• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
I would have no problem with BOTH candidates undergoing full physicals. But I object to the premise that only a single candidate should be considered suspect from a health perspective. Trump is almost 3 years older than Hillary and easily as big a health risk.
Click to expand...

Except he didn't get tossed in the back of van like a pantsuit filled with potatoes.

Like Hillary did.
 
acbytesla said:
I would have no problem with BOTH candidates undergoing full physicals. But I object to the premise that only a single candidate should be considered suspect from a health perspective. Trump is almost 3 years older than Hillary and easily as big a health risk.
Click to expand...

Trump was born June 14, 1946, and Hillary was born October 26, 1947. It is quite misleading to say that he's almost 3 years older. You might fairly say he is almost 1.5 years older, or perhaps almost 17 months older, but it is even misleading to say that he is almost two years older when his olderness rounds down to 1 year.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
This is the way ALL of these types of issues (health, citizenship, etc) should be handled: by investigation and evidence gathering by a neutral party.
Click to expand...

Sorry this is just stupid. At what point do you simply say, that claim is a load of bunkum? If Hillary was accused of being a Transgender Lesbian should that be investigated and evidence gathered by a neutral party too? How about that she's a Reptilian?

Perhaps there might be a place to say that ALL candidates need to undergo an independent medical check, but the idea of having to have panel of independents doing this is just crazy.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Sorry this is just stupid. At what point do you simply say, that claim is a load of bunkum? If Hillary was accused of being a Transgender Lesbian should that be investigated and evidence gathered by a neutral party too?
Click to expand...
What evidence would suffice to show that any party was neutral before they reached the right conclusion? If they reached the wrong conclusion they couldn't have been neutral in the first place, necessitating another investigation. See Benghazi.
 
acbytesla said:
I would have no problem with BOTH candidates undergoing full physicals. But I object to the premise that only a single candidate should be considered suspect from a health perspective. Trump is almost 3 years older than Hillary and easily as big a health risk.
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Trump was born June 14, 1946, and Hillary was born October 26, 1947. It is quite misleading to say that he's almost 3 years older. You might fairly say he is almost 1.5 years older, or perhaps almost 17 months older, but it is even misleading to say that he is almost two years older when his olderness rounds down to 1 year.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the essential point that it's a valid issue and the best way to settle it is independent physicals for ALL candidates.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Sorry this is just stupid. At what point do you simply say, that claim is a load of bunkum? If Hillary was accused of being a Transgender Lesbian should that be investigated and evidence gathered by a neutral party too? How about that she's a Reptilian?

Perhaps there might be a place to say that ALL candidates need to undergo an independent medical check, but the idea of having to have panel of independents doing this is just crazy.
Click to expand...

Why? Having them done "in house" only opens the door to charges of lying/cover up. An impartial, independent, non-partisan commission agreed to by all parties is the best way to go.
 
The Big Dog said:
Except he didn't get tossed in the back of van like a pantsuit filled with potatoes.

Like Hillary did.
Click to expand...

I don't care. Both are around 70. That Hillary had a dizzy spell does not mean that there is reason to believe she is chronically ill. Trump could have very high blood pressure and seem much more healthy and yet he could be the greater risk.

As I have said before I at one time was heavily involved in the Washington State Democratic party. This was around 1980. I was heavily involved with trying to reelect Senator Warren Magnuson.

At the time Maggie was the most senior Senator in the US having served for 36 years. He still had a great mind but his body was definitely run down. Confined to a wheelchair and although he could stand I wouldn't blame anyone who might worry about his health. He was 74 at the time. In contrast the junior Senator was Henry Scoop Jackson who was 68 years old and looked like he could run a marathon. Jackson died suddenly 3 years later and Maggie was still giving speeches 8 years later.

Looks can be very deceiving.
 
sunmaster14 said:
They can be, but that's still the way to bet.
Click to expand...

No it' is not. There's no way for an intelligent bettor to make that wager. While I would have bet on Scoop out living Maggie, I certainly wouldn't bet on Trump out living Hillary. In fact, as I pointed out to you yesterday an insurance company would say that Hillary is the safer bet. Now I know you have no more information than the rest of us so the only thing you're offering is hot air.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Why? Having them done "in house" only opens the door to charges of lying/cover up. An impartial, independent, non-partisan commission agreed to by all parties is the best way to go.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with in-house vs not, the stupid thing is having a system set up to have panel conduct an investigation about any cockamamie story that some blogger pulls out of their hind-quarters and manages to get the blogasphere talking about.

There are already systems in place to check the candidates citizenship, there is no need to investigate it.

If you wanted to put forward the idea that all candidates should undergo an independent medical check that's fine, it might have merit, but that can be done by them going to a nominated and approved doctor, it doesn't need a panel of investigators.
 
PhantomWolf said:
It has nothing to do with in-house vs not, the stupid thing is having a system set up to have panel conduct an investigation about any cockamamie story that some blogger pulls out of their hind-quarters and manages to get the blogasphere talking about.
Click to expand...
Its about to become a non-issue.
'Donald Trump’s campaign manager on Tuesday downplayed questions about the GOP nominee’s full medical record by citing his right to privacy.
“He believes that it’s important for the public to know what his basic health condition is,” Kellyanne Conway said in an interview on MSNBC, noting Trump would reveal the results of a physical this week on “The Dr. Oz Show.”
“I don’t know why we need such extensive medical reporting when we all have a right to privacy,” she added later.'
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...privacy_us_57d829f6e4b0aa4b722ca55d?section=&

The potential for blowback may have become apparent following his recent health-check. He really doesn't look terribly good, particularly not his colour.
 
acbytesla said:
No it' is not. There's no way for an intelligent bettor to make that wager. While I would have bet on Scoop out living Maggie, I certainly wouldn't bet on Trump out living Hillary. In fact, as I pointed out to you yesterday an insurance company would say that Hillary is the safer bet. Now I know you have no more information than the rest of us so the only thing you're offering is hot air.
Click to expand...

I was speaking generally. That a person's health actually is quite positively correlated with how they look to other people. Humans almost certainly evolved the capacity to gauge another human's health from just looking at him.

Also, you don't know that I have no more information than the rest of you. You don't know how much research I've done. One could probably get a reasonable idea of Hillary's forward mortality table just from the information which is undisputed (hypothyroidism and a history of blood clots) and by watching her wallow around clumsily (an indication of poor cardiovascular fitness and decreased mobility). Would I bet that Trump outlives her? Actually, probably not. But I think she probably has a much higher chance of dying in the next year than he does. It all depends on whether she really is hiding something or suffering from some, as yet, undiagnosed ailment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom