Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

1246

Comments

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    This is too funny actually just today they finally did an isocaloric, protein equated study comparing high carb to low carb.  In a metabolic ward, switching from the 4 week carb diet to the 4 week fat diet caused fat loss that was occuring during the carb diet to slow down to pre study levels while lean tissue and water loss ramped up substantially to make up the constituents of  weight loss during the remainder of the fat diet duration.  It's $25 if you want to read the entire paper.  This is the study that the low carb movement needed in order to validate it's claims, major defeat, this is going to spread like wildfire. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/07/05/ajcn.116.133561.abstract




    I'll have to jump on this paper once I get university access up and running in the Fall, sounds particularly interesting! From the little bit of info you provided here I can see one or two possible factors that might explain a difference in short-term dietary changes such as these and more long-term changes (epigenetic metabolism not responding to the change in diet during the shorter time frame of such a study perhaps) but assuming a constant level of exercise for the entire duration this does spark some concerns. It will be an interesting read!

  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016

    This is too funny actually just today they finally did an isocaloric, protein equated study comparing high carb to low carb. In a metabolic ward, switching from the 4 week carb diet to the 4 week fat diet caused fat loss that was occuring during the carb diet to slow down to pre study levels while lean tissue and water loss ramped up substantially to make up the constituents of weight loss during the remainder of the fat diet duration. It's $25 if you want to read the entire paper. This is the study that the low carb movement needed in order to validate it's claims, major defeat, this is going to spread like wildfire. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/07/05/ajcn.116.133561.abstract




    Discussed by Stephan Guyenet here;
    wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/nusi-funded-study-serves-up_6.html


    fake it till you make it

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Science shows otherwise I'm afraid, there is always muscle loss on low carb ketosis diets unless protein is increased substantially to the point of compromising ketosis, even the study you presented to me had dramatic muscle loss compared to the carb group.  It is an irrefutable physiological fact that when you eliminate carbs you drop water and glycogen immediately, that is why they are called carboHYDRATEs, that is why weight class professionals that need to drop water for a weigh in drop carbs before the weigh in.  I really wish you even had rudimentary knowledge of human physiology, you don't even have the basics down, and it's not an insult, you just innocently have no clue.  Some of the known effects of carbohydrates are the prevention of muscle protein breakdown, catabolism, and blunts cortisol (hello low carb adrenal fatigue sufferers). 




     


    The God of Science speaks again. I'm not worthy I guess.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


     


    I think everyone here is consciously trying to find ways to dial in our best health, physical/mental performance, longevity, lifestyle etc. for ourselves and others. Most of us have more of a science-based approach of experimenting and dialing in what works for us rather than a faith-based approach of looking to an authority to tell us like it is. We look to experts, studies, and other high performers for ideas but personal experience is the ultimate deciding factor. I keep coming back because there's occasionally interesting posts from folks who are on this same path, and having followed this stuff for a long time it's a good place to share my own experiences. It's more of a horizontal community than a pyramid structure with Dave at the top. And of course, what better place to call Dave out on his BS than on his own forum, that he still refers his listeners to even though we contradict most of his dogma? 




     


    Straw man. I do dial it in for myself, and it works perfectly. Yes, carbs are important, but for the initial loss of insulin resistance and weight loss, low-carb is essential. Also clears out years of toxic fat (but it's important to bind what comes out with charcoal and what not).

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Also clears out years of toxic fat (but it's important to bind what comes out with charcoal and what not).




    What toxins are being excreted from metabolized fat, and how exactly are you binding it with charcoal? Is the fat somehow entering the digestive tract and being metabolized there? Or coming into contact with the charcoal at another point in your system?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    What toxins are being excreted from metabolized fat, and how exactly are you binding it with charcoal? Is the fat somehow entering the digestive tract and being metabolized there? Or coming into contact with the charcoal at another point in your system?




     


    Could somebody please rescue me from this troll? I refuse to have to prove every single thing that is already accepted in the Bulletproof community.

  • John BrissonJohn Brisson The Legend Formerly Known as Ron Swanson ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    What toxins are being excreted from metabolized fat, and how exactly are you binding it with charcoal? Is the fat somehow entering the digestive tract and being metabolized there? Or coming into contact with the charcoal at another point in your system?




     


    Fat cells are broken down in the body, into fatty acids and glycerol, which are then used by the liver. If you are long term fasting the fat cells would be used for gluconeogenesis.


     


    Granted, toxins should also be released when fat cells are metabolized.


     


    Some toxins that are released from fat cells would be metabolized by the liver and released into the digestive system by bile which can be absorbed in the digestive tract by charcoal and eliminated from the body.


     


    We release most of our toxins by two methods, number one's and number two's. Occasionally, number three's.


    My book Fix Your Gut, is offered on Amazon for $9.99.

     

    I also offer coaching:  http://fixyourgut.com/health-coaching-information/

     

    Please join or like the Fix your Gut Facebook. Also please add me on twitter @FixYourGutJB.

     

    http://www.fixyourgut.com

     

  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    I doubt it that you loose muscles from going keto. For me this one study is not a  major defeat. I could build muscle with cyclical ketosis. I am living proof that it works I guess. :P


     


    However I de believe that cals in = cals out is almost right but that inflammation thing and insulin resistance and food intolerances also plays s role and hunger loss from ketosis and so on...


    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     

  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    "Every" study? You are dramatizing...


     


    Here is one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411406/


    two http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271639/


    three: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15972575/


     


    This article also mentions long term keto and muscle growth http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/


     


    This was just my three first google result plus one from the article (which is one of the results).


     


    Dramaqueen.


    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Fat cells are broken down in the body, into fatty acids and glycerol, which are then used by the liver. If you are long term fasting the fat cells would be used for gluconeogenesis.


     


    Granted, toxins should also be released when fat cells are metabolized.


     


    Some toxins that are released from fat cells would be metabolized by the liver and released into the digestive system by bile which can be absorbed in the digestive tract by charcoal and eliminated from the body.


     


    We release most of our toxins by two methods, number one's and number two's. Occasionally, number three's.




    An excellent explanation. I've seen so much blind adherence to "activated charcoal cleanses toxins from the body" without reference to how the toxins end up in the digestive system from elsewhere (like the fat or the blood). Activated charcoal follows a pretty straightforward path through the body, so toxins have to be placed in this path somehow. 


     


    Any idea on toxin excretion percentages vs metabolic re-uptake? Does excretion increase with exercise as it would for water-soluble toxins? 


     


    Another concern is determining that there are actually any toxins in your fat cells to begin with, which is why I try and ask people what toxins they are trying to detox. Is there a general list of toxins lurking in most people's fat cells that require an activated charcoal regimen?


     


     


    I believe there was some discussion during the Moldy Q&A about certain mold-related toxins secreted in the bile not being easily bound up by charcoal and needing more specifically targeted drugs to bind the bile, like the anti-cholesterol one Dave mentioned (I'll fill in the name if I can find my notes) or something like glucomannan or modified citrus pectin, otherwise they would remain dissolved and reabsorbed in a continuous cycle. Unfortunately I could not get Dave to answer or acknowledge any of my questions during the Q&A, so all I have are scribbled notes from his brief mention of a few of the "Asprey Cocktail" ingredients. 


     


     


    As someone who is beginning the hard work to recover from living in an environment that has air that could be considered clinically toxic, it's important to know what toxins you are dealing with, where they are in your system, what to use to bind and eliminate them safely, and how to target your detox regimen (when to take your sups, how to promote toxin excretion, any supplement interactions so you don't waste money binding your other sups or have an adverse reaction, that kind of thing).


  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    It was not meant as an insult and I apologize. I was simply astonished that you did not even read one study stating that after finding this in my first 3 google results and I did not mean to start a debate either. I just couldn't believe it. In Germany the right to free speech goes like this I can call you a Dramaqueen if you are a friend without it being considered an insult and even though I only have you in a friendslist on this forum under these circumstances I never considered this an insult.


     


    I'm out.


    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     

  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    south-park-bp-sorry1.png?w=640


    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    It's not your job to prove anything, it is up to you to not blindly follow things. If you do decide to outrightly follow something and spread it without question (parroting), then you must be prepared to answer questions and have the confidence to do so without just deferring back to where you heard it as a mask of ignorance.




     


    I am complaining because I'm on a forum for a community that has a certain basis of understanding. Releasing toxins from fat and the ability to bind toxins is not something that I should have to explain. Sparefilms is simply trolling me by requiring me to qualify that. It's not like we're on a Reddit stream for our favorite coffee, and I just brought this up out of nowhere. At some point, this just gets annoying, and almost like scientific bullying. 


    You can't continue to require people


     


    And that's your opinion about what I'm doing (parroting and deferring back to where you heard it being a mask of ignorance). I have provided plenty of information to back this up. In fact, I feel that you blindly believe in CICO, whereas I've thoroughly shown that this model has deeply come into question, especially considering all that's come to light through health blogs like Mercola's and Asprey's in particular. I am referring to studies that they refer to (as well as supplemental ones that I find through Google). This is not ignorance. I'm simply sharing what has been shared. Why is that ignorant? That's all you can do (more below). It definitely doesn't make it invalid just because it was on their blogs. That seems to be your argument.



    If it's the case that I can't just "share what's been shared," then you're just as guilty. You are parroting what PubMed and the scientists in these journals that you regard so highly are saying. You do realize that anything written in a scientific journal is essentially hearsay. You can't actually determine these things to the rigorous degree that you require unless you're doing your own peer-reviewed, double blind studies. So stop being a hypocrite, and accept that there are other opinions than yours that are just as valid, based on others' experiences. Stop trying to discount me, it only makes you look close-minded, fascist, and frankly rude.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I doubt it that you loose muscles from going keto. For me this one study is not a  major defeat. I could build muscle with cyclical ketosis. I am living proof that it works I guess. :P


     


    However I de believe that cals in = cals out is almost right but that inflammation thing and insulin resistance and food intolerances also plays s role and hunger loss from ketosis and so on...




     


    Your gains are meaningless to Jason Miller, because your workouts weren't peer-reviewed and double-blind. You should be lifting and eating blindfold (double blind).


    Yes, inflammation, insulin resistance, and food intolerance play a huge role in this picture. That is my argument, that it's not as simple as CICO, but they refuse to acknowledge I'm saying there's more to it. I guess me, Gary Taubes, Dave Asprey, Mercola, and countless very intelligent people who are steeped in this stuff all day long are just complete idiots for trying to redefine the paradigm and refer to more effective models of understanding for weight loss.


     


    And you were talking about muscle building, even, in regards to CICO and ketosis. I'm just talking about weight loss. The CICO model by itself does not actually work when someone is going into ketosis—like at all. Did you see the movie Fat Head? He tracked his calories in and calories out to a tee, and lost far more weight than he would if it were simply CICO. There's plenty of data backing this up.

  • Dave Aprey needs to make me a moderator. I would have closed this shit show on page one.


    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • This thread is dead to me now.


    CICO rules, because the laws of the physical universe rules. Your body is a system, and that system either gains energy (calories), or loses it. And that energy can occur in the form of energy or mass. This is the strictest and truest definition of CICO.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


    Yes, MLS. Eating the right foods and focusing on health/inflammation/hormones is in most cases more effective than trying to blindly calculate CI - CO (practically impossible to do). But that does not trump the laws of physics.


    The end.




  • Nah, it's not violating many if any guidelines yet so I don't have any reason to, MLS is noticeably trying very hard not to resort to insults which is good, it's like therapy for polite human interaction. As soon as you censor too much without warrant it looks culty and religious haha.




     


    I understand that the primary purpose of the BPF is to be an outlet for the rantings and ravings of certain kinds of health lunatics.. However, it seems that an even more polite engaging discussion could take place if their was a little bit more policing around here. 

    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Every study I have seen has muscle loss on low carb, plus every client I have encountered has had lean tissue losses in their body scans during low carb, In my anecdotal account I also lost large amounts of lean mass during low carb, when I stopped low carb people thought I started using steroids because I grew so fast. I was talking to a girl the other day that lost 8lbs of muscle on keto. Every post "whole 30 challenge" body scan analysis I have seen showed lean tissue loss.




     


    Thanks for sharing this info. However, even if there is muscle loss, we have seen from the study I shared with you in the last thread that while there may have been muscle loss, the body composition improved for the better (i.e., more fat was lost than muscle). Correct?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I understand that the primary purpose of the BPF is to be an outlet for the rantings and ravings of certain kinds of health lunatics.. However, it seems that an even more polite engaging discussion could take place if their was a little bit more policing around here. 




     


    Do you consider me a health lunatic? I'm also curious if you're mostly complaining about my posts.


    The only two kinds of posts in my opinion that should be reported are straight-up insults, and more importantly, ones that use diversion and distraction to veer off topic and get away from the original point. The original point I think should go on the Bulletproof Diet page, because people need to know that there is now a review that's been published from an organization saying that calorie-counting has been shown to be an ineffective form of weight loss. I do believe that often, even the moderators tend to shift and allow the discussion to shift in unwarranted directions just because they disagree. 

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    This thread is dead to me now.


    CICO rules, because the laws of the physical universe rules. Your body is a system, and that system either gains energy (calories), or loses it. And that energy can occur in the form of energy or mass. This is the strictest and truest definition of CICO.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


    Yes, MLS. Eating the right foods and focusing on health/inflammation/hormones is in most cases more effective than trying to blindly calculate CI - CO (practically impossible to do). But that does not trump the laws of physics.


    The end.




     


    Thanks for acknowledging the benefit of focusing on the right things, instead of CICO. This is the main point I wanted to make, and indeed, what the document I shared had concluded. Calorie-counting is not effective for weight loss.


    You had mentioned way back in the thread that you could "poop out" calories you didn't absorb. This would imply that calories left unextracted were being left out and not processed (though you'd consumed a USDA-agreed-upon amount of calories in the food). Therefore, the CICO model will not have worked. Also, bacteria can extract calories in different amounts from different kinds of foods depending on their species, health, and abundance. This fluctuates heavily, so calories absorbed is very hard to determine (not calories consumed). CICO relies on calories consumed, not those absorbed. Then there's the whole metabolism thing that changes. If the model sequenced the human biome, acknowledged each individual's biome with a handy app, and also determined each individual's metabolic markers as they were digesting the food, then it might start to become accurate. Until then, I will follow the procedure which you say is the most effective.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I am complaining because I'm on a forum for a community that has a certain basis of understanding. Releasing toxins from fat and the ability to bind toxins is not something that I should have to explain. Sparefilms is simply trolling me by requiring me to qualify that. It's not like we're on a Reddit stream for our favorite coffee, and I just brought this up out of nowhere. At some point, this just gets annoying, and almost like scientific bullying. 




    If you would actually read my follow up post to John Brisson's excellent response you would discover that I have cogent reasons for asking for details on what you said. You seem to be using your own odd personal definition of trolling, asking for clarification or disagreeing with you is not trolling. Correcting statements that are not accurate is also not trolling. You're posting on a public forum, plenty of people are going to respond and not all will agree with you.


     


    Not only that, you'll also find that humans are incredibly complex organisms, so people who are deeply interested in tinkering with humans and figuring out how they work tend to use specific statements rather than generic ones (aflatoxin B1 rather than just "toxins", detailing protocols for specific toxins rather than just saying go "detox", etc). Again, asking for details about a statement you made is not trolling. If the answer is as trivial as you say then typing out the answer or Copy/Pasting a link to the information shouldn't be that difficult.


     


    Take the time to actually read what people say rather than constantly attempting to infer their "true" motivations over the internet in order to slap a label on them. There's not some sinister plot or secret insidious meaning behind everything other forum users post just because they may not agree with you or they ask for more specific details on something you said. I for one would hope that a community of my intellectual peers would challenge my statements if they think them incorrect, that's part of why we sign up for this forum instead of others.

  • Bull of HeavenBull of Heaven ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Do you consider me a health lunatic? I'm also curious if you're mostly complaining about my posts.


    The only two kinds of posts in my opinion that should be reported are straight-up insults, and more importantly, ones that use diversion and distraction to veer off topic and get away from the original point. The original point I think should go on the Bulletproof Diet page, because people need to know that there is now a review that's been published from an organization saying that calorie-counting has been shown to be an ineffective form of weight loss. I do believe that often, even the moderators tend to shift and allow the discussion to shift in unwarranted directions just because they disagree. 




     


    I consider myself and all the regular posters to be under the health lunatic category. I'm not complaining about your posts I was just suggesting that some of the off topic discussion in this threads is ridiculous and its generally the culture of these forums to be that way. I usually like that..."moderators tend to shift"...i don't see/feel the prescence of any moderators, but then again you can edit posts with out the edit by line.........


    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • CallenCallen
    edited July 2016


    Every Creationist ever. Young Earthers. Flat Earthers. Holocaust Deniers. Donald Trump. People selling Amygdalin/Laetrile/Vitamin B-17 as a cancer cure. People who talk about structured water. Every single psychic who has ever been tested. People who claim to be able to talk to your dead loved ones. People who claim to channel the Pleiadians. Anyone offering subprime mortgages and telling you "it'll be fine, payments are easy to keep up with". The "Health Ranger". Credit card companies. Conservapedia.com. Breathanarians. That Nigerian Prince. Crystal healers. Penis enlargement supplement companies. Instagram models. The guys running the Kickstarter for that water bottle that claims to fill up from water in the air. The guys running the Kickstarter for the personal rebreather thing. People claiming to have invented products that they just rebranded and sold at a markup. Bork Bork Ur Doin Me A Frighten pictures, those dogs don't really say those things!


     


     





    Really interesting that you would call Trump a liar but not Hilary.


     


    As someone who's a moderate, c'mon, man.


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Really interesting that you would call Trump a liar but not Hilary.


     


    As someone who's a moderate, c'mon, man.




    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.


  • CallenCallen
    edited July 2016


    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.




    Uh-huh.


     


    NOm3_f-maxage-0.gif


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    If you would actually read my follow up post to John Brisson's excellent response you would discover that I have cogent reasons for asking for details on what you said. You seem to be using your own odd personal definition of trolling, asking for clarification or disagreeing with you is not trolling. Correcting statements that are not accurate is also not trolling. You're posting on a public forum, plenty of people are going to respond and not all will agree with you.


     


    Not only that, you'll also find that humans are incredibly complex organisms, so people who are deeply interested in tinkering with humans and figuring out how they work tend to use specific statements rather than generic ones (aflatoxin B1 rather than just "toxins", detailing protocols for specific toxins rather than just saying go "detox", etc). Again, asking for details about a statement you made is not trolling. If the answer is as trivial as you say then typing out the answer or Copy/Pasting a link to the information shouldn't be that difficult.


     


    Take the time to actually read what people say rather than constantly attempting to infer their "true" motivations over the internet in order to slap a label on them. There's not some sinister plot or secret insidious meaning behind everything other forum users post just because they may not agree with you or they ask for more specific details on something you said. I for one would hope that a community of my intellectual peers would challenge my statements if they think them incorrect, that's part of why we sign up for this forum instead of others.




     


    Let me ask you something: How many times have you read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? You employ diversionary tactics with extreme aplomb.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.




    Again, didn't ask you for that information. I was talking to drummingaleiro at the time I believe. Someone else.

  • Uh-huh.
     
    NOm3_f-maxage-0.gif


    HA!!! Exactly.

    Both are...disappointing.
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Let me ask you something: How many times have you read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? You employ diversionary tactics with extreme aplomb.




    Never heard of it. You conveniently ignored everything I said, why's that?


     


     




    Again, didn't ask you for that information. I was talking to drummingaleiro at the time I believe. Someone else.




    Your reply was to Skeletor. It's on Page 1 of the thread. Which is on a public forum.


     


    I'm a helpful guy. I do my part to keep the public informed, so I provided a list of answers to your request pro bono.


     


     




    Both are...disappointing.




    Yep. Drumpf is just dumb enough to lie constantly in front of cameras and on Facebook and Twitter. He's dumb and hateful and she's is sneaky and scheming. Kinda why I'm not voting for either of them. Shhh, don't tell anyone, I want the others in the thread to continue thinking they are psychic and somehow know my political stances.


Sign In or Register to comment.