I normally stay out of the politics section, especially national politics, because having a serious conversation on an anonymous public forum is nearly impossible, but here it goes anyhow.
Let's assume for whatever reason Hillary drops out of the Presidential race. What happens?
I don't think the Democrats can just nominate someone else to fill the HRC space on the ballot and it is too late in many state to add another name. As the Democratic nominee, people are voting for her as the candidate (or at least should be), not a placeholder. If it was just a placeholder what would stop a party from running a candidate (or no candidate at all) and then after the election switch out the winner? The only choices I would see at that point is either pick from the remaining candidates on the ballot, or write in a name. For Tim Kaine to become President via the 25th Amendment Hillary would have to be sworn in first (not possible if she drops out).
Since the electoral college is the group that actually votes for the President (oh the irony that many Democrats support getting rid of the electoral college) they could vote for whomever they want. The public vote is just a recommendation. With that in mind there probably isn't an issue unless a dead HRC wins and the electoral college votes accordingly, in which case Trump would be President and Kaine Vice President - which also ironically is what the original wording of the Constitution envisioned (the person getting the most votes is President and the second most votes is Vice President).
For the record, I don't think there is anyway HRC drops out unless she dies.
I'm not positive, but I believe the nomination would go to the nominee with the second highest amount of votes, which would be Sanders. I can't see any situation shy of death that would cause Hilary to drop out though.
Quote from: Kerry on September 13, 2016, 11:13:20 AM
I normally stay out of the politics section, especially national politics, because having a serious conversation on an anonymous public forum is nearly impossible, but here it goes anyhow.
Let's assume for whatever reason Hillary drops out of the Presidential race. What happens?
I don't think the Democrats can just nominate someone else to fill the HRC space on the ballot and it is too late in many state to add another name. As the Democratic nominee, people are voting for her as the candidate (or at least should be), not a placeholder. If it was just a placeholder what would stop a party from running a candidate (or no candidate at all) and then after the election switch out the winner? The only choices I would see at that point is either pick from the remaining candidates on the ballot, or write in a name. For Tim Kaine to become President via the 25th Amendment Hillary would have to be sworn in first (not possible if she drops out).
Since the electoral college is the group that actually votes for the President (oh the irony that many Democrats support getting rid of the electoral college) they could vote for whomever they want. The public vote is just a recommendation. With that in mind there probably isn't an issue unless a dead HRC wins and the electoral college votes accordingly, in which case Trump would be President and Kaine Vice President - which also ironically is what the original wording of the Constitution envisioned (the person getting the most votes is President and the second most votes is Vice President).
For the record, I don't think there is anyway HRC drops out unless she dies.
I don't know what the DNC rules are, but those are what would dictate how this is handled.
People seem to operate under the false notion that political primaries are somehow elections - they aren't. All they are is the way the political party in question chooses its candidate. It's a candidate selection process that some parties don't follow - they may nominate a candidate at a party convention or caucus without the primary/delegate system beforehand.
I'm guessing the DNC would get to pick a replacement. I don't think Clinton drops out unless she dies.
Here's your answer:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/13/what-happens-if-clinton-drops-out.html
They pick a replacement, basically.
Interesting, Hillary doesnt disclose her pneumonia and the press is predicting the replacement process.
Transparency in Presidential health started after FDR. He refused to have his conditions disclosed repeatedly and when he died of stroke, high BP and iron clad arteries, the press pushed for more visibility. Hence we knew more about Eisenhower's heart attacks than most.
That changed when Bill Clinton became president. He only gave the "generally healthy" for the most part until his cardiologist told him to layoff the cheeseburgers.
Dont see much variance from his wife. She will keep her health to herself until the daisies start pushing.
Pneumonia at her age should not be shrugged off however. She is not the young rebel she was in her college days.
Quote from: spuwho on September 13, 2016, 11:56:21 AM
Pneumonia at her age should not be shrugged off however. She is not the young rebel she was in her college days.
True - but pneumonia is something even the healthiest person can get. It's not necessarily a sign of poor health. I had it when I was a kid (and was hospitalised as a result).
