Author Topic: Hillary's Health  (Read 12163 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Hillary's Health
« on: September 12, 2016, 03:10:24 PM »
Hypothetical: If Hillary has something serious like multiple sclerosis and doesn't want people to know, is that okay?

Just a hypothetical here, and we can remember that FDR hid the extent of his medical condition as well if that works in her favor.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2016, 03:29:01 PM »
If it's something that is likely to impact her ability to act as president in the next 8 years, yes.  If it's not... I feel it's OK.  I concede however that the expectation today is that there is NOTHING it is OK to keep private for a presidential candidate.  Not your medical records, not your taxes, not your email.

If you are in the business of reporting on (or creating) the news, then of course it's not OK.

Waking up to my alarm clock radio obsessing about Hillary's health about made ME sick...

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2016, 03:38:08 PM »
If it's a condition that could foreseeably cause the President to pass out on occasion I would say it's not at all ok, and if the President's stamina would be affected (for example, inability to maintain concentration and alertness for many hours in a row) then also not ok. If it's just a question of requiring a walking aid or even a wheelchair I personally don't think that should matter, but it also shouldn't be a secret.

There's also a difference between a degenerative condition and a chronic one with hindering but stable effects. If the former is in play then the unknown risk factor would veer me towards 'not ok' as well.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2016, 03:48:36 PM »
Here is an article that I guess wants to make anyone who is wondering about Hillary's health feel bad for having questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/09/12/how-is-hillary-clinton-still-alive/?utm_term=.ad50e7f05e16

All I can say about it is I have no idea at all about her health, how serious her condition is or isn't. But I was curious about how people would feel if it turned out the information given so far hasn't been completely accurate.

I agree with both of your responses that if it's not that serious for instance if it's just a temporary condition then it's no big deal but if it's chronic and serious I'm wondering if it's still okay for her to get into the Presidency and make history as well as having a say in her replacement. I suspect most of her supporters would say it was noble of her to make such a personal sacrifice in order to steer the country along the right path for the future.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2016, 03:56:22 PM »
Now that I think about it, I guess I'm okay with it if she is hiding a serious health condition and just wants to spend a few months as President before she has to step down, long enough to nominate a Supreme Court justice and feel confident her Vice President has things well in order for his transition. The reason it's not so bad is because the people who vote for her still know what they are voting for and whether it's Clinton or Kaine who gives it to them doesn't really matter because the differences between those two are insignificant compared to the differences between any Democrat and any Republican. There are a lot of things I would take her to task on but this probably won't be one of them.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2016, 04:15:32 PM »
I'm reminded of Jack Layton who had what turned out to be terminal cancer while running the NDP's most successful campaign. After the election, the NDP was the Official Opposition for the first time ever. A lot of its success was due to Jack's personal charisma and appeal. He died not long after the election. Given that the chances of him becoming Prime Minister were remote (better than Johnson's but far worse than Trump's), it was pretty unlikely that the NDP would be picking the next Prime Minister after him. It did kneecap the early opposition to Harper (with his first majority government) since it left both the Liberals and NDP without leaders, as the Liberal leader did not win re-election.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2016, 04:38:11 PM »
Quote
But I was curious about how people would feel if it turned out the information given so far hasn't been completely accurate.
I'd be even more upset about the measures I feel were employed to ignore or make Sanders seem a non-credible candidate in comparison to her. 

That said, the idea that she is running and concealing an illness which would make her unable to preform the duties of the office would require a new hat material.  What comes after tinfoil? 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2016, 05:02:58 PM »
Quote
But I was curious about how people would feel if it turned out the information given so far hasn't been completely accurate.
I'd be even more upset about the measures I feel were employed to ignore or make Sanders seem a non-credible candidate in comparison to her. 

That said, the idea that she is running and concealing an illness which would make her unable to preform the duties of the office would require a new hat material.  What comes after tinfoil?

/transparentaluminumhat

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2016, 01:18:17 PM »
Neither of the candidates seems healthy to me.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2016, 01:33:33 PM »
I've been thinking for a while on this.  I don't think non-disabling medical issues are any of our business, but persistent ailments and conditions that would leave a President incapacitated almost have to be.  It's one thing to elect a candidate to make the tough calls, its another to elect a candidate to delegate the tough calls.

In a country of 350 million or so people, its really hard to see how these two are really the best we can do.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2016, 05:57:31 PM »
Do we know that either one has a "persistent ailment [or] condition" that would cause them to be incapacitated?  This doesn't include illnesses or injuries from which they have recovered.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2016, 06:05:43 PM »
Do we know that either one has a "persistent ailment [or] condition" that would cause them to be incapacitated?  This doesn't include illnesses or injuries from which they have recovered.

Then what you mean to ask is whether they have a condition that would cause them to be permanently incapacitated. Because Hillary plainly was incapacitated the other day. They had to drag her into the Secret Service vehicle after she collapsed.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2016, 06:24:49 PM »
Quote
Because Hillary plainly was incapacitated the other day. They had to drag her into the Secret Service vehicle after she collapsed.

I see, you think I was asking if at any moment in time either would become incapacitated, which would make them incapable of exercising the responsibilities of being President.  Speaking only for myself, I am incapacitated for 6-8 hours every day, and for up to another hour or so I really want some privacy.  During Hillary's recent near-collapse she didn't faint or actually become incapacitated, only dizzy and wobbly for a brief time, so I would say she is as healthy at the moment as I am.  Trump may be as healthy as her, but he won't release any medical records other than the phony letter supposedly written by his seemingly stoned doctor. 

Are you concerned that Hillary might become momentarily incapacitated at some unanticipated time in the future?  Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan used to drink heavily in the WH, and Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimers for most of his second term.  Kennedy apparently had a lot of private one-on-one time with visitors during which no one was allowed to disturb him.  No one seemed to complain about any of them that I can recall.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2016, 06:31:58 PM »
I see, you think I was asking if at any moment in time either would become incapacitated, which would make them incapable of exercising the responsibilities of being President.

