Pharmaceutical Exec: Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's Disease

[fool]

Carsick? That ruined chili forever for me.

No but carsick did ruin Shamrock Shakes for me,

No, you're going to have an oligarchy with a figurehead as president. There's a power void there, and probably a mad scramble to fill it. And we may not even know who it is.

You mean with Hillary?

 

[rexlunae]

Oh yeah, I think everyone should. He's the first opportunity to do something completely different in a very long time. I don't want to waste that opportunity.

We've never elected a toddler president. Most of them are too young. Trump seems to be the exception.

 

[annabenedetti]

You mean with Hillary?

No.... Trump.

 

[serpentdove]

[Old bag Hillary :sibbie:] Trump is a vibrant and vigorous old bag

They (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10 :sozo2 demanded to see John McCain's medical records in 2008 (and I'm no John McCain fan).

 

[ok doser]

shouldn't voters have the right to know the facts about a candidate's health?


was it ethical for Roosevelt to hide the fact that he was a cripple?

was it ethical for wilson to hide his stroke?

 

[Tyrathca]

shouldn't voters have the right to know the facts about a candidate's health?


was it ethical for Roosevelt to hide the fact that he was a cripple?

was it ethical for wilson to hide his stroke?

Did those illnesses significantly impact their ability to lead? If not then I fail to see the point.

Perhaps you want to avoid voting for someone who might die soon. The problem with that reasoning is that as this thread shows most people are TERRIBLE at interpreting medical history and its implications (both in function and life expectancy) and actually disincentivizes politicians from seeking medical assistance (i.e. they'd end up being sicker, less able to function, more likely to die but neither they or the public would know about it. The worst of both worlds!)

 

[MarcATL]

I'm in a bit of a unique position. Coming from a conservative background I've had a chance to see information-spinning from two different vantage points now, and I think that's what unsettles some here who want to claim I was never a conservative, because that's the thing - I recognize what they're doing and I can name what they're doing. They're used to their opposing viewpoints coming from longtime liberal posters such as yourself, but not too often from someone who used to be one of them. Not only was I one of them, but I was a member of probably one of the largest conservative online forums out there. That was really brought home to me this morning when I saw an old photoshop job which put John Kerry and Jane Fonda in the same photograph, and I thought, I remember that... and going through that 2004 election with that forum, and the vitriol that I was surrounded by was so commonplace, so normal to me that I didn't see it as being out of the ordinary.

We all understood the same language, and I was fluent in it. I'd grown up in it. The dangers of secularism. The threat to the social order. Creeping communism. Godless secularism. Cloward-Piven. Gramsci. Delphi Method. New World Order. Illuminati. LOTS Treaty. The U.N. The Antichrist. The Clintons. Whitewater. The Clinton Body Count. Hillary's health care plan. Kerry and the Swiftboat veterans, Jane Fonda and THAT photo. Then just when things couldn't get any worse: The End of The World As We Know It: Obama. And in all that I've only scratched the surface - I could write a book. I listened to conservative talk radio, read only conservative websites, watched only FOX news... I was surrounded by and supported by everything and everyone who thought like me. So that's why I understand how impossible it is to get through that barrier. It's built high and thick, and each brick is mortared in place with a solid layer of confirmation bias.

Tell me, how did you ever manage to escape that cluster?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Generally speaking, I like to listen to a variety of opinions. I watched the DNC convention on Fox in part, and I've flipped to them a few times to find out what they're saying. I'm used to Hannity running with some pretty ridiculous things, but his panel discussion about Clinton's supposed health problems really takes the cake. There's something really cynical about it.

From the clip I saw, not even the "experts" he trotted out to speculate on Clinton's health played ball.

They refused to "go there" with him and his nonsense.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Do an internet search on media bias sometime. Here's what you'll find:

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

People are fed up with the MSM and it's because it's run predominately by liberals.

The MSM includes the entity known as FOXNEWS, the biggest one in the world. Are you suggesting that they're run by liberals?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[annabenedetti]

Tell me, how did you ever manage to escape that cluster?

It's been about a five year confluence of circumstances, experiences, and the extraordinary wisdom of someone I hold very close to my heart.

And I've made no secret about TOL's right wingers being part of the educational process, either. Probably best I leave it at that. :chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

Did those illnesses significantly impact their ability to lead? If not then I fail to see the point.

Perhaps you want to avoid voting for someone who might die soon. The problem with that reasoning is that as this thread shows most people are TERRIBLE at interpreting medical history and its implications (both in function and life expectancy) and actually disincentivizes politicians from seeking medical assistance (i.e. they'd end up being sicker, less able to function, more likely to die but neither they or the public would know about it. The worst of both worlds!)

Hillary's health is rapidly failing -

 

[Tyrathca]

Hillary's health is rapidly failing -

Based on.....?

I see an older aged (68) female who is apparently well with adequate exercise tolerance, no gross neurological deficit, good cognition and memory (whether you agree with her policies or not). Lung function seems grossly intact (not needing oxygen, able to mobilise and talk for extended periods of time without significant difficulty).

She probably has a degree of arthritis.... So there is that.... Oh and she has a history of recurrent blood clots so may well be on life long anticoagulation (like millions of people)... Clearly grounds for a DNR right?



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[serpentdove]

Secret Service Whistleblower: Hillary Has Major Neurological Problems :sibbie:

Flashback:

Was Hillary injured in plane crash in Iran? Here’s the evidence.

 

[ok doser]

shouldn't voters have the right to know the facts about a candidate's health?


was it ethical for Roosevelt to hide the fact that he was a cripple?

was it ethical for wilson to hide his stroke?

Did those illnesses significantly impact their ability to lead?

wilson's stroke certainly affected his ability to lead - after driving the peace accords in paris after ww1, he lacked the ability to lead congress to ratify our part of it, thus dooming europe to a festering twenty year interval and a second world war

as for roosevelt, he lacked the ability to lead the country away from the isolationism dominating national politics and almost lost england to the germans

whether he'd have been able to have done any better without his handicap is difficult to say

It's been about a five year confluence of circumstances, experiences, and the extraordinary wisdom of someone I hold very close to my heart.

iow, it's paralleled the process whereby you became one of town's sycophants

 

[annabenedetti]

iow, it's paralleled the process whereby you became one of town's sycophants

:freak: Uh... no. I'm no one's sycophant. I've got a mind of my own and it's working pretty well without anyone's input at the moment, thank you. And TH is a good friend - but no.

The only reason such an idiotic idea would burble up out of your fevered brain is because you're so obsessed by TH and everything he says. (And everything he didn't say and everything he should have said and everything he might say tomorrow.)

 

[Tyrathca]

wilson's stroke certainly affected his ability to lead

How?

after driving the peace accords in paris after ww1, he lacked the ability to lead congress to ratify our part of it, thus dooming europe to a festering twenty year interval and a second world war

Is a presidents fitness for office his ability to be a dictator and force other elected officials to do what he wants?...

That you disagreed with his leadership is not evidence of his stroke impairing his ability to lead. Maybe he was just a bad leader to start witb? Maybe those he was trying to lead were idiots or bad followers?

as for roosevelt, he lacked the ability to lead the country away from the isolationism dominating national politics and almost lost england to the germans

And yet he is also one of the most respected US Presidents in history. And how did his polio lead to this?

Again your disagreement with his leadership is not evidence of his chronic illness being the cause.

whether he'd have been able to have done any better without his handicap is difficult to say

Ahhhh... That's a nice way of trying have your cake and eat it too. If you can't say they would have done better without the handicap how can you possibly be certain the handicap made them do worse?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[annabenedetti]

How? Is a presidents fitness for office his ability to be a dictator and force other elected officials to do what he wants?...

That you disagreed with his leadership is not evidence of his stroke impairing his ability to lead. Maybe he was just a bad leader to start witb? Maybe those he was trying to lead were idiots or bad followers?
And yet he is also one of the most respected US Presidents in history. And how did his polio lead to this?

Again your disagreement with his leadership is not evidence of his chronic illness being the cause.
Ahhhh... That's a nice way of trying have your cake and eat it too. If you can't say they would have done better without the handicap how can you possibly be certain the handicap made them do worse?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Anybody-But-Hillary Syndrome destroys rational thought.

 

[ok doser]

That you disagreed with his (Wilson's) leadership is not evidence of his stroke impairing his ability to lead.

your ignorance is showing - read up on wilson's presidency, the paris peace accords and wilson's subsequent stroke and then maybe you'll be ready to have this discussion



as far as roosevelt goes, you don't have any idea what i'm talking about regarding isolationism, do you? :nono:

read: https://www.amazon.com/Those-Angry-Days-Roosevelt-Lindbergh/dp/0812982142

and get back to me

 

[Tyrathca]

your ignorance is showing - read up on wilson's presidency, the paris peace accords and wilson's subsequent stroke and then maybe you'll be ready to have this discussion



as far as roosevelt goes, you don't have any idea what i'm talking about regarding isolationism, do you? :nono:

read: https://www.amazon.com/Those-Angry-Days-Roosevelt-Lindbergh/dp/0812982142

and get back to me

You're right I am ignorant of Wilsons presidency in general but thanks for not bothering to answer my question regarding how his illness affected his leadership. As it turns out on some reading your entire argument is irrelevant, Wilson was struck down by an acute, severe and largely unforeseeable illness. Hillary is not at a particularly high risk of such an event (and almost certainly at lower risk than many/most previous nominees).

Furthermore you now have the 25th amendment to help deal with such situations anyway.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

Hillary is not at a particularly high risk of such an event ...

she sure is, if she's already showing signs of parkinsons