Gahhh! Hillary's trippin'!

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."

I'll wait until another source besides People reports this. As it is, I think it's strange that People Magazine should scoop every other media outlet if it is indeed true that pneumonia has been spread around Clinton's aides. Also, if it's spreading so fast, then it's probably a viral, not bacteriological infection. In which case, antibiotics won't help, although they could be used as a preventative measure.
 
I'll wait until another source besides People reports this. As it is, I think it's strange that People Magazine should scoop every other media outlet if it is indeed true that pneumonia has been spread around Clinton's aides. Also, if it's spreading so fast, then it's probably a viral, not bacteriological infection. In which case, antibiotics won't help, although they could be used as a preventative measure.

Britebart, maybe? Info Wars?
 
I have. But I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion. Both Politico and Factcheck.org has said similar things about Trump. Factcheck said in the 12 years of checking the accuracy of remarks of Presidential candidates Hillary is a little better than average in truthfulness and accuracy whereas Trump is the worst by far. That no one comes close.

To be perfectly fair, this is a measure of number of lies told, not of their significance. Some of Clinton's lies are somewhat significant, perhaps. Misleading the public about the FBI's statements for instance (pretending that it entails that what she told the public is true) is somewhat troubling.

Trump lies about everything, both the big and the small. Of course, this is reason to be deeply concerned. But imagine a situation in which one candidate regularly lies about inconsequential facts, and the other lies much less often, but the lies are about deeply important facts. In such a case, FactCheck would give a grossly misleading measure.

That is not, I think, the current situation. Trump is not merely a liar regarding small stuff, but also about big stuff too. Clinton has apparently lied about some big stuff, but not so much as to make her worse than the know-nothing (but big-brained) candidate Trump.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.
We already know this, but it isn't because Trump is so bad, it's because you agree with her left agenda.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.

Ah, but while Hillary can get much, much worse, the Donald can only get better.
 
I'll wait until another source besides People reports this. As it is, I think it's strange that People Magazine should scoop every other media outlet if it is indeed true that pneumonia has been spread around Clinton's aides. Also, if it's spreading so fast, then it's probably a viral, not bacteriological infection. In which case, antibiotics won't help, although they could be used as a preventative measure.

Another diagnosis from Doctor Sunmaster. :rolleyes: While it is thought that some viral infections spread faster, it is not a universal truth. And while it is true that antibiotics won't help with a viral infection the simple fact that many of the staff has been infected and recovered quickly is a good sign that either the treatments have worked or that the infections aren't that serious.
 
You're reading far too much into what I'm saying.

How about, "Pneumonia is not something to be taken lightly in a 68-year-old".

Can we at least agree on that?
Out of the blue late last year, my Mother, who is Mrs. Clinton's age and in good heath contracted a drug-resistant type of pneumonia that required her to be put on a ventilator, and it nearly killed her.

Pneumonia can be very serious. I hope this is not the case with Mrs. Clinton, and that she gets well ASAP.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.

That statement is a thing of beauty, and I stole it already.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.

Wow, the imagery cracks me up. Let me just say this. "Me too!"
 
Okay, if the distractions are done, back to the thread.

Hillary campaign lying?
http://theweek.com/articles/648141/why-did-hillary-clinton-lie-about-health

Dems in full panic.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-health-20160911-snap-story.html

Then there is this bombshell, dems better sit down for this one.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/roberts-democrats-whispering-clinton-step-aside-race/

After you read this story, let it soak in how the brilliant Trump campaign set this up.
Hilarious!! Hillary is one of the few candidates Trump could actually beat. In the unlikely circumstance a switcharoo were to occur, it would likely be bad news for Trump.

Add: I'm still waiting for you to formulate whatever cockamamie conspiracy you inferred concerning the metallic object.
 
Last edited:
Out of the blue late last year, my Mother, who is Mrs. Clinton's age and in good heath contracted a drug-resistant type of pneumonia that required her to be put on a ventilator, and it nearly killed her.

Pneumonia can be very serious. I hope this is not the case with Mrs. Clinton, and that she gets well ASAP.

Yes it can. I dated a young healthy very active woman in her early thirties who found herself in critical condition in the ICU ward at Swedish Hospital in Seattle. A week after she was released we spent a week together skiing Whistler Mountain.
 
I would vote for Hillary's moldering, reanimated corpse, in a wheelchair, with coughed-up lung dribbling down her chin, pumping bullets into Vince Foster's remaining family, while wearing a mismatched pantsuit made out of Planned Parenthood baby parts, than even consider voting for Trump.

That's how bad a candidate he is.
You'd vote for Hillary while she was literally in the act murdering people?
 
Factcheck said in the 12 years of checking the accuracy of remarks of Presidential candidates Hillary is a little better than average in truthfulness and accuracy whereas Trump is the worst by far.

Factcheck's sampling method is completely uncontrolled. No statistics generated from their sampling have any meaning. It's strange that people can understand the importance of sampling methods in, say, a drug trial, but then forget that completely when it comes to politics.
 
To be perfectly fair, this is a measure of number of lies told, not of their significance.

It's not even that. It's a measure of the number of lies told out of a hand-selected non-random sample, and NOT a measure of the total number of lies out of all statements made, or the number of lies out of a random sample of statements, or anything else that might be a scientifically valid sampling method.
 
Factcheck's sampling method is completely uncontrolled. No statistics generated from their sampling have any meaning. It's strange that people can understand the importance of sampling methods in, say, a drug trial, but then forget that completely when it comes to politics.

So ignore Factcheck.org. Big deal. It's still patently obvious that Trump can't speak for more than 1 minute without either lying or exaggerating something to make himself look better.

(which by the way, doesn't work. He looks like a goddamn moron)
 
So ignore Factcheck.org. Big deal. It's still patently obvious that Trump can't speak for more than 1 minute without either lying or exaggerating something to make himself look better.
He couldn't even whine about the debate dates without inventing a letter from the NFL to fluff himself up. It's pathological.

(which by the way, doesn't work. He looks like a goddamn moron)
To those prepared to see.
 
So ignore Factcheck.org. Big deal. It's still patently obvious that Trump can't speak for more than 1 minute without either lying or exaggerating something to make himself look better.

(which by the way, doesn't work. He looks like a goddamn moron)

I'm not making that argument in order to defend Trump, but to point out bad reasoning and false authority. If you come to a conclusion about Trump's trustworthiness or lack thereof based upon your own examination of his statements, then you are fully entitled to that conclusion, and I have no reason to object to it.
 
I'm not making that argument in order to defend Trump, but to point out bad reasoning and false authority. If you come to a conclusion about Trump's trustworthiness or lack thereof based upon your own examination of his statements, then you are fully entitled to that conclusion, and I have no reason to object to it.

Do you know how many times you and I have made this point, and yet liberals still keep bringing it up time and time again as evidence? I think it's at least 5 times. It's like talking to a brick wall around here. I know that it's just going to be cited many more times in the future, by the very same people who have already been introduced to the concept of biased sampling. At least it shows how closed-minded some people can be.
 

Back
Top Bottom