The General Election

[knapplc]

Trump has more to lose than Obama in a war of words. Obama's leaving office regardless. Trump still has to convince a plurality that he should be president. Sparring with Obama isn't going to get him into the White House. Trump should be smart enough to leave Obama alone, but I doubt he can stop himself - another reason he shouldn't be president.

Obama’s soaring approval numbers are very good news for Hillary Clinton

The last time that President Obama's approval rating in Washington Post-ABC News polling was as high as it is in our new survey was six months after he took office. At 58 percent, Obama's approval is 15 points higher than it was on the eve of the 2014 elections, where his party got blown out. Hillary Clinton's hope is that the reversal of opinions on Obama two years later will also lead to a reversal of fortunes for other Democrats — and there's reason to think that it will.

 

[teachercd]

Yeah, but Hillary is going to be dead before the election. It will be interesting to see the autopsy report. Hilary can hardly even more around anymore, it is scary to see it happen right before our eyes. Anyone that has seen a family member get ill and slowly fade away knows what I mean.

 

Obama helping out is not really helping anything right now. I do wonder if it will cost hillary votes since many people are questioning the health of the Democratic nominee.

[QMany]

Americans need to know more about Clinton’s health — and Trump’s

 

I agree.

 

Eight years ago, I wrote a medical report on the health of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose personal physician I had been for 22 years. That report was 276 words and described Obama’s health as excellent. I was derided for issuing such a brief report, but there was nothing of significance in the medical history of this healthy, 47-year-old male. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain — a 71-year-old with a history of skin cancer — made nearly 1,200 pages of records available for a group of reporters to review.

Today, the two major candidates for president are each almost as old as McCain was in 2008. Having been in practice for 50 years serving a predominantly geriatric patient population, and now a septuagenarian myself, I can attest that the American people need much more medical information from these candidates. If elected, 70-year-old Donald Trump would be the oldest person ever to enter the Oval Office, while Hillary Clinton, 68, would be a close second, behind Ronald Reagan. At these ages, stuff begins to happen.

 

What do we know about Clinton? Importantly, she deserves credit for issuing a useful two-page letter from her doctor in July 2015, but unfortunately that document raised as many questions as it answered.

 

In contrast, we know nothing about Trump’s health.

 

A one-page letter from his doctor — a gastroenterologist, not the type of physician who usually provides primary care — reported that Trump’s “strength and stamina” were “extraordinary.” We were told “unequivocally” that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” This stunningly unprofessional, hastily written letter contained only minimal medical information.

We essentially have no medical information on Trump.

[HuskerNation1]

It looks like those involved in Hillary's server are pleading the fifth.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/295620-clinton-it-aide-does-not-appear-before-oversight-panel-despite

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/bryan-pagliano-clinton-staffer-pleads-fifth/

[BigRedBuster]

 

Americans need to know more about Clinton’s health — and Trump’s

 

I agree.

 

Eight years ago, I wrote a medical report on the health of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose personal physician I had been for 22 years. That report was 276 words and described Obama’s health as excellent. I was derided for issuing such a brief report, but there was nothing of significance in the medical history of this healthy, 47-year-old male. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain — a 71-year-old with a history of skin cancer — made nearly 1,200 pages of records available for a group of reporters to review.

Today, the two major candidates for president are each almost as old as McCain was in 2008. Having been in practice for 50 years serving a predominantly geriatric patient population, and now a septuagenarian myself, I can attest that the American people need much more medical information from these candidates. If elected, 70-year-old Donald Trump would be the oldest person ever to enter the Oval Office, while Hillary Clinton, 68, would be a close second, behind Ronald Reagan. At these ages, stuff begins to happen.

 

What do we know about Clinton? Importantly, she deserves credit for issuing a useful two-page letter from her doctor in July 2015, but unfortunately that document raised as many questions as it answered.

 

In contrast, we know nothing about Trump’s health.

 

A one-page letter from his doctor — a gastroenterologist, not the type of physician who usually provides primary care — reported that Trump’s “strength and stamina” were “extraordinary.” We were told “unequivocally” that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” This stunningly unprofessional, hastily written letter contained only minimal medical information.

We essentially have no medical information on Trump.

 

So, basically we have two people that are full of sh#t.

 

With my vast experience in the matter, when you are full of sh#t.....that can be a bad problem.

[ZRod]

 

Americans need to know more about Clinton’s health — and Trump’s

 

I agree.

 

 

Eight years ago, I wrote a medical report on the health of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose personal physician I had been for 22 years. That report was 276 words and described Obama’s health as excellent. I was derided for issuing such a brief report, but there was nothing of significance in the medical history of this healthy, 47-year-old male. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain — a 71-year-old with a history of skin cancer — made nearly 1,200 pages of records available for a group of reporters to review.

 

Today, the two major candidates for president are each almost as old as McCain was in 2008. Having been in practice for 50 years serving a predominantly geriatric patient population, and now a septuagenarian myself, I can attest that the American people need much more medical information from these candidates. If elected, 70-year-old Donald Trump would be the oldest person ever to enter the Oval Office, while Hillary Clinton, 68, would be a close second, behind Ronald Reagan. At these ages, stuff begins to happen.

 

What do we know about Clinton? Importantly, she deserves credit for issuing a useful two-page letter from her doctor in July 2015, but unfortunately that document raised as many questions as it answered.

 

In contrast, we know nothing about Trump’s health.

 

A one-page letter from his doctor — a gastroenterologist, not the type of physician who usually provides primary care — reported that Trump’s “strength and stamina” were “extraordinary.” We were told “unequivocally” that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” This stunningly unprofessional, hastily written letter contained only minimal medical information.

 

We essentially have no medical information on Trump.

 

So, basically we have two people that are full of sh#t.

 

With my vast experience in the matter, when you are full of sh#t.....that can be a bad problem.

An awfully smelly one.

[funhusker]

Yeah, but Hillary is going to be dead before the election. It will be interesting to see the autopsy report. Hilary can hardly even more around anymore, it is scary to see it happen right before our eyes. Anyone that has seen a family member get ill and slowly fade away knows what I mean.

 

Obama helping out is not really helping anything right now. I do wonder if it will cost hillary votes since many people are questioning the health of the Democratic nominee.

Sounds to me like you're passive-aggressively gauging interest in a "when will she die" pool...

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Americans need to know more about Clinton’s health — and Trump’s

 

I agree.

 

Eight years ago, I wrote a medical report on the health of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose personal physician I had been for 22 years. That report was 276 words and described Obama’s health as excellent. I was derided for issuing such a brief report, but there was nothing of significance in the medical history of this healthy, 47-year-old male. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain — a 71-year-old with a history of skin cancer — made nearly 1,200 pages of records available for a group of reporters to review.

Today, the two major candidates for president are each almost as old as McCain was in 2008. Having been in practice for 50 years serving a predominantly geriatric patient population, and now a septuagenarian myself, I can attest that the American people need much more medical information from these candidates. If elected, 70-year-old Donald Trump would be the oldest person ever to enter the Oval Office, while Hillary Clinton, 68, would be a close second, behind Ronald Reagan. At these ages, stuff begins to happen.

 

What do we know about Clinton? Importantly, she deserves credit for issuing a useful two-page letter from her doctor in July 2015, but unfortunately that document raised as many questions as it answered.

 

In contrast, we know nothing about Trump’s health.

 

A one-page letter from his doctor — a gastroenterologist, not the type of physician who usually provides primary care — reported that Trump’s “strength and stamina” were “extraordinary.” We were told “unequivocally” that he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” This stunningly unprofessional, hastily written letter contained only minimal medical information.

We essentially have no medical information on Trump.

 

So, basically we have two people that are full of sh#t.

 

With my vast experience in the matter, when you are full of sh#t.....that can be a bad problem.

 

 

[huskerfan2000]

Back to Trump and his "charitable givings"

 

 

 

 

Isn't that how all donations work? Someone else donates and then that money is giving to some group, and that secondhand giver is given praise? Sounds fairly normal in my opinion.. but don't let that stop the Trump haters.. funny all the same.