The GOP has some actual procedures in place for if the candidate dies. The DNC's are vaguer, but yes, what would happen would be a reconvening of the delegates (or some of them) in a special session to pick a new candidate. The biggest issue is if it happens once ballots are already distributed (some absentee ballots already are). However, Congress also has the authority to push back the election if necessary.
And yes, the only way Clinton's out is if she dies. Same as Trump and all candidates before them.
Additionally, the electoral college vote isn't just random. The electors only even become electors if their candidate wins the popular vote in that state. So, if either Clinton or the hypothetical Democratic replacement won Florida, their EC nominees would be the state's electors, and there's a vanishingly small chance that any of them would vote for Trump.
Delete this initial comment as Stephendares post covered it all. Thanks.
What happens? Same thing if she stays in, (cough) Republicans (cough) win in a landslide. Kaine would have to be the choice made by the DNC bigwigs to avoid an all-out internal war. But there is no way in hell Hillary voluntarily steps aside.
Need some more gin with that water, Hillary? Look out for the flash bulbs, dear. Wouldn't want another "spell," now would we?
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on September 13, 2016, 12:46:09 PM
Donald trump loses in an even bigger landslide, that's what happens.
If they pick Biden, I agree big time.
Roosevelt had polio, didn't he?
I remember when George Bush puked on the Japanese then passed out at a pretty important function? Were folks calling for him to resign after that?
Hopefully Dr Oz will ask Trump to do a push up. Now that would be "Must See TV."
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?
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 01:04:09 PM
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?
Thanks for the diagnosis, Doctor. Have you broken the news to Bill yet, or were you waiting until after you'd told us here at Metro Jacksonville?
FWIW, Snopes debunked the armchair diagnoses that Hillary has Parkinson's disease:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/
This was apparently started by an anesthesiologist, conspiracy theorist, and anti-Clinton partisan. He isn't a neurologist and has never examined Clinton outside of some cherry-picked clips, which he assembled into a YouTube video of the type that persuades the prejudiced and gullible. The person who has actually examined Clinton, her physician Lisa Bardack, has said she's in good shape, a bout with pneumonia notwithstanding.
Conspiracy theorists and random people on the Internet claiming the ability to diagnose a serious neurological disorder like Parkinson's in a person they've never met insult everyone who's ever had to face the disease in themselves or their loved ones.
Methinks the tinfoil hat is on a bit too tightly.
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?
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 01:23:21 PM
Incidentally, the posters on the site are pretty much all over the field in terms of political affiliation and leaning.
In terms of active posters, there is a slightly higher number of republicans, with a few fringe politics posters here and there.
Check out this primer on Parkinsons. Perhaps it will keep you from future diagnoses.
Can you provide the link? Thanks.
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 02:59:30 PM
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?
Why should we bother answering a question that's entirely contingent on an "unprofessional diagnosis" that no one is expected to believe?
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2016, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 02:59:30 PM
Why should we bother answering a question that's entirely contingent on an "unprofessional diagnosis" that no one is expected to believe?
Here, let me show you how to do it.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 03:03:11 PM
But its like asking if Donald Trump knows he has early onset alzheimers (the good brain comments are troubling, as are the stuttering, the confusion, the sudden appearance of not knowing where he is or whats going on) shouldn't he drop out now?
Reagan was apparently in full blown early stage Alzheimers during his second term. Should he have quit ant let Bush Sr. take the reins?
If Donald Trump has been told by a doctor he has Alzheimer's he absolutely should drop out now. If Reagan was diagnosed while in office he should have absolutely stepped aside - even if he was forced to. The Country is bigger than any one person's ambitions.
See, that wasn't so hard to do.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 04:19:47 PM
Well it depends on how severe the illness is.
Three of the most beloved presidents of the past century were physically debilitated.
Roosevelt had Polio, Jack Kennedy suffered from traumatic back injuries and was doped up on painkillers 24 hours a day, and Reagan had Alzheimers.
I don't know if health is as cut and dried as the question implies, so I would have to say 'Maybe'.
Kennedy also had Addison's disease.
I agree - maybe. Depends.
I don't think it's right to have a President with dementia. But other illnesses or conditions might not impact the person's ability to do the job.
Hilz does suffer from a disease called "Potomac Dementia".
Its a disease that causes selective forgetfullness at key times when recall of decisions or laws are required.
I have heard that there is no cure for this type of dementia but that it has been known to go into remission when funds for a memoir or speaking engagement becomes available.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 04:19:47 PM
Well it depends on how severe the illness is.
Three of the most beloved presidents of the past century were physically debilitated.
Roosevelt had Polio, Jack Kennedy suffered from traumatic back injuries and was doped up on painkillers 24 hours a day, and Reagan had Alzheimers.
I don't know if health is as cut and dried as the question implies, so I would have to say 'Maybe'.
Using linguistic biomarkers and voice analytics, they have concluded that President Reagan was beginning to show signs of dementia part way through his second term, but not Alzheimer's.
Researchers didnt pick Reagan outright, they needed a sample of people who have a high degree of recorded material over the same age and era as others.
Compared to Bush 1, results show he clearly exhibited a change in the last term.
I haven't heard if they have run a sample on Hilz yet, but it was really designed to test older football players for signs of brain impairment.
But Reagan's sample will help in the diagnosis of others.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/health/parsing-ronald-reagans-words-for-early-signs-of-alzheimers.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/health/parsing-ronald-reagans-words-for-early-signs-of-alzheimers.html)
Quote from: spuwho on September 14, 2016, 07:03:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 04:19:47 PM
Well it depends on how severe the illness is.
Three of the most beloved presidents of the past century were physically debilitated.
Roosevelt had Polio, Jack Kennedy suffered from traumatic back injuries and was doped up on painkillers 24 hours a day, and Reagan had Alzheimers.
I don't know if health is as cut and dried as the question implies, so I would have to say 'Maybe'.
Using linguistic biomarkers and voice analytics, they have concluded that President Reagan was beginning to show signs of dementia part way through his second term, but not Alzheimer's.
Researchers didnt pick Reagan outright, they needed a sample of people who have a high degree of recorded material over the same age and era as others.
Compared to Bush 1, results show he clearly exhibited a change in the last term.
I haven't heard if they have run a sample on Hilz yet, but it was really designed to test older football players for signs of brain impairment.
But Reagan's sample will help in the diagnosis of others.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/health/parsing-ronald-reagans-words-for-early-signs-of-alzheimers.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/health/parsing-ronald-reagans-words-for-early-signs-of-alzheimers.html)
Correct. The study was searching his speeches for potential changes over time that may be early markers of the dementia he later developed. Using GHW Bush as a control, as he hasn't developed Alzheimer's, they found that his speeches did change in specific ways that could help in early diagnosis in the future. It's a really impressive study, and offers some great hope for those with neurological disorders in the family.
Neither this study nor previous ones claim to have found evidence that Reagan had dementia or had otherwise degenerated to the point of being impaired during his term. At least, not the ones written by people who know what they're talking about. As we've seen, people who don't know what they're talking can find all the evidence they want to make their "diagnoses".
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2016, 08:34:04 PM
As we've seen, people who don't know what they're talking can find all the evidence they want to make their "diagnoses".
Reagan also wasn't 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. And giving excuses ranging everywhere from allergies, to overheating (in 78 degree weather), to needing to drink more water.
She probably does have pneumonia currently (who even knows at this point), but I don't believe that's all that's going on with her. What that is I won't even speculate because I'm no doctor & its not my place to, but its something.
BTW, this isn't a knock on her. I hope she gets well honestly. But if she's not well enough to continue (and possibly be Pres) she should say so for the sake of everyone. The President works for us essentially, so if your employee has something going on health wise, we outta know.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 07:04:43 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2016, 08:34:04 PM
As we've seen, people who don't know what they're talking can find all the evidence they want to make their "diagnoses".
Reagan also wasn't 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. And giving excuses ranging everywhere from allergies, to overheating (in 78 degree weather), to needing to drink more water.
She probably does have pneumonia currently (who even knows at this point), but I don't believe that's all that's going on with her. What that is I won't even speculate because I'm no doctor & its not my place to, but its something.