I "think" that's what you were asking? Isn't it? What else could you have been asking?

Quote
Speaking only for myself, I am incapacitated for 6-8 hours every day, and for up to another hour or so I really want some privacy.

Oh, I see, you are being humorous. Note I didn't say you were attempting to be humorous.

Quote
During Hillary's recent near-collapse she didn't faint or actually become incapacitated, only dizzy and wobbly for a brief time, so I would say she is as healthy at the moment as I am.

You'd better watch the video again. They were dragging her feet along the sidewalk.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2016, 06:40:40 PM »
According to press reports, she "may have fainted" but she told CNN that she didn't.  She appeared to stumble when she reached the van and appeared minutes (?) later looking fine and saying she was fine.  But if you assume she fainted, is that a debilitating concern?  I am constantly amazed that people look so hard at everything she does to find something either reprehensible or a sign of weakness, especially given her chronic condition of being a woman.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2016, 07:16:19 PM »
Do we know that either one has a "persistent ailment [or] condition" that would cause them to be incapacitated?

We don't know.  Notwithstanding what you may believe about my intentions, I'm not trying to imply that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President for this reason.  Both her and Trump are unfit for other reasons of course.

Quote
This doesn't include illnesses or injuries from which they have recovered.

Of course it doesn't.  It only includes known conditions that predictably will incapacitate them.  As part of the job is to be on call for tough decisions that is a material factor in choosing them.

Your bizarre equivalence with going to the sleep and going to the bathroom are pretty silly, where (a) you could be woken up and (b) if necessary you could make decisions from behind the door.  Incapacity has a real meaning.

Also, it was several hours before she reappeared being well, not several minutes.  It didn't look like she "stumbled" it looked like she needed a pole and an aide to remain upright, and that she collapsed and would have fallen without multiple aides grabbing her.  That said, unless the condition is chronic it doesn't speak at all to her fitness for office.

As far as this being because she's a woman, there's absolutely no way you personally wouldn't be on here demanding he withdrawal if Trump had fainted in a similar manner.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2016, 08:50:04 PM »
She appeared to stumble when she reached the van and appeared minutes (?) later looking fine and saying she was fine.

Ok from this statement I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the video. She wasn't heading towards the van, i.e. failed to reach it enroute. She was standing against a pole supporting herself with someone helping, and while standing there her legs buckled and she collapsed, caught by others around her, who then took her into the van. She can claim whatever she wants to, but the fact is that she collapsed. It actually would be better for her to claim to have passed out, because that could indeed be explained by heat stroke or illness. Physically collapsing, on the other hand, without fainting would indicate a physical inability to keep herself on her feet, which is more serious. Given that there have been numerous videos of her having difficulty getting up stairs and so forth lately (for which she has needed much assistance), the premise that her muscles betrayed her 'just this one time' seems at this point implausible. The only hole in the heat stroke theory is that it wasn't particularly hot in NYC at the time (comparatively mild compared to the rest of the brutal summer there, and not as bad as she must have experienced in D.C.), so I guess it could have been random dehydration brought on by overexertion as Bill says it was.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2016, 10:30:37 PM »
Fenring:

Quote
Ok from this statement I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the video.
I watched it twice, listened to two different reports and read a couple of printed articles about it.

Quote
She was standing against a pole supporting herself with someone helping, and while standing there her legs buckled and she collapsed, caught by others around her, who then took her into the van. She can claim whatever she wants to, but the fact is that she collapsed.
You said "fainted" before; "collapsed" is different. I would say her legs buckled and she was supported.  Most responsible commentators didn't go further than that, because they were trying to be objective.

Quote
Physically collapsing, on the other hand, without fainting would indicate a physical inability to keep herself on her feet, which is more serious.
What is your informed basis for making that diagnosis?

Quote
...the premise that her muscles betrayed her 'just this one time' seems at this point implausible.
I take it you've never had pneumonia or been overwhelmed by a momentary lightheadedness or vertigo.

Quote
The only hole in the heat stroke theory is that it wasn't particularly hot in NYC at the time (comparatively mild compared to the rest of the brutal summer there
It wasn't heatstroke, it was pneumonia.  Are you now arguing that her doctor's diagnosis is phony?

You keep sounding for all the world like someone who is trying to find the negative side of everything when you talk about her, yet you keep insisting that you aren't negative about her.  Go figure.

Seriati:

Quote
Your bizarre equivalence with going to the sleep and going to the bathroom are pretty silly, where (a) you could be woken up and (b) if necessary you could make decisions from behind the door.  Incapacity has a real meaning.
I'm a pretty light sleeper, but I know several people who are difficult to rouse from a deep sleep and are incoherent for several minutes after being wakened.  You're right that I was making jocular, but this entire effort to do deep analysis of a brief event that has been tied to an illness is far sillier.  I was just replying in kind.

Quote
As far as this being because she's a woman, there's absolutely no way you personally wouldn't be on here demanding he withdrawal if Trump had fainted in a similar manner.
Yuk, I was just going where FOX and all their ilk want to go: Obama is unfit because he is black; Hillary is unfit because she is a woman.  You'll notice how much praise Trump is now heaping on Phyllis Schaffly for being so militantly anti-feminist.  I am expecting someone on the right to ask if Hillary is still having menstrual periods, and if she is she will be out of commission for several days every months.  If she's not and is having hot flashes or other post-menopausal symptoms, she's unfit for that reason.  If neither of those can be used against her, we have Reince Priebus pointing out that she doesn't smile enough, which is also deeply suspicious.  Frankly, everything she does is suspicious, exceeded in suspiciousness by everything she doesn't do.  Let's just all agree that she's unfit, so we should make sure Trump is elected.  He doesn't have any of those problems.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 10:35:00 PM by AI Wessex »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2016, 11:06:46 PM »
Quote
Quote
She was standing against a pole supporting herself with someone helping, and while standing there her legs buckled and she collapsed, caught by others around her, who then took her into the van. She can claim whatever she wants to, but the fact is that she collapsed.
You said "fainted" before; "collapsed" is different. I would say her legs buckled and she was supported.  Most responsible commentators didn't go further than that, because they were trying to be objective.

You are again not reading carefully. The only assertion I've made is that she collapsed; it's the word I've twice used in this thread to describe what happened, which is also a word the MSM has used. My use of the word "fainting" was part of a hypothetical about which scenario would mean what. Just read more carefully, man. You frequently jump on a word and totally ignore its context and intended use, but try to use it to 'catch' the poster and prove something.

Quote
...the premise that her muscles betrayed her 'just this one time' seems at this point implausible.
I take it you've never had pneumonia or been overwhelmed by a momentary lightheadedness or vertigo.

I've had pneumonia. If she had anything near what I had she'd have been bedridden, so from that standpoint it's plausible pneumonia would explain difficulty standing up. It wouldn't explain the balance/motor issues she's had leading up to this, which could not all have been pneumonia. It also wouldn't explain why Bill stated outright that she was probably dehydrated and overexerted, 'like she always is.' Is it believable that Hillary would have pneumonia and him not know about it, or that he would decide to lie about such a thing to the media?

Quote
Quote
The only hole in the heat stroke theory is that it wasn't particularly hot in NYC at the time (comparatively mild compared to the rest of the brutal summer there
It wasn't heatstroke, it was pneumonia.  Are you now arguing that her doctor's diagnosis is phony?

Yes, pneumonia was the 2nd story the news ran with, after they were claiming it was heatstroke. MSNBC outright stated it was heatstroke and went on to explain how it was no big deal. Maybe Hillary had pneumonia, although in that case I don't think it was very nice of her to visit Chelsea and her baby granddaughter with that going on.

Quote
You keep sounding for all the world like someone who is trying to find the negative side of everything when you talk about her, yet you keep insisting that you aren't negative about her.  Go figure.

I insist I'm not negative about her? That's a laugh. I said I'm not negative about her on partisan grounds. I guess it's hard for you to see the distinction, since you turn every subject into a partisan quarrel. It's hard to discuss things with you, in any case, when you are ready to tell me what I've said, especially when it's something I haven't said.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2016, 11:26:46 PM »
Quote
I've had pneumonia. If she had anything near what I had she'd have been bedridden, so from that standpoint it's plausible pneumonia would explain difficulty standing up. It wouldn't explain the balance/motor issues she's had leading up to this, which could not all have been pneumonia. It also wouldn't explain why Bill stated outright that she was probably dehydrated and overexerted, 'like she always is.' Is it believable that Hillary would have pneumonia and him not know about it, or that he would decide to lie about such a thing to the media?
You're not a doctor, so you should stop playing one and making claims about her diagnosis or whether or not she is/was contagious or how serious it is. 

Quote
Yes, pneumonia was the 2nd story the news ran with, after they were claiming it was heatstroke. MSNBC outright stated it was heatstroke and went on to explain how it was no big deal. Maybe Hillary had pneumonia, although in that case I don't think it was very nice of her to visit Chelsea and her baby granddaughter with that going on.
She was only contagious for a day or two after the diagnosis, which happened early in the week.  Stop playing doctor.

Quote
I insist I'm not negative about her? That's a laugh. I said I'm not negative about her on partisan grounds. I guess it's hard for you to see the distinction, since you turn every subject into a partisan quarrel. It's hard to discuss things with you, in any case, when you are ready to tell me what I've said, especially when it's something I haven't said.
I don't really know what to do with this comment.  I don't agree with people when they say unfair or uninformed things about Trump.  He is such a deplorable human being (no pun intended) that it's hard to say anything that is unfair about him.  I am partisan against him and will support Hillary, which makes people who argue like you do a mystery to me.  You're not negative about her on "partisan grounds"?  What does that even mean?  You're just plain negative about her on every topic that comes up concerning her, but I guess you're still going to vote for her, right?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2016, 12:01:00 AM »
par·ti·san
ˈpärdəzən/
noun
1.
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms:   supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion; More
2.
a member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

In politics 'partisan' refers specifically to supporting a party. Based on the definition, strictly speaking a person could be a partisan for a cause, but in the context of supporting political candidates that's not really how it's used. In your case, 'partisan' would imply supporting the Democratic party (which we should not dissociate from supporting their causes as well), and therefore when you repudiate Trump it is understood that you do so not only on personal grounds (i.e. based on his character) but on principle as well because of what causes he espouses, which are opposed to yours. You are fair to say you are partisan against him, which is merely explaining your position.

To suggest that I am 'partisan' against Hillary implies I support a party (or vaguely, it could be a 'cause') to which she stands opposed. Actually, I wish that were true, because it would mean there's a party that stands for my beliefs. But as it stands I oppose her merely on the basis of her character and not because of where she happens to stand vis a vis the causes her party espouses. Therefore I am not partisan against her; I am merely against her. But again, it would please me to be able to say I have a partisan stake against her. Sadly I cannot.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2016, 04:19:07 AM »
Anyone trying to claim that a major Presidential candidate collapsing and having to be thrown in a van semi-concious would not be major news and talked about if they had a penis is having a laugh.

*Al tells people to stop playing doctor, tells us all how long someone with pneumonia can be contagious*

BUT even if we take that as gospel, she was diagnosed on Friday. She collapsed and went to her daughter and granddaughter's house while still in the 48 hour contagious period instead of a medical professional because she's *censored* scared of the media.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2016, 04:24:15 AM »
Al you speak of Fenring talking negatively about HRC and yet still voting for her. What's not to understand? It's her or Trump, so yeah, a hell of a lot of people are going to hold Theo noses and vote Clinton.

But she's a warmonger, she's close to Wall Street, and whether she's been pushed unfairly into it or not relationship with the press is nonexistant. I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be honest with the public if she thinks it might benefit her to hide it, and she thinks she can get away with it.

