Hillary Clinton Drops Out...What Happens?

[peestandingup]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

[Adam White]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

I don't like Hillary Clinton and I would never, ever vote for her. I also don't consider her to be even remotely "left".

But you (and others) seem to think that repeating Alex Jones's nutjob "theories" somehow makes them real. She slipped on an icy step - yet you see this as an example of her health failing. You don't seem to question Trump's health - maybe that's because you prefer him or maybe it's because he's a man. But you - and others - don't go looking for clues to his health in his comments, mannerisms, etc.

And as far as that link goes - it's far more compelling that your baseless claims about Clinton, "having coughing fits on/off for months straight, stumbling, needing help walking up just a few steps, going extra light on the campaign trail (rallies, interviews, 270 some days without a press conference, etc) & just displaying lots of weird behavior & ticks."

The link shows how this non-story got legs. I'd be shocked to learn you actually bothered to read the article, though.

[Tacachale]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

I did. Dole, too. And earlier in this thread I showed that there's no evidence that Reagan had dementia during his term. Age and standard illnesses, even serious ones, don't make someone unqualified to lead. We have examples to prove this in FDR and Kennedy for ailments, and Reagan, GHW Bush, and Eisenhower for age.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

I'm the one who brought up the conspiracy nut thing here, and it's because the poster was claiming to be able to diagnose "advanced Parkinson's", which was advanced by an agenda-driven conspiracy nut.

[Adam White]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

I did. Dole, too. And earlier in this thread I showed that there's no evidence that Reagan had dementia during his term. Age and standard illnesses, even serious ones, don't make someone unqualified to lead. We have examples to prove this in FDR and Kennedy for ailments, and Reagan, GHW Bush, and Eisenhower for age.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

I'm the one who brought up the conspiracy nut thing here, and it's because the poster was claiming to be able to diagnose "advanced Parkinson's", which was advanced by an agenda-driven conspiracy nut.

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about a candidate's health if there is reason to believe it might impair him or her from doing the job.

The problem here is the problem we have with all conspiracy "theories" - there is no evidence. The theory was developed and then people started to look for evidence to prove it. And those who wish to believe it will disregard any evidence to the contrary - usually be claiming that it's all part of the conspiracy.

[spuwho]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

I did. Dole, too. And earlier in this thread I showed that there's no evidence that Reagan had dementia during his term. Age and standard illnesses, even serious ones, don't make someone unqualified to lead. We have examples to prove this in FDR and Kennedy for ailments, and Reagan, GHW Bush, and Eisenhower for age.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

I'm the one who brought up the conspiracy nut thing here, and it's because the poster was claiming to be able to diagnose "advanced Parkinson's", which was advanced by an agenda-driven conspiracy nut.

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about a candidate's health if there is reason to believe it might impair him or her from doing the job.

The problem here is the problem we have with all conspiracy "theories" - there is no evidence. The theory was developed and then people started to look for evidence to prove it. And those who wish to believe it will disregard any evidence to the contrary - usually be claiming that it's all part of the conspiracy.

The information replacement method with suppositions are big on journalism right now.

ESPN constantly reports on all sorts of weird things in an effort to force the person to respond. Trades, contract disputes, ownership problems. You name it.

So if the person of interest wont respond, then the theories go mainstream in order to force a correction.

I agree, its nuts, but its what the world has become.

The Obama birther issue is a textbook example of what happens when the US press cant get enough information to meet their "needs".

[Adam White]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

I did. Dole, too. And earlier in this thread I showed that there's no evidence that Reagan had dementia during his term. Age and standard illnesses, even serious ones, don't make someone unqualified to lead. We have examples to prove this in FDR and Kennedy for ailments, and Reagan, GHW Bush, and Eisenhower for age.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

I'm the one who brought up the conspiracy nut thing here, and it's because the poster was claiming to be able to diagnose "advanced Parkinson's", which was advanced by an agenda-driven conspiracy nut.

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about a candidate's health if there is reason to believe it might impair him or her from doing the job.

The problem here is the problem we have with all conspiracy "theories" - there is no evidence. The theory was developed and then people started to look for evidence to prove it. And those who wish to believe it will disregard any evidence to the contrary - usually be claiming that it's all part of the conspiracy.

The information replacement method with suppositions are big on journalism right now.

