Gahhh! Hillary's trippin'!

If the president ups and dies, then obviously everything transitions to the vice president, and that's that. The problem is more what happens if the president is NOT dead, but only sick. If they aren't completely incapacitated, but still well below full capacity, what do you do? The vice president can't take over.

Why not?

Of course, in Hillary's case there would be a stunningly qualified stand-in to assist her team, if necessary.
 

Because if the president isn't actually incapacitated, then they're still in charge, and the vice president doesn't get to assume any additional duties unless the president specifically delegates them. Which again, even if the president does delegate (and there are no guarantees there), it introduces delays into the process.
 
Remember Westbank Piglet?

I guess some people are just deplorables

Well, see, I grew up immersed in old-time Wyoming Republicans; that's how I know so much about Roosevelt.

Yessir, genuine Cro-Magnon GOPeers -- and they're still with us! Gimme that old-time reaction! It wuz good enuff fer Coughlin, 'n it's good enuff fer me! Ah, takes me back to the dung-redolent days of my youth!

But I guess it's not surprising if reactionaries never change.
 
Last edited:
I don't know anybody who believes Trump's doctor, but there's little reason to question his health. He has shown amazing energy on the campaign trail. I specifically remember him giving a long speech on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport in 104 degree heat, in a business suit. Now, I think they set up some kind of cooling system for him (fans and ice or whatnot), but I doubt it could be all that effective.

"Little reason to question" his health. "I doubt it could be all that effective." Great phrases for dressing up speculation.

There's little reason to question Donald's total incompetence. My guess is he's surrounded by yes men. He may have smart advisers, but I doubt they can be all that effective. Etc.
 
If the president ups and dies, then obviously everything transitions to the vice president, and that's that. The problem is more what happens if the president is NOT dead, but only sick. If they aren't completely incapacitated, but still well below full capacity, what do you do? The vice president can't take over.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has provisions for the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit due to health issues.

To what degree such a thing is reasonably possible in a real world, real politics scenario is debatable.
 
... and since they're not incapacitated, it's not a problem.

Yes, it is a problem if they are at reduced capacity.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has provisions for the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President unfit due to health issues.

To what degree such a thing is reasonably possible in a real world, real politics scenario is debatable.

That's not going to be invoked except under pretty dire conditions, meaning the president's condition has already become a problem.

The risks and severity of all this stuff are uncertain, and it's not unreasonable for a voter to decide to prefer this risk over other risks that a different candidate might pose. But it's not reasonable to conclude that health problems for a president poses no risk as long as you like the VP. Of course it does.
 
The woman has a tough appearance schedule leading up to the election, and she gets tired and a bit sick. She makes her way to a car but stumbles slightly as she steps off a kerb. Her minders help her, and she goes to a doctor who advises rest and antibiotics.

To be perfectly fair, it wasn't a stumble. Her knees seemed to buckle.

That said, a campaign is grueling. In my uninformed estimation, it is more grueling than being president. She has become ill and needs rest. I don't see it as particularly significant.
 
Yes, it is a problem if they are at reduced capacity.



That's not going to be invoked except under pretty dire conditions, meaning the president's condition has already become a problem.

The risks and severity of all this stuff are uncertain, and it's not unreasonable for a voter to decide to prefer this risk over other risks that a different candidate might pose. But it's not reasonable to conclude that health problems for a president poses no risk as long as you like the VP. Of course it does.

Life is full of risks and I see that as a minor one compared to the Trumpster dumpster.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hing-seriously-wrong-hillary-clintons-health/

From her medical condition letter of 2015:

“Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012,” Dr. Bardack continues.

“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion,” the doctor wrote:

During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months and she discontinued the use of the prism.

I wouldn't call two months of double vision "a minor concussion".

Looks like post-concussion syndrome, permanent brain problems in old folks that get a concussion. And that would answer most of her health concerns.
 
I'm no fan of either candidate, but...

...if health issues do keep Hillary out of office, I would see that as a tragic ending to her life story. Love her or hate her, she has certainly worked with determination to have a shot at the presidency. To have it end because of health issues would be sad - not just desserts like I'm sure some will celebrate.

This
 
CsH3T79UAAAhuzc.jpg
 
Trump's lies are obvious and transparent. They don't bother me because he doesn't have hordes of powerful flacks defending him and attacking his detractors. Perhaps this is too subtle a point for you to understand. If so, I won't waste any more time.

No, he has hoards of rank idiots and conspiracy theorists defending him. Dangerous people who will tell him to start a war because of Iranian morons hot-dogging around a destroyer.

I sure do love the statement that it's OK to be dishonest as long as he's obvious and transparent.

Remember, the key here was DISHONESTY.
 
Looks like a lot of people on her staff had been sick --

Members of Clinton's staff have battled pneumonia bug | The Hill

"
Members of Hillary Clinton's staff had pneumonia before the candidate came down with it, according to a report.
At least half a dozen senior staff members in Clinton's Brooklyn headquarters battled the illness before the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed with the illness on Sunday, People reported Monday.

Everyone’s been sick,” a campaign source told the publication.

The source said pneumonia cases began popping up among Clinton's staff in late August, two weeks before the former first lady’s diagnosis. Among those affected were campaign aides who travel closely with Clinton.


Campaign manager Robby Mook was among those who were sick. Two of Clinton’s top advisers received emergency medical treatment during their illness.
One top adviser was receiving antibiotics for a respiratory infection days before Clinton’s own diagnosis for pneumonia.
Another staffer was taken by ambulance to the emergency room, People’s source added, after collapsing from what was discovered to be severe dehydration."
 
Russia's involved. Guarantee.

People get pneumonia and illnesses run through groups that stay close together like top campaign staff. It could have just as easily been the flu. If it was polonium induced acute radiation syndrome, I'd cast an eye toward Russia.
 

Back
Top Bottom