She's deplorable in a lot of ways, and just because she's the best candidate *available* out of the two doesn't make her a *good* candidate.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2016, 04:36:29 AM »
Also you mentioned Reagan also taking in millions in speaking fees, as if that excused it. I've attempted to explain this more then once, but what the hell, I have trouble sometimes not charging windmills.

Dig this. I am not a hyprocrite, attacking HRC for something that I've excused members of "my" party for, which unless I'm mistaken was your implication.

I am not and never have been a conservative or a Republican. I am liberal, indeed more liberal then a lot of Democrats (Sanders liberal) and while I used to call myself a Democrat after this primary season I'm questioning that.

My teens were the Bush years and most of my 20s were the Obama years. I grew up hating Bush and listening to the ideals talked about by Obama, so when an old school politician comes along with her old school dodgy political BS, well I'm sorry old man, but I'm not buying it. I've mentioned before that this might be a generational thing and the more time that passes by the more I'm convinced of it.

"Reagan did it too," isn't a defense of Clinton. I hated Reagan. Talking about how they're alike isn't going to make me say "Oh well okay then, Reagan did it too it's cool."

There are things that I expect and demand out of my politicians if they expect to have my actual support,  and I'm not going to fold on those things just because of which political party they represent.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2016, 04:50:58 AM »
I had a weird synchronicity / coincidence happen yesterday because I was watching the first season of The West Wing and got to the episode where the President was having some of the exact kinds of symptoms that Hillary is expressing and the exact same kinds of reasons were being given to explain them when in fact the final private reveal was that it was *spoiler alert* actually multiple sclerosis that he had and had been diagnosed with it seven years previously. I just thought that was very odd because I had just posted that possibility about Hillary a day or two before. There are plenty of other explanations for it though including, perhaps, the ones we have actually been given.

I'd like to ask the Hillary supporters or those who think this is all a conspiracy theory if they think we have been told the whole truth about all of this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, from a person who is not apparently a Trump supporter, comes the news that 'Concussion' doctor and forensic pathologist Bennet Omalu suggests that poison of Hillary by Trump and / or Putin may be a factor in her health issues.

"I must advice the Clinton campaign to perform toxicologic analysis of Ms. Clinton's blood. It is possible she is being poisoned."

"I do not trust Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump. With those two all things are possible."


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2016, 07:44:33 AM »
My teens were the Bush years and most of my 20s were the Obama years. I grew up hating Bush and listening to the ideals talked about by Obama, so when an old school politician comes along with her old school dodgy political BS, well I'm sorry old man, but I'm not buying it. I've mentioned before that this might be a generational thing and the more time that passes by the more I'm convinced of it.

"Reagan did it too," isn't a defense of Clinton. I hated Reagan. Talking about how they're alike isn't going to make me say "Oh well okay then, Reagan did it too it's cool."

Uh. If your 20's were/are being spent in "the Obama years" how can you have any kind of objective "I was there" position on the Reagan Presidency? Considering Reagan left office 20 years before Obama assumed office, you were probably a toddler, or not yet born. I was a Teen during the Bill Clinton Presidency, and loathed the man then, and still do now. (And had an active dislike of him before my parents had any kind of position on Clinton; the talking head reports starting on the tail-end of his first 100 days in office about his concern over "his legacy" just further cemented that negative view. That those reports became an ongoing thing for the next 8 years just made it that much worse in my book).

As to Reagan, and Bush(41), I don't really remember enough to objectively state love/hate towards them personally, and I certainly wouldn't claim that my views at that time would have had any bearing on anything besides maybe how I thought my family viewed them. If I even appreciated that much as a kid, which in Reagan's case wasn't much. IIRC, I understood he was President of the United States, which made him important, and he gave some important speeches. Beyond that he was largely a non-factor in the first 8 years of my life.

Everything else I know about Reagan comes through retrospective media reports, and history books(He also was recent enough my history class in High School barely touched on him). As I seem to have about 10 years on you, I'm wondering how you skipped that and have enough perspective on his Presidency to espouse such a view?

I'll admit, there is plenty about the Reagan Administration to take issue with, particularly from a present day perspective. However, that also is a very unfair, and highly biased position to be placing judgement from.

---------

As to Hillary being "old school" political. I'm just going to have to laugh that one up. The Clinton's were the "new school" of politics..... Way back in the 1990's.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2016, 08:26:16 AM »
Yeah, see, perhaps I used the wrong tense, sure. But I didn't have to be there to know how much I hate things like gutting the mental health system, trickle down economics, and ignoring AIDS because after all it was just a buncha queers dying from it. The man was despicable.

As for the Clintons, 1990 was 26 years ago now. But even if that doesn't matter, they are absolutely steeped in the culture of cronyism,  backroom deals, and special interests. Perhaps I have the wrong definiton of old school politics, but to me that seems to come pretty close. Or, at least, those are the aspects of it that I hate the most.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2016, 09:29:57 AM »
Just a couple of quick comments.

First without knowing what kind of Pneumonia she has suggesting we know when and if she was contagious is pure speculation.  I know that in my younger years I worked through a couple of bouts myself and was nearly falling over before I was diagnosed.

Second the campaign trail is extremely draining and it surprises me that any candidate can make it through without getting sick.  This may be viewed as a test but I can't imagine any situation short of full scale invasion that would disrupt a sitting presidents life to the same extent.

I do find it a little ironic that the same individuals who hate Hillary so much are concerned that she "might" have to be replaced do to health concerns.

I read this morning that Dr. Oz will not ask Trump any questions that he feels uncomfortable with Outside of the size of his "hands" I am not sure what other medical question would make him uncomfortable unless he has some underlying condition.  That along with the fact he is not blasting Clinton on this.......

In all honesty unless there is a life threatening illness or one that would make them unfit mentally (contrary to their views I do not believe either is yet senile) I am not sure it is anyone's business.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2016, 09:42:32 AM »
Fenring:
Quote
In politics 'partisan' refers specifically to supporting a party.
You said that immediately after giving and highlighting a definition that said:
Quote
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms:   supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
You just did what I keep pounding you for doing, being sloppy with language, which implies being partial (def: "one sided, biased") in your thinking.  Language matters to me, so how can I not think that you're finding the narrow path in order to criticize her without admitting it?
Quote
Therefore I am not partisan against her; I am merely against her.
And for what?  Bernie's out.

DJQuag:
Quote
BUT even if we take that as gospel, she was diagnosed on Friday. She collapsed and went to her daughter and granddaughter's house while still in the 48 hour contagious period instead of a medical professional because she's *censored* scared of the media.
Walking pneumonia is spread by coughing or sneezing. She couldn't give it to anyone by simply being near them.  It's also the most easily treatable and shortest lasting type of the disease.

Quote
Al you speak of Fenring talking negatively about HRC and yet still voting for her. What's not to understand? It's her or Trump, so yeah, a hell of a lot of people are going to hold Theo noses and vote Clinton.

But she's a warmonger, she's close to Wall Street, and whether she's been pushed unfairly into it or not relationship with the press is nonexistant. I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be honest with the public if she thinks it might benefit her to hide it, and she thinks she can get away with it.

She's deplorable in a lot of ways, and just because she's the best candidate *available* out of the two doesn't make her a *good* candidate.
This I can't argue with, even though I can't agree with all of it.  People holding their noses and voting for a candidate is not close to being new.  Call it holding your nose is one way of describing it, but for me recognizing that "she's the best candidate *available*..." is how I choose to look at it.  I can't think who I would rather have as the Dem candidate (including Bernie), but that person either didn't run this time or didn't run well enough.

Quote
Also you mentioned Reagan also taking in millions in speaking fees, as if that excused it.
It puts it in perspective.  I'm not making a value judgment.  But if it has gone on for decades and never was a factor in any previous campaign, why is it so important now?  That goes to a lot of what is being thrown in Clinton's face.  If you think she represents "old-school" politics, why has that never mattered until now?  You mention that you were in your 20's until recently (my commiserations on your demise), so you're "discovering" politics as if it is suddenly being revealed now.  I was in my 20's when the phrase "politics ain't beanbag" was first tossed around as a defense of the process.  That doesn't excuse the bad practices, but highlights that you can't have a political system that operates just at the level of idealism. 

The kindest definition I've ever heard is that politics is "the art of the possible", said by Otto von Bismarck in the 19th C.  The key words are "art" and "possible", not "science" and "guaranteed".  An even better explanation of the campaign process was by Mario Cuomo in 1980, "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose".  Trump is all about poetry and doesn't understand prose, where Clinton leans the other way.

TheDeamon:
Quote
As to Hillary being "old school" political. I'm just going to have to laugh that one up. The Clinton's were the "new school" of politics..... Way back in the 1990's.
The most recent President I can't remember is Eisenhower, and the earliest one I can comment on semi-objectively was Nixon.  Reagan was more sloppy and agenda-driven than evil, as Nixon arguably was.  Agendas don't usually have a moral connotation, but how you serve your own agenda does.  Reagan sometimes did despicable and stupid (even outright illegal) things in service to his objectives, some of which we're still paying for today.  For instance, he could have been impeached for the Iran-Contra actions that he approved, but wasn't.  Those who complain that Hillary should smile more and think fondly back to Reagan's winning smile don't understand what went on behind that affable demeanor.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 09:46:49 AM by AI Wessex »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2016, 09:58:08 AM »
Hillary becoming relatively incapacitated on a regular basis would actually work in her favor for me. The less she is able to accomplish the better.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2016, 10:27:09 AM »
Fenring:
Quote
In politics 'partisan' refers specifically to supporting a party.
You said that immediately after giving and highlighting a definition that said:
Quote
a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
synonyms:   supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion;
You just did what I keep pounding you for doing, being sloppy with language, which implies being partial (def: "one sided, biased") in your thinking.  Language matters to me, so how can I not think that you're finding the narrow path in order to criticize her without admitting it?

I quoted the whole definition and then went on to specify that in politics it tends to mean supporting a party, rather than a cause or person. "Partisan politics" in no way connotes people favoring specific candidates, but rather always implies supporting specific parties in an "us vs. them" mentality. I don't know what you hope to gain in trying to 'trap me' by bringing in a clause of the definition that doesn't apply to our discussion. "Partisan" is not a term used exclusively in politics, and therefore not every possible use of the word applies to this subject. But I guess you'd prefer to prove my text is inconsistent rather than face the truth that what I'm saying is pretty straightforward. Undermining the language to defeat an argument; not a good sign.

Quote
Quote
Therefore I am not partisan against her; I am merely against her.
And for what?  Bernie's out.

You have here stated definitively what I only hinted at, which is that in your view the only possible reason to be against a candidate is because you are for another candidate whom you think is better. That is your worldview, and you're doubling down on it here. It is not mine, and therefore you will never be able to understand what someone means when they say they are against a candidate but not for their opposition.

I think I'm going to have to take a break from responding to your posts for a while, Al. I don't believe you're arguing in good faith and it's not enjoyable to have to go back and forth like this on irrelevancies.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2016, 10:32:45 AM »
Since we are all playing doctor...
I had pneumonia at least twice in my youth.  It CAN be on the "no big deal" scale of things.  Not going to get into how serious it is for her.  Obviously I was young (but not too young) so that helped for me.  Also, I could take a damn nap when I felt like it, rather than run on what I'm sure is a poor / irregular diet and likely far too little sleep of a campaign schedule.

Also, thanks cherry for reminding me about the West Wing episode.  I thought all this sounded familiar.  At least with Hillary we can go back to predictable television plots.  With Trump the whole concept of political drama or comedy would have to be scrapped as attempts at dramatizing or parodying reality would be lost on us.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2016, 11:10:11 AM »
Quote
Your bizarre equivalence with going to the sleep and going to the bathroom are pretty silly, where (a) you could be woken up and (b) if necessary you could make decisions from behind the door.  Incapacity has a real meaning.
I'm a pretty light sleeper, but I know several people who are difficult to rouse from a deep sleep and are incoherent for several minutes after being wakened.  You're right that I was making jocular, but this entire effort to do deep analysis of a brief event that has been tied to an illness is far sillier.  I was just replying in kind.

Incoherent for a few minutes after being awakened is very different than being medically incapacitated.

You were not replying "in-kind."  Medical health is a legitimate question for a chief executive, not a silly joking matter.  This is true in business, let alone in government.  What you are attempting to do is move the debate to delegitimize a legitimate enquiry, by trying to claim that something that is an objective concern in any leader is nothing but a subjective criticism of this leader.

Quote
Quote
As far as this being because she's a woman, there's absolutely no way you personally wouldn't be on here demanding he withdrawal if Trump had fainted in a similar manner.
Yuk, I was just going where FOX and all their ilk want to go: Obama is unfit because he is black; Hillary is unfit because she is a woman.

Flat out, I take these arguments you make as evidence of your own racism not of anyone else's.  You literally can not conceive that someone can view Obama or Hillary as a person and disagree with them on matters of policy, because you can not conceive of them as anything other than black and a woman.  Hence your inability to construe any argument as anything except racism and sexism. 

Quote
You're not a doctor, so you should stop playing one and making claims about her diagnosis or whether or not she is/was contagious or how serious it is.

You do understand pneumonia is a diagnosis, not a disease.  It's literally just one of the many cases where the Doctors repeat your symptoms back to you in latin (or a latin sounding word) so you think they know something special about it.  It just tells you that you have fluid in your lungs, but not what caused it (causes can be a  near infinite number of viral, bacteria or fungal conditions of varying severity and concern, genetic conditions, burns, physical trauma, etc.). 

Walking pneumonia is a slightly more specific version, but it's unlikely that anyone did any testing to determine whether the bacteria that normally causes it was actually present.  That's okay though, doctors actually test for a lot less than we think they do, they just play the probabilities in treatment and since the time it would take the treatment to be shown effective or not, is often similar to the time it would take our bodies to fight the infection off without treatment it rarely matters.  If she gets better, no big deal, it's only a big deal if it's a chronic condition.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2016, 11:36:00 AM »
Quote
It's literally just one of the many cases where the Doctors repeat your symptoms back to you in latin (or a latin sounding word) so you think they know something special about it.  It just tells you that you have fluid in your lungs, but not what caused it
  That made my day Seriati.  I can't count the number of times I've been sitting there listening to a doctor thinking that exact thing.  :)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2016, 01:02:50 PM »
AI -

Speaking fees and Wall Street donations HAVE always bothered me. Most especially speaking fees gained before they actually became president.

Also, the more politically aware I've become, the more I've grown to dislike old style politics.

Remember, the only presidents that we've had since I cared to notice were Bush and Obama. You certainly can't say that I liked Bush, and it would be quite a stretch to call Obama an establishment politician when he first entered the sphere. Senator for two years, then President. He was what, 45?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 01:08:26 PM by DJQuag »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2016, 02:55:57 PM »
Neither was Bill Clinton in '92. No prior history in Washington, his political career was entirely in Arkansas up until that point, where he had become Governor. He also was viewed as a (somewhat) gifted and charismatic public speaker who came to national prominence after giving a speech at a DNC Nomination Convention(in '88).

A large part of his appeal in '92 was that he was "an outsider" to the politics of the Washington beltway, and being "young" when compared against other candidates.

Reagan had a comparable story, although his race in 1980 was an encore of his 1976 nomination bid against Ford, and he certainly wasn't young. But he was famous, a gifted speaker, and had experience as governor of California.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 03:00:29 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2016, 03:16:34 PM »
Yeah, see, perhaps I used the wrong tense, sure. But I didn't have to be there to know how much I hate things like gutting the mental health system, trickle down economics, and ignoring AIDS because after all it was just a buncha queers dying from it. The man was despicable.

They were hardly ignoring AIDS, don't confuse rhetoric with reality. The "other reality" at the time was that regardless of who was getting it, the means of transmission, and (initially) low number of impacted people made it a low priority for other reasons as well. I guess they could have gone into panic mode instead and treated it like Ebola at great public cost, but I think that would have been entirely overblown, even in hindsight. It also would have seen a lot of very unhappy people for other reasons.

The mental health system, circa 1980 is another animal. I'm not sure even you would want to fund much of what was going on at that time. Some of this goes back to having proper historical perspectives on things.

The 1980's set the stage for what also followed in the 1990's. Those were two of the best decades the U.S. (in general) has enjoyed in the past 50 years, the only other one that compares is the 60's. Love it or hate it, it worked.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2016, 03:22:04 PM »
Well they could hardly be cracking jokes about it if they were ignoring it.

How many Americans have been killed by Ebola compared to the number who had died from AIDS while it was a "low priority?"

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2016, 04:48:42 PM »
Quote
You do understand pneumonia is a diagnosis, not a disease.
That's like saying cancer is a diagnosis, not a disease.

Quote
What you are attempting to do is move the debate to delegitimize a legitimate enquiry, by trying to claim that something that is an objective concern in any leader is nothing but a subjective criticism of this leader.
I'm "claiming" that everything that concerns Hillary becomes overblown and overanalyzed.  Obama had a cold right before the 2008 convention that nobody worried about. McCain traveled with a doctor part-time and nobody called him out for being unwell.  Even McCain's recent cancer wasn't raised in a serious way nor were his prior illnesses, let alone the chronic life-long debilitating effects from his long stay in a POW camp.  He even referred to people at one campaign rally as "my fellow prisoners" and people only chuckled.

DW:
Quote
That made my day Seriati.  I can't count the number of times I've been sitting there listening to a doctor thinking that exact thing.  :)
I was once diagnosed with a sclerosing arteriolymphoangeoma for which the doctor declined to treat me.  I forget now what it was.

Fenring:
Quote
I quoted the whole definition and then went on to specify that in politics it tends to mean supporting a party, rather than a cause or person.
Just to point it out once more before you drop me from your radar.  Compare the highlighted portion above with what you previous said:
Quote
In politics 'partisan' refers specifically to supporting a party.
That's different than "tends to".  Every time you change your words you change your meaning.  I wish you would understand that you do it and don't acknowledge it.  Going back to "collapse" vs "faint", have you ever seen an athlete stumble and collapse?  Has anyone in the booth ever called out, "Oh look,#88 just fainted!"?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2016, 06:47:11 PM »
Neither was Bill Clinton in '92. No prior history in Washington, his political career was entirely in Arkansas up until that point, where he had become Governor. He also was viewed as a (somewhat) gifted and charismatic public speaker who came to national prominence after giving a speech at a DNC Nomination Convention(in '88).

A large part of his appeal in '92 was that he was "an outsider" to the politics of the Washington beltway, and being "young" when compared against other candidates.

Reagan had a comparable story, although his race in 1980 was an encore of his 1976 nomination bid against Ford, and he certainly wasn't young. But he was famous, a gifted speaker, and had experience as governor of California.
Being an insider or outsider has been mostly a pejorative characterization.  Trump is the only candidate for President since Eisenhower who had never held elected office before getting the nomination.  So in his case he truly is a government and political outsider.

Most of his supporters who like him for that don't care that he has no experience and therefore no traditional political skills.  I'm not sure how that exactly makes him appealing, other than he will "shake things up", as if running a country that way will fix it.  I like that metaphor because he comes across as someone who consults his magic 8-ball every morning to figure out what to say that day.  Day One of Trump Presidency, "Today I am announcing that the US will withdraw from half of our international treaties because a lot of countries don't treat us well.  <"Psst, President Trump?"> -- What is it?  <buzz, buzz> -- When did I say that? <buzz, buzz> -- Well, that was yesterday.  Any questions?"

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2016, 07:15:55 PM »
TheDaemon

I am far from the most PC guy on this board or any of the others I frequent, but I'm telling you the response to AIDS was beyond atrocious.

As Noblehunter has put forth, thousands or tens of thousands of people were dropping dead from this and the White House did *nothing* because it was seen as a gay problem. The Press Secretary literally implied that a journalist who pressed him on it had to be gay for even caring. There is no defense of it.

Ebola is Ebola and it's deadly, but it's no more and potentially even less deadly then HIV was back then. Okay, so the main route of transmission back then was sex. So what? It was a national crisis and it was ignored because it was a gay disease.

Regarding mental health, here's a fun fact for you. Mass shootings started in the 80's. Mental health was cut in the 80's. The majority of shooters at least show signs of mental health problems.

Okay, so the mental health field wasn't as advanced in the 80s. Perhaps some of their policies weren't great.  Doesn't change the fact that there were people who were a danger to themselves and others who were cut loose without treatment or oversight.  Doesn't change the fact that the Reagan mental health legacy follows through to today.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2016, 07:39:22 PM »
http://nypost.com/2016/09/14/hillary-collapse-coverage-reveals-absurdity-of-biased-media/

"Most important, voters got fresh proof that Clinton’s first instinct is to lie, and then lie again."

Has Hillary or her campaign in fact told any straight up lies about her health as this journalist alleges?

Or is he counting as lies what could be argued are just omissions of the full truth or even simply clarifications of events that weren't previously fully understood because the final diagnosis had not yet been delivered by her doctor?

So has she actually lied about this? Or not?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2016, 08:04:33 PM »
http://nypost.com/2016/09/14/hillary-collapse-coverage-reveals-absurdity-of-biased-media/

"Most important, voters got fresh proof that Clinton’s first instinct is to lie, and then lie again."

Has Hillary or her campaign in fact told any straight up lies about her health as this journalist alleges?

Or is he counting as lies what could be argued are just omissions of the full truth or even simply clarifications of events that weren't previously fully understood because the final diagnosis had not yet been delivered by her doctor?

So has she actually lied about this? Or not?
Michael Goodwin is not a journalist, so you can ignore him when he claims to be giving facts.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2016, 08:49:07 PM »
Regarding mental health, here's a fun fact for you. Mass shootings started in the 80's. Mental health was cut in the 80's. The majority of shooters at least show signs of mental health problems.

Okay, so the mental health field wasn't as advanced in the 80s. Perhaps some of their policies weren't great.  Doesn't change the fact that there were people who were a danger to themselves and others who were cut loose without treatment or oversight.  Doesn't change the fact that the Reagan mental health legacy follows through to today.

The funding cut for "mental health services" by Reagan was the final death knell of the large sanitariums with the general practice and attitude of "Lock them up, throw away the key, and for heaven's sake keep them out of the public's view." If it wasn't for that funding shortage, it probably would still be a predominate means of handling those issues still to this day. Due to those cuts, the mental health field had to find ways to do more with less, and incidentally discovered that many of their patients did not need that level of confinement and intensive supervision.

That isn't to say there weren't better ways to go about it, but at least when Reagan was cutting, there was some truly horrible stuff that was getting cut in that field in particular. It's kind of like talking about defunding the prison-political complex today.

Quote
As Noblehunter has put forth, thousands or tens of thousands of people were dropping dead from this and the White House did *nothing* because it was seen as a gay problem. The Press Secretary literally implied that a journalist who pressed him on it had to be gay for even caring. There is no defense of it.

Ebola is Ebola and it's deadly, but it's no more and potentially even less deadly then HIV was back then. Okay, so the main route of transmission back then was sex. So what? It was a national crisis and it was ignored because it was a gay disease.

They also understood it was primarily transmitted via exchange of bodily fluids, blood in particular, so it was getting Drug Addicts as well.