ESPN constantly reports on all sorts of weird things in an effort to force the person to respond. Trades, contract disputes, ownership problems. You name it.

So if the person of interest wont respond, then the theories go mainstream in order to force a correction.

I agree, its nuts, but its what the world has become.

The Obama birther issue is a textbook example of what happens when the US press cant get enough information to meet their "needs".

Totally. I think the internet and social media are also big drivers here. Journalism has been reduced to repeating unsourced info from tweets in an effort to not be scooped by someone else on a hot story.

[peestandingup]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

People begin diagnosing Parkinsons and other nefarious diseases from short clips of video, claiming that doctor's medical reports are 'faked', and wondering when Clinton will be forced to withdraw because of secret health problems, and you think that some imaginary 'left' is in the 'conspiracy theory nut job' business?

Lol. thats fairly hilarious.

Well, you're gonna get that kind of stuff with anything, esp these days. That's really no kind of point. There's people that legit think Michelle Obama was born a man, and the parents of Sandy Hook were actors.

Unfortunately for your argument, no one here is really trying to play doctor & diagnose her. Yet any acknowledgment of what we've all seen & heard with our own eyes & ears is met with "ZOMFG, conpiratard alert! WeeWooWeeWoo!". Nah.

[Tacachale]

Unfortunately for your argument, no one here is really trying to play doctor & diagnose her. Yet any acknowledgment of what we've all seen & heard with our own eyes & ears is met with "ZOMFG, conpiratard alert! WeeWooWeeWoo!". Nah.

Well, I started this as a hypothetical discussion on a candidate dropping out before the election as I was 100% sure HRC would not drop out of the race unless she dropped dead, but now I am not so sure.  After events and revelations over the last few days I am almost certain that she has advanced Parkinson's Disease (Stage IV and moving in to Stage V).  Alas, I still think there is no way she quits unless she collapses on stage during a debate (which is increasing in probability every minute).

Since this site is heavily populated by Democrats I have to ask, if she in fact does have Stage IV Parkinson's Disease would you prefer her to drop out and let someone else campaign, or just ride it to the end?

I am not asking anyone else to believe it; just stating what I believe.  What convinced me was her health issue on 9/11 and the use of the blue sunglasses immediately after.  But my unprofessional diagnoses not withstanding, my question still stands.

If she knows she has a health issue that could impact her ability to perform as President do you think she should step aside or just keep going?

This is literally the reason this whole silly conversation started.

[peestandingup]

You people will believe whatever you want to, as long as it fits your agenda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37090082

Oh, you gotta link bro?! Well, shit. That's the end of that I guess.

Asking about a Presidential candidate's obvious health issues, whether they're left or right, isn't an agenda. Its the most important job in the world. I wonder if you defended McCain when they made a big deal out of his age & cancerous mole? Doubtful.

Gotta love how anytime this gets mentioned the left goes into auto defense mode & throws around the conspiracy theory nutjob memes. Who has the agenda again??

People begin diagnosing Parkinsons and other nefarious diseases from short clips of video, claiming that doctor's medical reports are 'faked', and wondering when Clinton will be forced to withdraw because of secret health problems, and you think that some imaginary 'left' is in the 'conspiracy theory nut job' business?

Lol. thats fairly hilarious.

Well, you're gonna get that kind of stuff with anything, esp these days. That's really no kind of point. There's people that legit think Michelle Obama was born a man, and the parents of Sandy Hook were actors.

Unfortunately for your argument, no one here is really trying to play doctor & diagnose her. Yet any acknowledgment of what we've all seen & heard with our own eyes & ears is met with "ZOMFG, conpiratard alert! WeeWooWeeWoo!". Nah.

Well, you invoked the 'left' (as if there is one).

The only people who seem to believe in these freaked out conspiracy theories like the specific ones you mentioned are pretty much freaked out right wing people who think they are libertarians (until you ask them about federal funding for highways, and municipal police forces).  No one in the mainstream or the moderates that are presently called democrats believe in theories like "Donald Trump is secretly a Russian Oligarch attempting a bloodless coup of the US military" or similar nonsense.

All of that comes from one corner of american life these days.

Only on this particular subject as a counter to a reply towards me. I realize both sides have their whackos (that's more evident than ever these days).

