Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JoeOtterbein

(7,700 posts)
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 08:47 PM Sep 2016

Silence? Even if you honestly suspected a potential POTUS of cocaine abuse?

I have made it known here on DU for sometime now that I suspect Trump is using cocaine. The snorting through every sentence at every rally is nothing new. I have seen it before many times with Trump. It is either the worst cold ever known to mankind, an allergy that "Dr Oz" could not reveal, or just plain old cocaine abuse.

Don't tell me it's not right to voice my suspicions. Trump earned his right-wing cred by "forcing" our president Obama to "show his birth certificate." He calls women, "Ms Piggy." He claims Mexican men are rapists and even murderers. Even tonight he is saying that Hillary is too sick to serve and lies that she hurt the women who had affairs with her husband.

This may be our last chance to stop him before he snorts, lies and cheats his way into the White House.

It is absolutely morally wrong for Dems to back off now. Even Dr Dean suspects his cocaine abuse and is not backing down.

Everyone who has ever known a heavy cocaine user knows what I'm talking about. The potential for danger to our nation is immense. If we must protect the public safety by drug testing hamburger flippers, we MUST insist on a hair-follicle drug test for both candidates now.

Don't back down now. History, and the voters, will judge us harshly if it all comes out AFTER the election.

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Silence? Even if you honestly suspected a potential POTUS of cocaine abuse? (Original Post) JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 OP
You know the Republicans would do it. I think Hillary should take a drug test and doc03 Sep 2016 #1
Thanks doc JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #5
we need them to take hair folicle drug test MyNameIsKhan Sep 2016 #7
Thanks for correcting my bad spelling! JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #11
Much of the hair on his head is tied, strand by strand, to a lace weave caplet MADem Sep 2016 #21
Lol very true Hekate Sep 2016 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author ColemanMaskell Sep 2016 #24
I don't think Dr. Dean should back down, Ilsa Sep 2016 #2
Thanks, I should add that the reason a cocaine user snorts so much... JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #8
He's not going to win alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #3
Seriously, you are not worried? JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #4
Not in the slightest alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #6
Why? I know I worried. I remember the election of 2000 like it was yesterday. JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #9
Meh alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #13
People have been saying that for like a year and he keeps winning I wouldn't doc03 Sep 2016 #10
They'll call it for Clinton when California closes alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #12
"Trump can't win" sounds like a future famous last words to me! JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #14
Whatever alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #15
I hope you right. Do I have to remind you how a month ago doc03 Sep 2016 #16
Why would you remind me alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #17
538 kinda seems to think it might be close ColemanMaskell Sep 2016 #27
Time will tell alcibiades_mystery Sep 2016 #28
"Whatever" is clearly not a serious answer to such a critical risk JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #18
Why not test ALL candidates? I doubt the libertarian would pass. spooky3 Sep 2016 #19
He (Gary Johnson) would admit to pot, Trump (GOP) will not allow cocaine testing for him! JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #25
And if past experience is any indicator, a president with a cocaine habit can be a very risky bet. forest444 Sep 2016 #20
If the person who could start a nuclear war shouldnt Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2016 #22
There are two media standards in this country kimbutgar Sep 2016 #23
Thanks to all my DU peeps for the Greatest Threads recognition ! JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #26
Cocaine sounds more likely than Alzheimer's to explain behaviour ColemanMaskell Sep 2016 #30
Well, Dr. Dean spoke up. I see on Twitter he's taking a bit of a beating. calimary Sep 2016 #31
Thanks for your take on it calimary. You should post it as a diary ! JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #34
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof mythology Sep 2016 #32
Suspecting drug abuse is not extraordinary, in fact many employers assume it and require testing JoeOtterbein Sep 2016 #33

doc03

(35,337 posts)
1. You know the Republicans would do it. I think Hillary should take a drug test and
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 08:54 PM
Sep 2016

insist Trump do the same to clear this up. I don't think Trump is on cocaine but many people are saying he is. Trump brags about clearing up the Birther controversy we need to clear this up.

MyNameIsKhan

(2,205 posts)
7. we need them to take hair folicle drug test
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:02 PM
Sep 2016

Cannabis 7 to 30 days in urine, up to 90 days in hair, two weeks in your blood. Cocaine 3 - 4 days in urine, up to 90 days in hair, 1 - 2 days in your blood. Codeine 1 day in urine, up to 90 days in hair, 12 hours in your blood. Heroin 3 - 4 days in urine, up to 90 days in hair, up to 12 hours in your blood.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
21. Much of the hair on his head is tied, strand by strand, to a lace weave caplet
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 10:55 PM
Sep 2016

that is woven into his own hair and glued to his head.

You'd be getting the hair of someone, but maybe not someone named Trump.

Response to MyNameIsKhan (Reply #7)

Ilsa

(61,695 posts)
2. I don't think Dr. Dean should back down,
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 08:55 PM
Sep 2016

Especially after trump trash-talked Hillary 's health. If the signs are there, we should not ignore them, but press him on it. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he uses coke, uppers, etc.

JoeOtterbein

(7,700 posts)
8. Thanks, I should add that the reason a cocaine user snorts so much...
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:03 PM
Sep 2016

They are trying to enjoy it more. I knew a guy who would chop some cocaine very fine with a razor for a quick buzz, then snort a rock of it to enjoy a bit later while we were on the town. It never worked. In no time he would be back for more. It was sick.

JoeOtterbein

(7,700 posts)
9. Why? I know I worried. I remember the election of 2000 like it was yesterday.
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:05 PM
Sep 2016

Many died because we did not fight back when we had a chance.

doc03

(35,337 posts)
10. People have been saying that for like a year and he keeps winning I wouldn't
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:05 PM
Sep 2016

be so sure about that. I think it will be based on turn-out and from what I have seen and heard the turn-out is not going to be good.

doc03

(35,337 posts)
16. I hope you right. Do I have to remind you how a month ago
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:34 PM
Sep 2016

on DU everyone was talking about a landslide of historical proportions and any of us that warned them about being so confident
were called concern trolls. We got these snarky your concern is noted replies.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
17. Why would you remind me
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:47 PM
Sep 2016

It wasn't going to be close then and it's still not. You sound kinda wrapped up in the goings on of a message board.

ColemanMaskell

(783 posts)
27. 538 kinda seems to think it might be close
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 11:50 PM
Sep 2016

538 really analyzes numbers, historical data, demographics; they're the Cookie Monster of Data -- Like Johnny-5 in the movie. So even back when Hillary was looking at landslide numbers, they were saying it's likely to be closer than it looked like right then. They're predicting Hillary as the likely winner, but it's by no means certain. That's why they have separate predictions for polls only and "polls plus": Polls plus takes into account all that other data.

Their big and consistent warning is that this year there are far more undecideds and 3rd-party-backers than usual. Apparently the 3rd-party-backers tend to chicken out near the last moment and vote for one of the two primary candidates; so a third-party-backer is really a variation on undecided. Having so many undecideds makes it hard to predict the outcome based on polls.

Another thing that's new this year is that the Republicans have been able to take so much action to disenfranchise so many Dem voters, thanks largely to the Supreme Court quashing much of the Voting Rights Act. There are still court cases over the legality of some of it, and some rulings have gone against the bad guys -- But they will likely get away with some of it, including massive purges of existing registered voters. Also there might be some voter intimidation, disguised as poll watching or some such pretext, which Trump has encouraged loudly. So successful voter suppression is equivalent to lower voter turnout.

Probably Hillary wins, but it could be a landslide or a narrow margin depending mainly on those undecided voters, and also on turnout (in the broadest sense).

Be optimistic but not complacent.

JoeOtterbein

(7,700 posts)
18. "Whatever" is clearly not a serious answer to such a critical risk
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 09:57 PM
Sep 2016

Or are the Dems just being a bit TOO adverse to risk, to even question the most critical risk that our votes can result in?

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
22. If the person who could start a nuclear war shouldnt
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 11:14 PM
Sep 2016

Be drug tested who should? I know I am in the minority but I think Dean rocks. The moral police disgust me

kimbutgar

(21,148 posts)
23. There are two media standards in this country
Wed Sep 28, 2016, 11:23 PM
Sep 2016

If you are a democratic candidate everything you do is questionable and subject to prosecution.

But if you are republican nothing you to see here move along.

ColemanMaskell

(783 posts)
30. Cocaine sounds more likely than Alzheimer's to explain behaviour
Thu Sep 29, 2016, 12:05 AM
Sep 2016

There are (believe it or not) a number of interwebby-discussions seriously questioning whether Trump has Alzheimer's. His dad Fred had it, and it is hereditary. Some of Trump's apparent mental lapses could be explained that way, early stages of Alzheimer's. Sounds like his dad was 80 before he developed it, though. Anyway cocaine seems more plausible -- it seems like a simpler explanation.

Also the explanation of the sniffles as allergies doesn't hold water because it didn't sound as if he had nasal congestion (in the debate video footage). He just seemed to be sniffling without any sinus symptoms.

It seemed odd, like a horse that snorts when it's being held still and it wants to run. I don't think I ever saw anything exactly like it. The one cocaine user I knew of did sniffle oddly, but he always crinkled his nose in a lopsided way when he did it. Trump didn't seem to do the nose-crinkling. It was just the sniffing, like a nervous tic, like a horse being held back. A nervous tic perhaps.

But maybe not all cocaine users do the lopsided nose-crinkling when they sniffle.

Or maybe he took some sinus medication that cleared up sinus congestion but left the sniffle.

The thing about cocaine as an explanation is that it explains so much more than just the sniffle.

calimary

(81,265 posts)
31. Well, Dr. Dean spoke up. I see on Twitter he's taking a bit of a beating.
Thu Sep 29, 2016, 01:34 PM
Sep 2016

I tweeted several things A) to have his back and B) because I'VE SEEN AND HEARD THAT SHIT, MYSELF. Trump may have had an allergy or a cold or maybe some gnat flew by (or up) his nose or something - but it was startling and really glaring.

I was watching that *SNIFF* debate Monday night and *SNIFF* immediately was taken back to the hallway I was walking through, where certain station personnel passed me by and *SNIFF* . At least one of these individuals was well known to partake of a little blow. The same kind of *SNIFF* that Trump was doing onstage. It was the FIRST thing that came to my mind, watching *SNIFF* Trump. Literally made me start seeing my early career flashing in front of my eyes!

Working in rock radio, one saw and heard this a lot. A LOT. Sometimes one even heard it on the air. I remember listening to one noontime anchor begin a newscast announcing the "Dooz at Dood" followed by lots of mouth and nose noises and clicks and weird sounds, and a *SNIFF* or two, from doing so much coke (like just a moment or two before stepping into the on-air booth for news time). This individual always sounded like that - on-air and off. Constantly so stuffed-up so as to barely articulate normally. And it WASN'T any chronic cold that was to blame.

This was in the late 70s when Studio 54 in Manhattan was THE thing and fast times were THE rule, and the stuff was EVERYWHERE, coast-to-coast, throughout the industry, and beyond, I'm sure. I knew people who kept a collection of those little white plastic coffee stirrers that McDonald's used to issue with coffee orders - the stirrers had tiny spoon configurations at one end - just perfect to dip into one of those tiny little screw-top vials in which so many people kept their cocaine. McDonald's discontinued those little "stirrers" as soon as this other "usage" for them was discovered. There were people who had one long pinkie fingernail, because that made a good little scoop, perfect size, to dip into the vial and "spoon" out just the right amount to bring up under the nostril. Hell, one Christmas, there was a station at which the entire air staff was gifted with special custom-made framed coke mirrors with the station's logo on them.

Later in my career, that chapter had ended, but Lordy Lordy, in rock radio in the 70s, it was EVERYWHERE. To the point where it was at times actual "currency" in various promotional campaigns.

I went to one Radio & Records conference (R&R was a major industry trade journal back then, that EVERYBODY on the staff waited for, hungrily, to come in the mail every week) where cocaine was everywhere. The Blues Brothers were the entertainment at the big banquet that was the conference finale. They were really new and hot at that moment and this was, as Joe Biden would say, "a big fucking deal". The hospitality suite in the hotel that the Blues Brothers' record label hosted was so packed with people wanting to see and be seen with Belushi & Aykroyd that you could barely get in. There was a coffee table in the living room of the suite - and its top was covered with a mound of cocaine - free for any and all to enjoy. Belushi had already made quite a name for himself as an afficionado - which, sadly, eventually contributed to his death. Obviously everybody thought it was first-class "hospitality"! You couldn't move in that room. Heaven forbid you'd need to go to the bathroom! Of course, in a scene like that, at an event like that, I would suspect more-of-the-same, piled-higher-and-deeper would be going on in the bathroom, too, and you probably wouldn't be able to get in there, either.

Anyway, that's an era LONG gone. But I absolutely do remember all the cocaine usage I saw, among coworkers and other associates and colleagues and friends in rock radio. And the *SNIFFS* I heard. Out loud and big and noisy and sustained like Trump's were, during the debate. I tried it myself back then, because it literally was everywhere in the industry and you never had to look far to find it (like maybe to the person standing next to you at any given time). Everybody around me was into it, so why not? I tried it a few times. Turns out I didn't like it. I soon realized that - shit, for the kind of money cocaine cost, I could get the same effect for free simply by sucking on an ice cube! All it ever did, for me, was freeze my front teeth and stuff up my nose so I couldn't breathe. Who the hell needs that? Besides, I rather enjoy breathing. Whatever cocaine was supposed to have done that was so great? Never happened for me. So I didn't go further with it. I never did discover what the appeal was. And I was QUITE content with that. Relieved, actually! I think there were some stations where I worked where I may have been the only one who didn't indulge. Now ... weed, on the other hand ... uh ...

JoeOtterbein

(7,700 posts)
33. Suspecting drug abuse is not extraordinary, in fact many employers assume it and require testing
Thu Sep 29, 2016, 03:40 PM
Sep 2016

It is not at all unreasonable to suspect a person who can't even stop snorting for the most important job in the world. Why would any reasonable person ask for less? It only adds to my suspicions that he is being given a pass because of his immense wealth.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Silence? Even if you hone...