Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

He has her publicly released medical records, how do you think doctors make conclusions?

No, he had a statement by her doctor, not her medical records. And doctors do not draw conclusions based on records. Every single time I've gone to a new GP, they've looked over my file, but then they've wanted to do their own examination. Because that's a fundamental necessity.

What Dr. Drew did was like seeing a mechanic's statement that "Mrs. Clinton's car is running fine", and concluding that it's a deathtrap that's falling apart because shut up look at the monkey.

[Kujako]

By examining the patient?

Nonsense! All doctors. ALL DOCTORS. reach conclusions by watching the Dr Oz show. If your doctor doesn't, they're clearly a fraud.

[DocSavageFan]

He could always just throw a bunch of money into the hands of the girls so they testify nothing actually went on and they were lying. Or heck, even the judge could receive a nice "donation".

$850,000 sounds about right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ones111498.htm

[jackofwind]

Just wait until the wetworks 'conspiracies' start getting mainstream attention, that's going to be a fun few weeks.

I can't wait, I hope that someone somewhere pretends to find a stockpile of clear plastic sheets emblazoned with an HRC monogram.

[Daerio]

By examining the patient?

So your opinion is doctors can't know things without directly examining a patient. Well that's nonsense, they do it all the time, and his opinion is certainly a lot more valuable to me than yours.

[May90]

People... still are concerned with Hillary's health? After two debates on which she looked spectacular, while her opponent sniffed constantly and looked like he was drugged or something?

Wow. I can commend your devotion, at least!

[Endus]

And why do we care what Budowsky has to say about his personal opinions of Hillary's campaign in the primaries?

If by "gem" you mean "completely uninteresting email describing one man's opinion regarding the failings of Hillary's campaign from over a year ago", then sure, "gem."

Totally groundbreaking stuff, Truculentt. You ought to be so proud.

At this point, the only reason I can see to be linking that kind of stuff is that they have this misbegotten idea that any internal criticism is somehow an act of rebellion/disavowal, and really, that says way more about them than it says about the Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

So your opinion is doctors can't know things without directly examining a patient. Well that's nonsense, they do it all the time, and his opinion is certainly a lot more valuable to me than yours.

No, doctors don't make calls like this without examining the patient. Or at least their full medical records. Which Dr. Drew didn't have.

[Daerio]

No, he had a statement by her doctor, not her medical records. And doctors do not draw conclusions based on records. Every single time I've gone to a new GP, they've looked over my file, but then they've wanted to do their own examination.

Wrong as usual, but it's hard to argue from a phone. He cited a lot more information than what Clintons puppet doctor released, that's just another snopes lie.

[cocoapuffs]

$850,000 sounds about right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ones111498.htm

is that why donald trump defended bill clinton and talked shit about his "accusers"

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump...tive-terrible/

[jackofwind]

He has her publicly released medical records, how do you think doctors make conclusions?

By examining their patients. Anything else is unethical.

This is not hard stuff, I feel like we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Vanyali]

So your opinion is doctors can't know things without directly examining a patient. Well that's nonsense, they do it all the time, and his opinion is certainly a lot more valuable to me than yours.

I would put as much stock in a doctor that read a record and diagnosed based on that as I did the military doctor that told me I have possible thyroid cancer and / or an autoimmune disorder without doing any bloodwork or ultrasounds because my mom had hyperthyroidism and I had balance issues at that particular moment.

Yes, that actually happened, and no, I have neither as those as proven by an examination that laughed at the medical records presented as fact.

[Endus]

Wrong as usual, but it's hard to argue from a phone. He cited a lot more information than what Clintons puppet doctor released, that's just another snopes lie.

Well then, considering the only documents he had legal access to was that statement, one of the following three things must be true;

1> You're wrong, and Dr. Drew's statements were based on that statement by Clinton's doctor and nothing else.
2> He unlawfully accessed Clinton's medical records, which would get his license revoked and most likely criminal charges filed.
3> He was lying about what he had access to (though you've given no evidence to back the claims you're making in this regard).

I'm leaning towards #1, but you seem to be arguing for #2, which would demonstrate highly unethical if not outright illegal actions by Dr. Drew.

[Noxx79]

So your opinion is doctors can't know things without directly examining a patient. Well that's nonsense, they do it all the time, and his opinion is certainly a lot more valuable to me than yours.

If you're seeing doctors like that, I would suggest you start to see someone else, as no doctor would make any type of diagnosis, especially of anything major and negative, without seeing the test results.

[Matchles]

Ok, thanks. My main question, though, is how much of Trump's sexual history would be relevant during a deposition. Like I said earlier, I understand that for Trump to give a sworn statement in his defence would also mean that Times lawyers would get to ask him questions too, but it would be deposition, right? It wouldn't be in a courtroom? How much of that is released to the public? Is there a judge present? How deep are they allowed to go into his sexual history?

It would be relevant because it speaks to whether the Times was malicious in their actions. They run a story saying Mother Teresa (excuse the fact she is no longer alive) was accused of groping young women and it would seem like they didn't do their due diligence in corroborating the story. If you are running a story about a guy who is a rumored lecher, then the information is useful for establishing that the Times was not acting out of malice. Less corroboration would be necessary to satisfy their burden of showing it was a believable story.

All your other questions would likely be up to the judge in the case and what both parties agree to.

[Felya]

So your opinion is doctors can't know things without directly examining a patient. Well that's nonsense, they do it all the time, and his opinion is certainly a lot more valuable to me than yours.

Why? I saw the same report and have practiced on as many patients as the 'love' Dr Drew, read the same statement, so the same 0 medical records. In fact, his conclusion isn't even the same as yours, but closer to mine:

"It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern," Pinsky admitted (using the phrase a third time). "It’s that the care she’s getting could make it a concern."

[Cthulhu 2020]

I feel like we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're just getting that feeling now?

They have been rummaging through the dregs. Since the 79th Benghazi investigation that found nothing.

[Truculentt]

Uh. This appears to be a mail sent to Podesta from someone named Brent. Should we know who that is? What is this actually supposed to prove? Honestly confused here. Is receiving an email from some random guy proof of anything?

ill reply to you cause you were cool about it, unlike some of the other baseless responses.

No, he's not a name you'd recognize.

The email is to Killary's campaign manager, from a main stream media liaison. here's his Bio - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/brent-budowsky.

They're talking about campaign strategy. Simply put - Hillary's marketing strategy has no intention of getting people to like her. She wants people to hate whoever she runs against. All of the crap about trump - racist, sexist, blahhh, etc.... it's planted. it's the definition of propaganda.

That's what she's spending her marketing money on - spew fake stories to piss people off, because pissed off people will go out to vote against the person they hate.

[Felya]

Wrong as usual, but it's hard to argue from a phone. He cited a lot more information than what Clintons puppet doctor released, that's just another snopes lie.

If he sited more information than the doctor released... what is said information based on?

[Kujako]

All of the crap about trump - racist, sexist, blahhh, etc.... it's planted.

So they traveled back in time and MADE Trump do and say things?

[Daerio]

I would put as much stock in a doctor that read a record and diagnosed based on that as I did the military doctor that told me I have possible thyroid cancer and / or an autoimmune disorder without doing any bloodwork or ultrasounds because my mom had hyperthyroidism and I had balance issues at that particular moment.

Yes, that actually happened, and no, I have neither as those as proven by an examination that laughed at the medical records presented as fact.

He provided no diagnosis, only analysis, quite a difference.