Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
logger said:
^
This is just odd, it would show honest transparency. It would put away rumors that the fall she had didn't have lasting effects. Of course whatever she got from Bill would show up, but most people know liberals have these things.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, this would have no effect. Obama released the long form of his birth certificate and yet even after 8 years of Presidency, 29% of Americans believe he is a Muslim and 20% believe he was born outside the U.S.

The people who are asking for Hillary's medical records to be released will not be convinced if they give her a clean bill of health and/or they will examine them in excruciating detail to find something, anything to use against her. Has she ever had a prescription for anything ? It's a pure political stunt, nothing more, nothing less. Releasing her medical records at the request of the baying mob would only serve to make her look weak - which is of course another objective of demanding that she does so.

If she releases her medical records she's weak - if she refuses she's hiding something - it's a win/win.
 
lionking said:
That's a really good observation. What, realistically, would prevent it?
Click to expand...

Corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters do not want anything associated with Sanders (except winning) associated with their party, Sanders supporters feel the same way about corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters. The only ones left out of this are those who are Democratic supporters first, and candidate/policy supporters secondarily.
 
Trakar said:
Corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters do not want anything associated with Sanders (except winning) associated with their party, Sanders supporters feel the same way about corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters. The only ones left out of this are those who are Democratic supporters first, and candidate/policy supporters secondarily.
Click to expand...

I'm a Clinton supporter and would welcome Sanders as VP.
 
Trakar said:
Corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters do not want anything associated with Sanders (except winning) associated with their party, Sanders supporters feel the same way about corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters. The only ones left out of this are those who are Democratic supporters first, and candidate/policy supporters secondarily.
Click to expand...

There are also billions of us who dread a Trump presidency and think you can get over yourself and vote for the lesser evil.
 
The Don said:
....
If she releases her medical records she's weak - if she refuses she's hiding something - it's a win/win.
Click to expand...

If she is singled out personally, it's a problem. If all candidates release their medical records, ideally in a standard way (through a nonpartisan review board or something similar), the voters would have information to which they are legitimately entitled. Maybe we'd like to know about Christie's weight problems -- including bariatric surgery -- or Carson's or Fiorina's cancers. And if a candidate had big medical bills paid for by insurance, and he opposes the ACA, maybe it would be fair to ask what someone with his illness and without insurance is supposed to do?

I think it's also fair to ask whether a candidate has been treated for psychiatric issues or is on long-term medication, psychiatric or otherwise. We entrust the President with the power of life and death -- literally -- over all of us. He/she doesn't get to keep secrets.
 
Trakar said:
Corporatist, establishment Democratic supporters do not want anything associated with Sanders (except winning) associated with their party, ... The only ones left out of this are those who are Democratic supporters first, and candidate/policy supporters secondarily.
Click to expand...
Seriously Trakar, tossing ad homs at the people who don't agree with you only makes you look bad.

Bob001 said:
If she is singled out personally, it's a problem. If all candidates release their medical records, ideally in a standard way (through a nonpartisan review board or something similar), the voters would have information to which they are legitimately entitled. Maybe we'd like to know about Christie's weight problems -- including bariatric surgery -- or Carson's or Fiorina's cancers. And if a candidate had big medical bills paid for by insurance, and he opposes the ACA, maybe it would be fair to ask what someone with his illness and without insurance is supposed to do?

I think it's also fair to ask whether a candidate has been treated for psychiatric issues or is on long-term medication, psychiatric or otherwise. We entrust the President with the power of life and death -- literally -- over all of us. He/she doesn't get to keep secrets.
Click to expand...
Clinton's medical record is just another CT red herring.

All these candidates usually end up with a single physician's report saying they are in good health. I'm sure Clinton would have no trouble getting such a report.


The ideal VP would be Warren, IMO.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Seriously Trakar, tossing ad homs at the people who don't agree with you only makes you look bad.
Click to expand...
The label-maker store called, and they're running out of Trakar. </Costanza mode>

All these candidates usually end up with a single physician's report saying they are in good health. I'm sure Clinton would have no trouble getting such a report.
Click to expand...
Sure, but not all of those candidates get a report stating "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". And the same "physician" also wrote that Trump's tests all came back "positive". :D

The ideal VP would be Warren, IMO.
Click to expand...
If Clinton needs to be worried about left flank, that would spell big trouble. And other than left flank, Warren doesn't add to the ticket.
 
varwoche said:
The label-maker store called, and they're running out of Trakar. </Costanza mode>

Sure, but not all of those candidates get a report stating "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". And the same "physician" also wrote that Trump's tests all came back "positive". :D

If Clinton needs to be worried about left flank, that would spell big trouble. And other than left flank, Warren doesn't add to the ticket.
Click to expand...

They'll need to shore up the left because if Hilldawg wins the primary, she will dive to the center. You don't think that Corporations have been dumping all that cash on Bill and Co because she is a lefty, do you?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Seriously Trakar, tossing ad homs at the people who don't agree with you only makes you look bad.

Clinton's medical record is just another CT red herring.

All these candidates usually end up with a single physician's report saying they are in good health. I'm sure Clinton would have no trouble getting such a report.
....
Click to expand...

It's not just Clinton. We should know as much as we can about all the candidates, including some kind of independent medical assessment. Some candidates release detailed medical records, some release a letter from a doctor (like Trump's), some just say "I feel great!" I repeat, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan concealed severe medical problems, Eisenhower had a heart attack as President and LBJ had a heart attack before he became Vice President, and Nixon may have been an alcoholic. These people are, above all, people, and we are entitled to know what we can about them. Not everything is about Hillary,
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
It's not just Clinton. We should know as much as we can about all the candidates, including some kind of independent medical assessment. Some candidates release detailed medical records, some release a letter from a doctor (like Trump's), some just say "I feel great!" I repeat, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan concealed severe medical problems, Eisenhower had a heart attack as President and LBJ had a heart attack before he became Vice President, and Nixon may have been an alcoholic. These people are, above all, people, and we are entitled to know what we can about them. Not everything is about Hillary,
Click to expand...

Sure it's not. :rolleyes:
 
logger said:
^
This is just odd, it would show honest transparency. It would put away rumors that the fall she had didn't have lasting effects. Of course whatever she got from Bill would show up, but most people know liberals have these things.
Click to expand...

Fifteen years ago, it was people demanding to see Cheney's health records. In the late eighties, it was Reagan's. I don't think anyone ever wanted to see Clinton's or GWB's. They were only interested in Clinton's DNA and GWB's arrest records, which I didn't think should have been handed over, either.

I don't think any politician should hand over medical records, ever. It sets a bad precedent. One of the great problems of modern existence is lack of privacy. I want to see presidential candidates stand up and say that, as a matter or principle, they won't hand over anything that isn't required by law.
 
Phony "cool" mom embarrassing herself on social media

Phony baloney presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's team is busy humiliating her on social media:

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...speaks_like_a_millennial_on_social_media.html

Yaaaas Hillary! :rolleyes:

http://gawker.com/what-similarity-with-my-abuela-is-hillary-clinton-hidin-1749341591

Can't figure out how to find Showtime on the TV, but she is busy getting jiggy wit the kidz on the twitter.

Yaaaas Kween! Now email your staff to have them bring you an iced tea ya sleazy fake.
 
varwoche said:
The label-maker store called, and they're running out of Trakar. </Costanza mode>

Sure, but not all of those candidates get a report stating "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". And the same "physician" also wrote that Trump's tests all came back "positive". :D

If Clinton needs to be worried about left flank, that would spell big trouble. And other than left flank, Warren doesn't add to the ticket.
Click to expand...

"Worried" wasn't the reason I wanted to see a Clinton/Warren ticket. I was thinking more of nudging Clinton a little more to the Sanders' ideology but not dismissing the importance of her experiences. And a two woman ticket, how cool is that?
 
lionking said:
That's a really good observation. What, realistically, would prevent it?
Click to expand...

Reagan Democrats. The Dems are not about to nominate a woman as president and an eastern progressive Jew as her running mate. I'm sure they'd like to stay out of either house of Congress for the running mate, but the problem there is in the re-districting of America. The obvious choice would be for her to go to the wild wild west but there are only two Democratic governors once you move inland from the Pacific Coast, Montana and Colorado. Not much of a choice. Bullock is not well-known enough, regardless of whether he can do the cowboy boots and aw shucksing that they need. Hickenlopper might pass various Dem/Liberal litmus tests and might help deliver Colorado as a favorite son. He's barely won the state house twice, though, and I'm not sure how he translates to other states' voters. All he's known for is the marijuana changes. Not sure what neighboring states think of him, either. NMex is likely Dem anyway? I doubt he'd have coattails that would extend into Arizona.

Outside of those two, you have Dem governors in Minnesota and Missouri. Can't say either of them lights up my get-out-the-vote instincts.

I think she'll go to one of the must-carry election-deciding states for her running mate. Florida's Bill Nelson comes to mind if the GOP doesn't nominate Rubio or Bush.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Reagan Democrats. The Dems are not about to nominate a woman as president and an eastern progressive Jew as her running mate. I'm sure they'd like to stay out of either house of Congress for the running mate, but the problem there is in the re-districting of America. The obvious choice would be for her to go to the wild wild west but there are only two Democratic governors once you move inland from the Pacific Coast, Montana and Colorado. Not much of a choice. Bullock is not well-known enough, regardless of whether he can do the cowboy boots and aw shucksing that they need. Hickenlopper might pass various Dem/Liberal litmus tests and might help deliver Colorado as a favorite son. He's barely won the state house twice, though, and I'm not sure how he translates to other states' voters. All he's known for is the marijuana changes. Not sure what neighboring states think of him, either. NMex is likely Dem anyway? I doubt he'd have coattails that would extend into Arizona.

Outside of those two, you have Dem governors in Minnesota and Missouri. Can't say either of them lights up my get-out-the-vote instincts.

I think she'll go to one of the must-carry election-deciding states for her running mate. Florida's Bill Nelson comes to mind if the GOP doesn't nominate Rubio or Bush.
Click to expand...

...and if that is the case, Jill Stein might do much better than expected in 2016!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom