head nodding to the beat was the common interactive response. Since that time I have lived in San Diego, Newport News VA, and am currently in Washington DC. I have consistently noticed that people who follow conservative punditry have a worse (less happy) overall demeanor. You show me someone listening to Rush Limbaugh all day and I will show you someone who is easily displeased. Conservative punditry is more explicitly angry and dissatisfied than liberal punditry and followers seem to listen for longer portions of their day. There are no Conservative equals to Bill Maher, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and etc. Liberal media is inherently more comical and less serious. Not only that but known of the media personalities I named host shows which are longer than an hour. Bill Maher isn't hosting a 4 hour daily radio show in addition to his TV show like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram are. Those who follow conservative media get larger and more negative doses. So who is following conservative media; white people. 90% of blacks, 70% of Hispanics, and 70% of Asians identify as liberal. Conservatives in the U.S. are overwhelmingly white. I believe that as conservative media has grown over the years it has negatively impacted the daily disposition of its core audience. That impact is felt beyond political ideology. Being raised by an moody parent, married to a dissatisfied spouse, sibling to someone who's constantly angry, neighbor to an asshole, and etc all has an impact on the overall quality of ones life. Doesn't matter is an individual white person follows conservative media or not. All white people are more likely to have those in their life who are. The result is more depressed and suicidal white people. Other groups (minorities) are less likely to have regular interactions with large groups of people who follow and are influenced by negative conservative media. If you think this theory is crazy try listening to Mark Levin a couple hours everyday for a month and then tell me if you feel more or less positive overall.

It has been Studied. A Princeton Professor named Anne Case has done a couple papers about the growing mortality of white males. Her approach doesn't exclusively look at suicide though. It includes suicide along with drug overdoses and other "deaths of despair" and has charted them out across the country. I didn't copy and paste the charts because they are large but I linked the research below. "The states with the highest mortality rates from drugs, alcohol and suicide, among white non-Hispanics aged 45-54, are geographically scattered. In 2000, the epidemic was centered in the southwest. By the mid-2000s it had spread to Appalachia, Florida, and the west coast. Today, it’s country-wide. The authors suggest that the increases in deaths of despair are accompanied by a measurable deterioration in economic and social wellbeing, which has become more pronounced for each successive birth cohort. Marriage rates and labor force participation rates fall between successive birth cohorts, while reports of physical pain, and poor health and mental health rise. Case and Deaton document an accumulation of pain, distress, and social dysfunction in the lives of working class whites that took hold as the blue-collar economic heyday of the early 1970s ended, and continued through the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent slow recovery." https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/mortality-and-morbidity-in-the-21st-century/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despai In my opinion I don't see any reason to look at this issue universally based on income, access to healthcare, and etc. The rates of increase simply are not universal. This epidemic is specifically impacting white males. Other groups are not experiencing the same increased rates. Anne Case's work does list economic factors as a contributor as you have with the primary difference being it is only a contributor for White Males. Per the CDC the top 10 States with the highest rates if suicide are: Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Oklahoma. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217 It is worth noting the Wyoming is 93% white, Montana is 90% white, Utah is 91% white, and Idaho is 93% white. There is not a single State with suicide rates below the national average that are 90% white or greater. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ID,UT,MT,WY/PST045217

"Marist poll conducted for NPR and PBS NewsHour out Friday showed Winfrey topping Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent, while 11 percent of voters were undecided." "The PCCC poll also tested Trump against Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The poll found that Warren, widely considered a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2020, would lead Trump by 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent, while 8 percent said they were unsure." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488#ampshare=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488

Yes, Republicans sell deregulation as limiting government overreach but reality the goal is to benefit large corporations that exploit resources. When it comes to what's going on in our bedrooms, law enforcements ability to shoot you dead in the street, the govt's ability to execute you, autonomous vehicles ability to kill, data collection, and on and on and on Republican have no problem with overreach. Things like the Patriot Act were written and signed into law by Republicans. It is currently Republicans attempting to crack down on states which have legalized marijuana. When Republicans talk about less govt it only applies a la carte to those things which they choose. You are ignoring the better in pursuit if the perfect. However you feel about Obama he was a better President Bush. Ensuring we select those whom are better is still important even if no one is perfect. The way the U.S. is set up Democracy is divided. Wyoming has 1/56th the population of Texas yet has equal representation in the Senate. A candidate can win 3 million more votes yet still lose. The constitution established these things. Candidates for office do not need to speak for everyone. They just need to speak for the correct pockets of people. Money in politics didn't create that. Outlaw all lobbyists and campaign contributions tomorrow and Trump would still be able to gin up support demonizing immigrants. Trump won 70% of the popular vote in Wyoming and West VA. Those weren't states where massive amounts of money were used to influence voters. They are mining states and Trump's promise to increase mining jobs resonated. Clinton's campaign raised 1.2 billion dollars and Trump's campaign only raise 650 million dollars yet Trump won. In 2012 Romney raised a billion dollars and lost. While money in politics is bad it isn't absolute. The below links breaks down where Clinton and Trump yet raise and spent money: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama was one of the most widely covered and studied developments of the 2008 presidential campaign, as she has been described as the most influential woman in the world[1][2][3]. Winfrey first endorsed Obama in September 2006 before he had even declared himself a candidate. In May 2007 Winfrey made her first endorsement of candidate Obama, and in December 2007, she made her first campaign appearances for him. Two economists estimate that Winfrey’s endorsement was worth over a million votes in the Democratic primary race[4] and that without it, Obama would have lost the nomination.[5] Then-Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich claimed that the endorsement was so significant in electing Obama president that he considered offering Obama's former seat in the Senate to Winfrey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey's_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama I am simply criticizing the Dwayne Johnson comparison. Winfrey is on a very different level than the Rock.

I didn't say it was happening. I said comparing Winfrey to Johnson was akin to comparing George Lucas to a successful YouTube-er. I am not sure what you mean by no Democrat support? Winfrey has helped campaign and raise money for Democrats. She played a large role in 2008 for Obama.

Winfrey is the wealthiest, non-heiress, female in the world. She own television, film, publishing, and online companies well has ventures into radio. Oprah is a wildly successful entrepreneur head and toes above any comparison. Dwayne Rock is just an entertainer. Dwayne Johnson isn't even the most successful entertainer among his peers. Comparing Winfrey to Johnson is like comparing George Lucas to someone with a very successful YouTube channel. It seriously under appreciate the scale and multifaceted nature of her successes and enterprizes.

We (you and I) should support those candidates which interested in representing us. I don't just mean with best intentions but also with effective policies. That said we also should ignore the better in pursuit of the perfect as I feel many Sanders supporters did in 2016. Ultimately it remains to be seen what type of Politician Oprah might be. Part of me is concerned about diminishing the office but another part of me is excited by the idea of a candidate who can break the endless 24/7 cycle of Trump coverage which is continuing to divide the nation and increase partisan hostility. I don't believe a subtle nuance message centered around well analysed economic numbers, as one would expect from an experienced politician, can thrive is the current political environment. Something else we all haven't discussed yet is that if Winfrey we're to run and get the Democratic nomination it may not end up being Oprah vs Trump but rather Oprah vs Pence. The Mueller investigation may still finish Trump. I think in that event Winfrey or nearly anyone would score one of the biggest wins in presidential history.

Donald Rumsfeld had been White House Chief of staff, Ambassador to NATO, and was a Congressman. Donald Rumsfeld was Sec of State under President Ford. When Bush tapped Rumsfeld to be his Sec of State few on earth were more qualified on paper. Donald Rumsfeld still did a terrible job with Iraq and Afghanistan. Dick Cheney was a formerly a White House Chief of Staff, Congressman for a decade, and Sec of State. Dick Cheney had a tremendous political resume. Dick Cheney was a terrible Vice President. No amount of prior political experience automatically makes someone a good fit for public office. Nixon was a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President before become President and still disgraced the himself POTUS. Intentions matter. Actually giving a damn about people matters. On paper Paul Ryan would make an excellent Presidential Candidate; one I would probably never vote for because he is an ideolog whom participates in grievance politics that divide the nation. I am sure we ALL agree whomever the President is should be qualified to do the job. Where split is what exactly qualifies someone. Political experience alone doesn't qualify someone, at least not to earn my vote. I can name a lot of long tenured Politicians I think are absolutely terrible.

I never implied otherwise. I only argued Bush had experience within normal standards. We all can agree Trump didn't. Bush was a terrible President.