rangerx

Who said anything about hypertension? And FYI, being senior in years I am acutely aware of what arterial plaque is so don't preach about Googling, when clearly you have no idea.

Middle aged to geriatric adults become shorter too. I have a life long history with arthritis. My driver's license states, 6'0", but my last check up revealed I'm actually 5'10".

Perhaps, but it's not the only inconsistency with the doctor's assessment. Trump's LDL cholesterol is high (143, where 100 is high normal) despite active treatment with Crestor. Trump also has a high score indicating coronary atherosclerosis. Any doctor worthy of their Hippocratic oath would suggest Trump presents as obese with non-clinical heart disease at moderate risk for heart attack or stroke.

They claimed he was 6'3"" 239 lbs because at 6'2"", he would be considered obese.

Okay, I'll leave this discussion because the playfield isn't level. Apparently it's okay to get pissy if Trump is mentioned in the thread, but Hillary is fair game. I'm out.

One has to possess something first to lose it. She had zero votes coming into the election. She actually got more votes than Trump, but lost the election, so by logic of that comment, Trump lost the election.

She got less votes, is true. She lost votes, is a fallacy.

I don't PAC either, but if it's the law of the land it's not corrupt insomuch as it bad for the country on the whole.

That's a fallacy. Also Hillary wasn't convicted of anything, so the narrative of corruption is just a partisan opinion and not a fact.

I'm not sure either. I think Oprah is terrific and would make a great president, but as I've said earlier America is not ready for her. Even though Obama was the first black POTUS, the sheer volume of racism piled on him was shameful, no less counter-productive to the entire country on the whole. Now America has an outwardly sexist, racist president emboldening his base, every Tom Dick and Harry racist would seize the opportunity to widen already impassible gaps. She's kind-hearted and truthful. Sadly, not what America expects from it's leaders. Even the most bleeding hearts realize hard decisions are made at that level. The job is rife with no-win decisions and duplicity. If I were Oprah, I'd keep on the current track being taken and not run. She's already, very powerful and influential in the public eye. Although the prospect of her as POTUS is certainly promising, says a lot about America in general and that's a good thing. However, the country needs to address it's shortcomings first, while the willingness to that end is still dubious. Despite what the trolls say about my so-called hatred of conservatives, before Bush threw Condie Rice under the bus, I always thought she would have been an excellent Republican president. Not just because she's a woman and black, but an erudite and learned of world affairs. I mean really. She knew and warned Bush about Bin Laden before he did his thing. That's quite perceptive, if you ask me. Too bad it fell on deaf ears within her own party.

Again, you know nothing about me, but to pigeon-hole some off the wall comment that I am solely driven by hatred. HYPOCRISY to the OP in one breath. The boss of me comment was you snubbing my right to free speech, which you attempted to manipulate by participation by telling me I have no right to be in the discussion. Who are these "anyones"? You speak for the forum now? Citation please.

1- So you are exempt from your own rules then? 2- By your own words, you know jackshit about Oprah, but by default determined she's not fit for POTUS. 3- I see, you seem alright with talking shit about others, but when called out for it, you dismiss it as shit talk. 4- You came into that thread knowing nothing about Oprah and were corrected, yet learned nothing. Instead doubled down on it and got all defensive. 5- So nothing then. 6- Not pretending. I'm insisting you back up what you say, with supporting evidence. None of which is forthcoming, so I will dismiss the point as total hypocrisy to your own OP.

Preaching doesn't stand around here. I'm still waiting. I will ask you again, what threads have I contributed in that I know absolutely nothing about?

Now the victim. Dish it out, but can't it. It's pathetic. You were caught with your pants down in another thread. You were corrected, but doubled down on it and failed. Then claimed I have opinions on topics I know "absolutely nothing" about. So just what is it. You claim I'm guilty on more than one count, yet have not stated a single instance where I know "absolutely nothing" on topics I've contributed to. Facts being facts, if anything is absolute, it's your knowledge of Oprah in this thread. So what is it? What is it specifically I know "absolutely" nothing about in my contribution on this forum. I'm waiting...

This is a science forum. You must cite what you state. What opinions? What topics? Blanket statements aren't worth the spit that utters it, unless you back it up with facts. Besides that, the statement in itself has NOTHING to do with this thread insomuch as your determination to derail it, by making this about me. The irony of it all.

One is run by a liberal and the other is run by a turncoat liberal. I doubt Oprah stiffs her contractors as a means to profit or borrows/launders foreign funds to offset her operation. Again, bullshit. I am calling you out for your opinion of Oprah's qualification for POTUS, whom you know NOTHING about. You deflection fails, miserably.

Bullshit. I pointed out where you are wrong,twice. Now I am doing it a third time, because childishly blaming me for something doesn't change the narrative you're trying to control. Oh, I see. Five minutes on Google and now you are an expert on Oprah and educating us on what she really is huh? She doesn't sell books. She advocates for authors and their issues. Yes, she has a talk show. Pushing the actor thing though, is no so much a career marker as it desperate for you to appear correct. It's weak.

Grow up. What you did was demonstrate for all the world to see, was the classic example of monolithic party adherence. You have no idea who Oprah is, yet rapidly and outwardly declared she was not qualified for the job, merely because she's not a conservative.

"Sounds familiar" means you are repeating an observed pattern. What is this pattern? Sychophants agree with Trumps idiocy... does that make them intelligent? Or is that standard only applied to liberals?

Ignore all you like. However, you jumped into this thread (second comment) in total ignorance of the person, yet aloud stated she is not qualified for the job. Hyper-partisanship, by default. Period.

So even though you have no idea who she is, what she does or what she stands for, you have already decided she or any supporters are snobs?

Ummm.... she's not an actress either.

Pop singer. WTF? Besides that, America isn't ready for a black woman president because it has not transcended misogyny, racism and hyper-partisanship.

The most ridiculous thing I've read since I've signed up. Even surpassing most fly-by-night crackpots that fail this forum.

Nobody disputes America's military might. It's current leadership that leaves little to be desired. Globally, America is diminished in it's trustworthiness. No amount of rhetoric will change that any time soon, other than for the worse.