[teachercd]

 

Yeah, but Hillary is going to be dead before the election. It will be interesting to see the autopsy report. Hilary can hardly even more around anymore, it is scary to see it happen right before our eyes. Anyone that has seen a family member get ill and slowly fade away knows what I mean.

 

Obama helping out is not really helping anything right now. I do wonder if it will cost hillary votes since many people are questioning the health of the Democratic nominee.

Sounds to me like you're passive-aggressively gauging interest in a "when will she die" pool...

 

I have never done one of those "dead pool" things...I don't even understand how they work!

[Whistlebritches]

 

Back to Trump and his "charitable givings"

 

 

 

 

Isn't that how all donations work? Someone else donates and then that money is giving to some group, and that secondhand giver is given praise? Sounds fairly normal in my opinion.. but don't let that stop the Trump haters.. funny all the same.

 

It sounds exactly like what I remember seeing in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice that I stupidly watched several years ago. The celebrities called all their celebrity friends to come buy cupcakes at exorbitant prices and then donated the money while taking credit for it.

 

Or collecting money for an AIDS walk or whatever.

 

It's not the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says they donated money to a cause but I don't think there's anything shady about it unless they were doing something funny with the books.

[Red Five]

 

Isn't that how all donations work? Someone else donates and then that money is giving to some group, and that secondhand giver is given praise? Sounds fairly normal in my opinion.. but don't let that stop the Trump haters.. funny all the same.

 

 

Yes, that is how the Red Cross and similar organizations work. That is not how standard "rich people" charities work. Most of the time those "rich people" actually donate to their charities.

 

The Donald J. Trump Foundation is not like other charities. An investigation of the foundation — including examinations of 17 years of tax filings and interviews with more than 200 individuals or groups listed as donors or beneficiaries — found that it collects and spends money in a very unusual manner.

 

For one thing, nearly all of its money comes from people other than Trump. In tax records, the last gift from Trump was in 2008. Since then, all of the donations have been other people’s money — an arrangement that experts say is almost unheard of for a family foundation.

 

Trump then takes that money and generally does with it as he pleases. In many cases, he passes it on to other charities, which often are under the impression that it is Trump’s own money.

 

About 10 years ago, the Trump Foundation underwent a major change — although it was invisible to those who received its gifts.

 

The checks still had Trump’s name on them.

 

Behind the scenes, he was transforming the foundation from a standard-issue rich person’s philanthropy into a charity that allowed a rich man to be philanthropic for free.

 

Experts on charity said they had rarely seen anything like it.

 

“Our common understanding of charity is you give something of yourself to help somebody else. It’s not something that you raise money from one side to spend it on the other,” said Leslie Lenkowsky, the former head of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and a professor studying philanthropy at Indiana University.

 

By that definition, was Trump engaging in charity?

 

No, Lenkowsky said.

 

“It’s a deal,” he said, an arrangement worked out for maximum benefit at minimum sacrifice.

 

[Red Five]

 

It's not the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says they donated money to a cause but I don't think there's anything shady about it unless they were doing something funny with the books.

 

 

The article goes into detail on this:

 

In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases — not previously reported — Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

 

Money from the Trump Foundation has also been used for political purposes, which is against the law. The Washington Post reported this month that Trump paid a penalty this year to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi ®.

 

Trump’s foundation appears to have repeatedly broken IRS rules, which require nonprofit groups to file accurate paperwork. In five cases, the Trump Foundation told the IRS that it had given a gift to a charity whose leaders told The Post that they had never received it. In two other cases, companies listed as donors to the Trump Foundation told The Post that those listings were incorrect.

 

[Red Five]

I can't get this to be any smaller, so I spoiler'd it

 

 

 

[Red Five]

To contrast, the Clinton's have given $22.5M over the past 15 years to their "smaller" Clinton Family Foundation. That is not the Clinton Foundation that is in the news, but where Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea would direct their own private charitable contributions. And of the $22.5M in their smaller foundation, they have given $5.4M to the larger foundation.