BTW, this isn't a knock on her. I hope she gets well honestly. But if she's not well enough to continue (and possibly be Pres) she should say so for the sake of everyone. The President works for us essentially, so if your employee has something going on health wise, we outta know.
As I noted earlier, she will be 6 feet under before she "gives up".
I wasnt looking for a cover up when she went silent, but more frustrated that she wasnt on the campaign trail. I do believe that is what gave Bernie his window.
Call it illness, call it over confidence, call it whatever.
For a press that follows her every move, hearing "nothing" was really odd.
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
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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
Asking about a candidates health is not an agenda. Its a standard campaign issue. Unfortunately, in the state of our press cycle, when someone chooses not to disclose, members of the press will start the information replacement method to force the person of interest to correct the record.
I still remember the grilling Bush 1 got on his health all because of Dan Quayle. Bush 1 is now in his 90's and still marginally active.
How much grief did President Carter get when he passed out running in a race?
And yes, the noise on Reagan during his debates with Mondale where facts were hard to recall brought out the durability questions.
The twitter/Fox/Drudge attacks wouldnt gain weight if her campaign had suitable counter material to offset it. This is the world we live in now unfortunately.
Quote from: spuwho on September 15, 2016, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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
Asking about a candidates health is not an agenda. Its a standard campaign issue. Unfortunately, in the state of our press cycle, when someone chooses not to disclose, members of the press will start the information replacement method to force the person of interest to correct the record.
I still remember the grilling Bush 1 got on his health all because of Dan Quayle. Bush 1 is now in his 90's and still marginally active.
How much grief did President Carter get when he passed out running in a race?
And yes, the noise on Reagan during his debates with Mondale where facts were hard to recall brought out the durability questions.
The twitter/Fox/Drudge attacks wouldnt gain weight if her campaign had suitable counter material to offset it. This is the world we live in now unfortunately.
Asking about a candidate's health is not an agenda. Repeating made-up conspiracies about a candidate's health does reflect an agenda. There is nothing to substantiate the rumours - rumours started by Alex Jones and other, equally 'reliable' people - yet they are repeated over and over and taken as evidence by those who wish to believe.
Earlier in this thread, a poster commented that Clinton has been stumbling, having trouble walking up steps, etc. So he clearly believes it, even when the record shows otherwise (or offers an explanation).
It's pathetic, really.
So much s*&t has been thrown at the Clinton family that a health conspiracy is not a surprise. After decades of right wing propaganda and accusations at least some are going to stick. Gullible people believe much of what they are fed and the feeding machine against Hillary is deplorable. Where is the outrage against Colin Powell for his email that reveals he used a private email to avoid the eyes of the State Department? What about the thousands of deleted emails from the Bush years? It's not Hillary so who gives a crap. Where is the outrage over the Trump Foundation? Where is the outrage over Trump University? Where is the outrage over Trump's praise of Putin?
It should be required reading of the following: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html
....and the following: http://video.gq.com/watch/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldn-t-be-president
But the real news? Hillary coughs!!!!! Hillary has pneumonia!!!! Hillary calls white supremacists and KKK a basket of deplorables!!!!!!
The Clinton Foundation only gives 89 per cent of their donations to help children and the most needy people on earth!!!!!
Oh and I forgot Bill got a bj and Hillary didn't pull a Lorena Bobbitt so she's the bad guy here!!!!!
SICK OF IT!!!!!!
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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??
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
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".
Quote from: spuwho on September 15, 2016, 11:33:13 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 15, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2016, 10:25:39 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 12:24:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 01:04:09 PM
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?
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 02:59:30 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2016, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2016, 10:25:39 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
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. :)
Quote from: jlmann on September 15, 2016, 01:37:25 PM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 02:39:49 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Kerry on September 15, 2016, 04:27:19 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2016, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 02:39:49 PM
Quote from: jlmann on September 15, 2016, 01:37:25 PM
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.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dkvnto6zb0kw5c0shdj57q.png)
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 16, 2016, 01:35:51 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2016, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 15, 2016, 02:39:49 PM
Quote from: jlmann on September 15, 2016, 01:37:25 PM
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.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dkvnto6zb0kw5c0shdj57q.png)
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.