Was just making the point that asking about her health shouldn't automatically be lumped in with those who think the Clintons drink baby blood on their days off or Alex Jones. I don't even follow this stuff but its clear she's not been in the best condition the last few months.

And I don't care for either, but if Trump is in bad health as suggested earlier then he sure hides it well. He does huge rallies, interviews & meetings all day every day it seems. Maybe a cold or something would get him to actually shut up for a while.

[peestandingup]

The fact that nothing about pneumonia was disclosed prior is, uh, just a little fishy.  Questioning her health after that evidence is just common sense.

Ya think?? The Clintons aren't exactly known for their truthfulness (esp after the past months of leaks, collusion, email servers, etc). So yeah, ya'll will have to forgive me if I don't just take her word for it. No one with half a brain should.

And to Adam (who's dying to be noticed), no I didn't read your link (why would I?). Media manipulation is at a fever pitch, and I don't need some low wage journalist (who probably licks party butthole for a living) telling us all what we do/don't see. We could play the linky poo game all day. Doesn't change anything.

[Adam White]

And to Adam (who's dying to be noticed), no I didn't read your link (why would I?). Media manipulation is at a fever pitch, and I don't need some low wage journalist (who probably licks party butthole for a living) telling us all what we do/don't see. We could play the linky poo game all day. Doesn't change anything.

Thanks sweetie. It's nice to be considered.

[Kerry]

Wow - I take a day off and the whole topic descends in to typical naming calling.

On the HRC health issue it appears there are only two camps.  The first camp thinks she suffers from no less than 6 unrelated ailments all nearly simultaneously (phenomena, allergies, dehydration, sinusitis, ear infection, and deep vein thrombosis), and a second group thinks she has a single ailment that explains all the symptoms of the 'unrelated ailments' the first group acknowledges.  Who knows what the blue tint sunglasses are for (medical treatment or fashion faux pas).  I am not trying to convince anyone to be in either camp.  Alas, the two questions I asked in this thread were both answered so back to business as usual.

[Adam White]

Wow - I take a day off and the whole topic descends in to typical naming calling.

On the HRC health issue it appears there are only two camps.  The first camp thinks she suffers from no less than 6 unrelated ailments all nearly simultaneously (phenomena, allergies, dehydration, sinusitis, ear infection, and deep vein thrombosis), and a second group thinks she has a single ailment that explains all the symptoms of the 'unrelated ailments' the first group acknowledges.  Who knows what the blue tint sunglasses are for (medical treatment or fashion faux pas).  I am not trying to convince anyone to be in either camp.  Alas, the two questions I asked in this thread were both answered so back to business as usual.

There's a third group you didn't mention: those who don't feel any need to question the reports of Clinton's doctor and don't concern themselves with most of the "evidence" of the "unrelated ailments" because the vast majority of that stuff isn't real - it's made up in the minds of whackos like Alex Jones.

[MusicMan]

I suggest you all go and watch the 11 or so hours of testimony and Congressional questioning HRC endured on behalf of the Bengazi Witch Hunt.

Then come back and relay your assessment of her mental health.

Can anyone possibly imagine Donald Trump enduring 11 hours of questioning on anything?

[peestandingup]

The fact that nothing about pneumonia was disclosed prior is, uh, just a little fishy.  Questioning her health after that evidence is just common sense.

Ya think?? The Clintons aren't exactly known for their truthfulness (esp after the past months of leaks, collusion, email servers, etc). So yeah, ya'll will have to forgive me if I don't just take her word for it. No one with half a brain should.

And to Adam (who's dying to be noticed), no I didn't read your link (why would I?). Media manipulation is at a fever pitch, and I don't need some low wage journalist (who probably licks party butthole for a living) telling us all what we do/don't see. We could play the linky poo game all day. Doesn't change anything.

the linky poo game?  So now we just use no verification, and its about what we 'feel' is 'truthy'?  What could possibly go wrong?

Funny how that happened isn't it.



P.S. Here's the guy, Tim Swift, who wrote that short BBC article that we're all apparently supposed to swallow (just because...it was posted I guess?). https://twitter.com/TimSwiftBBC Yeah, seems real fair & balanced. No agenda at all you guys. 

So yes. As I stated, this is the problem with the linky poo game & why I don't like to play it as much as some people here. It means nothing in this context & the only people that truly know aren't gonna be writing articles.

"Verification", lol. That's funny.