And that seems to be a “bullying tactic” if you ask me. Best way to respond to bullies is to ignore them.
Also for people who have been around “druggies”, you know darn well they do not typically run for president - or even have a job for that matter! Rather they don’t work, are typically thieves, and are on food stamps. So this is just another ridiculous comment.
And the only people who would believe this claptrap are Trump supporters (also believe this conspiracy nonsense), so no loss if she just ignores this suggestion.
If she wanted to be sneaky, she could get a test but not announce it. Then let Trump prance around the stage and and make accusations. Then toward the end of the debate, pull out a piece of paper with her clean drug test on it.
Of course Trump would then say the test was not valid - was done by medical people in the conspiracy. So probably no point.
As there was speculation that Trump’s sniffles during the debate were a symptom of drug use this call to drug test does not surprise me.
I think perhaps in Trump’s fervent imagination he thinks he could prove he is “clean” but catch HRC out on using some prescription drug she has not already disclosed, thus proving she has some disqualifying health condition.
Suppose arguendo (with absolutely no proof) that Trump did use cocaine prior to the earlier debates. If so its common metabolites would be flushed from his system by now (assuming he is not a frequent heavy user) so a clean test would not prove lack of use prior to earlier debates.
Nobody should order anyone to pee in a cup, but if an employer makes it a condition of employment I see nothing wrong with it. Presidents need to be taken down a peg. Too much reverence and “respecting the office”.
I don’t thinks it’s debatable that Clinton was on drugs for the first debate, but I think they lowered her dosage for the second debate because she had to interact with real humans.
The Commission and the networks however are not vested with authority to compel, the candidates are not their employees. “They cannot be compelled but they won’t dare refuse for fear of political opinion” is weak in the final consideration: a Trump type would be just the one to tell them what they can do with their podiums AND keep his base’s support.
I’m with you on that part. As with the Chandler v. Miller case I linked to earlier, if there is reasonable cause to worry about drug use or impaired performance it is justified. Not to “make a point”. That the courts found so in the cases about elected officials, but not with regular employees/contractors is infuriating but that’s where we stand now.
Yep, that’s why Joe Blow who does NOT handle any form of dangerous machinery or sensitive knowledge ever still has to fill the cup or else. Add to it: You can get drunk to the point of oblivion Friday and Saturday nights, and drink to the point of not being qualified to drive other weekday evenings, and as long as you show up upright and coherent at next morning open of business you are good as gold. And THAT is an addiction that does far more damage.