So, if you don't trust the media (and therefore don't read or watch it), how do you "know" Clinton has been having all the problems you ascribe to her? Did you happen to be in all those places when they happened?
As far as Tim Swift goes - I know nothing of the man. But your ad hominem attacks are weak. If you think there is an issue with the article, point out the part of the article that is suspect (and why) - don't just dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the guy's personal twitter feed.
I posted a link to a story which attempts to explain where the 'theory' about Clinton's health came from and how it got legs. That's it. It's more evidence than you've provided. Yet you dismissed it without initially reading it - and apparently you think everyone but you has some sort of biased agenda. I don't get it.
I'll let you in on a little tip, just because you're so nice to me: dismissing stuff out of hand doesn't make you any better than the people who unquestioningly accept everything. They're two sides of the same coin.
Quote from: Adam White on September 16, 2016, 01:57:10 AM
So, if you don't trust the media (and therefore don't read or watch it), how do you "know" Clinton has been having all the problems you ascribe to her? Did you happen to be in all those places when they happened?
Yes, because the only way to view things these days is by having a biased talking head MSM douche feed it to me while they give their own worthless opinions on top.
QuoteAs far as Tim Swift goes - I know nothing of the man.
There's your problem. Just Googling then quickly posting the first article that fits the narrative you're trying to push isn't anything of substance, which is what you did & why I dismissed it. Esp if its coming from a guy who has an obvious hard on for the Clintons. Why not just post links from Salon, Vox & HuffPo while you're at it. At least that way we can automatically dismiss it instead of having to find out about some no name journalist.
QuoteI posted a link to a story which attempts to explain where the 'theory' about Clinton's health came from and how it got legs. That's it. It's more evidence than you've provided.
That isn't "evidence". What, because its online its evidence now? That'd be like me posting a story of how Obama is really a wolfman-like creature & calling it evidence. It doesn't mean shit without actual hard proof. MSM, of all kinds, has turned into an opinionated hug-box of partisan trash. You all know it. You just don't wanna say that if its coming from a place that supports your views or opinion. That's why trust in media is at an all time low. It's what we've prob all known for a while, but the normies are catching on now because they're turning it up in ways we've never seen before.
The fact is, as I've already said, no one really knows what's going on with her aside from her & a select few who aren't writing articles. So all we can do is watch unfiltered & make our own decisions, which I've done. And its my personal opinion (not Alex Jones, Breitbart, or anyone else you wanna throw out there) that she's not been well the past few months & she's giving a dozen lame excuses as to why. And she has a massive string of known lies trailing her, which doesn't help. So call me crazy, but no. I don't believe her. In fact, I don't think she knows when she's telling the truth & when she's lying anymore. All the while she's going to war with cartoon frogs & make believe "alt right" hipster Nazis during a Presidential race, looking like a person who's losing their minds.
So there you go. Not much more I can say about it. You guys can see what you see, I can see what I see, and we'll just agree to disagree.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 16, 2016, 07:22:09 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 16, 2016, 01:57:10 AM
So, if you don't trust the media (and therefore don't read or watch it), how do you "know" Clinton has been having all the problems you ascribe to her? Did you happen to be in all those places when they happened?
Yes, because the only way to view things these days is by having a biased talking head MSM douche feed it to me while they give their own worthless opinions on top.
QuoteAs far as Tim Swift goes - I know nothing of the man.
There's your problem. Just Googling then quickly posting the first article that fits the narrative you're trying to push isn't anything of substance, which is what you did & why I dismissed it. Esp if its coming from a guy who has an obvious hard on for the Clintons. Why not just post links from Salon, Vox & HuffPo while you're at it. At least that way we can automatically dismiss it instead of having to find out about some no name journalist.
QuoteI posted a link to a story which attempts to explain where the 'theory' about Clinton's health came from and how it got legs. That's it. It's more evidence than you've provided.
That isn't "evidence". What, because its online its evidence now? That'd be like me posting a story of how Obama is really a wolfman-like creature & calling it evidence. It doesn't mean shit without actual hard proof. MSM, of all kinds, has turned into an opinionated hug-box of partisan trash. You all know it. You just don't wanna say that if its coming from a place that supports your views or opinion. That's why trust in media is at an all time low. It's what we've prob all known for a while, but the normies are catching on now because they're turning it up in ways we've never seen before.
The fact is, as I've already said, no one really knows what's going on with her aside from her & a select few who aren't writing articles. So all we can do is watch unfiltered & make our own decisions, which I've done. And its my personal opinion (not Alex Jones, Breitbart, or anyone else you wanna throw out there) that she's not been well the past few months & she's giving a dozen lame excuses as to why. And she has a massive string of known lies trailing her, which doesn't help. So call me crazy, but no. I don't believe her. In fact, I don't think she knows when she's telling the truth & when she's lying anymore. All the while she's going to war with cartoon frogs & make believe "alt right" hipster Nazis during a Presidential race, looking like a person who's losing their minds.
So there you go. Not much more I can say about it. You guys can see what you see, I can see what I see, and we'll just agree to disagree.
I think the fact that you believe you can "watch unfiltered" is telling.
Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2016, 10:10:37 AM
Wow. Pee Standing up, I think you should take a deep breath and come out of the rabbit hole and into the sunlight for a little while. Sometimes, down there you are seeing visions and the connected rabbit tunnels that lead to everything.
But sometimes, its just a bad case of magic mold thats giving you the visions.
Nah, bro. I'm the wokest guy you know. ;)
Hold on, Michelle Obama was born a man?
Quote from: fsquid on September 16, 2016, 12:12:03 PM
Hold on, Michelle Obama was born a man?
Sure, why not? You can probably provide a link to evidence that refutes that, but it's no more valid than anything I can come up with that says otherwise.
Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2016, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 16, 2016, 10:27:07 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2016, 10:10:37 AM
Wow. Pee Standing up, I think you should take a deep breath and come out of the rabbit hole and into the sunlight for a little while. Sometimes, down there you are seeing visions and the connected rabbit tunnels that lead to everything.
But sometimes, its just a bad case of magic mold thats giving you the visions.
Nah, bro. I'm the wokest guy you know. ;)
I dont think that 'woke' means that you no longer accept any outside information except from a few sources which validate an amorphous pre existing world view, curated and verified by no one other than yourself.
I think thats actually one of the major plot elements of the Matrix.
Who said I didn't? I thought we were talking about Hillary's health? But if you're asking if I just grab whatever worthless opinion article I can off Google without looking into it & throwing it up as a counter argument like so many folks here, then no. I don't do that. Haha, whatta nutjob. Amiright??
But its nice to see you've moved on from the discussion at hand right into the "when all else fails, make poster look crazy" routine. That's Dare Tactic 101. Usually means the discussion is over.
Quote from: peestandingup on September 16, 2016, 12:55:59 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2016, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on September 16, 2016, 10:27:07 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2016, 10:10:37 AM
Wow. Pee Standing up, I think you should take a deep breath and come out of the rabbit hole and into the sunlight for a little while. Sometimes, down there you are seeing visions and the connected rabbit tunnels that lead to everything.
But sometimes, its just a bad case of magic mold thats giving you the visions.
Nah, bro. I'm the wokest guy you know. ;)
I dont think that 'woke' means that you no longer accept any outside information except from a few sources which validate an amorphous pre existing world view, curated and verified by no one other than yourself.
I think thats actually one of the major plot elements of the Matrix.
But if you're asking if I just grab whatever worthless opinion article I can off Google without looking into it & throwing it up as a counter argument like so many folks here, then no. I don't do that. Haha, whatta nutjob. Amiright??
I, for one, didn't just "grab whatever wortheless opinion article off Google without looking into it". And after I posted the link, you didn't even look at it before discounting it based on your own assumptions. And then, instead of responding to the content of the article, you attack the author.
You've offered little other than ad hominems, yet we're the ones with the problem?
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2016, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: Kerry on September 14, 2016, 01:04:09 PM
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?
Her Secret Service agents swear that she suffers from Tourette's.
What if she has ebola?
Have you ever been around anyone who has parkinsons?