But as far as communicable diseases go, it was a serious issue, but it was never going to be a serious threat to the US Medical System's ability to handle patients. Or cause a potential sudden collapse of vital social services. Ebola is deadly, and highly contagious, yes with proper (intensive) medical care early enough it's been demonstrated you can live through it, but it's life cycle is much shorter, and it poses a much more immediate threat to any society's ability to function should it gain a foothold in any major population center. AIDS on the other hand, even at its worst, and with well established footholds in several major cities, never caused essential services to fail. (That and it wasn't AIDS itself that kills, it's the secondary infections that happen as the immune system fails; which isn't the case with Ebola)

The worst that happened was the Red Cross learned with AIDS that it needed to be more pro-active in screening donated blood for various and sundry infectious diseases as a number of people became infected by way of the Red Cross.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2016, 08:58:45 PM »
And DJ, you're also ignoring that if they'd gone "Ebola" on AIDS when it first started getting CDC attention in the early 80's, there would have been all kinds of people being placed into highly restrictive medical quarantines as investigators started attempting to track down everyone who had patronized *ahem* certain venues, and the various other people that they may have engaged in activities with after having been there. And so on, and so forth. This would have very publicly outed hundreds, if not thousands of Gay Men, even in the earliest stages. It would have also caught their "beard" wife in that web, so on and so forth. This isn't to also mention "the swingers" and whole bunch of other people as well within the "alternative lifestyle" crowd.

I guess they could have gone down that route, but I don't think the people within those communities would have appreciated that overly much either. In particular if they were among the ones who did not get infected. The dragnet that the CDC would have needed to cast would have dug up all kinds of awkward issues, to say the least. For Republicans and Democrats alike. There probably was a lot of pressure coming from Homosexuals and Bisexuals alike who held powerful positions for things to be handled in a more "quiet" manner and were more than happy to let certain parties run their mouth off about the "gay plague" rather than see a full-stop containment effort occur.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2016, 09:04:47 PM »
Come on, dude. I like an Internet argument as much as the next guy, but saying that it wasn't the HIV that killed but the secondary infections due to immune system weakness is pretty weak. Those people don't have HIV, they don't die from the common cold. Simple enough.

And my point from the beginning is that the US would never have been so calm about any other disease, and they never have been. You can tell yourself that the lack of response was due to the disease not being that bad, but I'm skeptical due to just how many people died from it. Seems to me that the conservative president decided that either the gay people weren't worth it or that they could avoid it by not having sex. Both are despicable.

Regarding mental health, your assertions feel wrong to me, but I'm loathe to challenge them without s one argument or data. I'll look around for some; if I don't respond on this point you can take it as a concession.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2016, 09:09:42 PM »
Lol.

You honestly think that I care what the different politicians or power people, no, matter what people, thought? *censored* em.

Bottom line is if this disease had originated in straight instead of gay people, the White House would have cared. That's what I care about, and that's why I think it is despicable. They didn't take the steps necessary because they *didn't care that it was mostly gay men dying.*

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2016, 09:19:41 PM »
Come on, dude. I like an Internet argument as much as the next guy, but saying that it wasn't the HIV that killed but the secondary infections due to immune system weakness is pretty weak. Those people don't have HIV, they don't die from the common cold. Simple enough.

With HIV you get infected, you are largely functional for the better part of a year to potentially several years before it progresses to AIDS without treatment(for HIV/AIDS itself), in many cases you may not even be diagnosed with it until over a year after being infected(and up through the 1990's, be "undetectable" for up to 6 months even with frequent testing). Even then, upon "graduation" to having AIDS, you potentially had months to years remaining, albeit they probably wouldn't be particularly pleasant. From a "threat to society" perspective, that isn't very ominous. It's actually very directly comparable to Cancer, only this is a communicable disease.

Compare this to Ebola, where you get infected, and you're highly contagious within days, on your ass a little over a week later, and potentially dead within 2 to 3 weeks after infection. Comparable story for "Bird Flu" and "Swine Flu" scares. There is little to no grace period, no chance to have any kind of meaningful transition of your work to someone else. Also because of the contagion aspect of it, pretty good chances that you aren't the only one in your workplace who contracted it, which makes any transition efforts even more difficult. Now also factor in that your workplace isn't the only one likely to be in that exact same situation at that exact same time, and you're now dealing with a legitimate "National Security threat."

For that matter, for employers that don't pay minimum wage, the employee who gets Ebola, even if detected on day 1, would likely be dead before Human Resources even finalized the job posting for their replacement. Never mind having actually accepted and reviewed applicants and having hired somebody.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2016, 09:31:00 PM »
You honestly think that I care what the different politicians or power people, no, matter what people, thought? *censored* em.

Bottom line is if this disease had originated in straight instead of gay people, the White House would have cared. That's what I care about, and that's why I think it is despicable. They didn't take the steps necessary because they *didn't care that it was mostly gay men dying.*

Considering that some of the "powerful republicans" either in such a position then, or later, but certainly in office at that time, do appear to have been gay or bisexual themselves, I could see a LOT of behind closed doors power politics going on to prevent a full on containment effort from happening so they could save their own political ass. Since such an effort would likely have forcibly outed them from the closet. As such any excuse would do for them.

In this case, I do tend to suspect a lot of what happened in the 1980's was members of the LGBT community throwing fellow members of the LGBT community under the bus with regards to AIDS in the name of saving their own political ass. That there also were other considerations(As I'm mentioning above) that go into the mix as well just makes it more grey. The CDC didn't ignore the situation, the White House may have done so, but that doesn't mean the relevant agencies did the same. Could the White House have done more? Yes.

Would that action have likely resulted in massive political scandals across the United States? Probably. (Which ironically would also potentially give them grounds to claim "national security" on the matter too; this was during the Cold War after all)

 Should the White House (or CDC) have done more? Arguable. There are a lot of unknown variables in this mix that probably will forever remain unknowns at this point. Particularly in regards to the fallout of discovering a substantial fraction of the people in Congress and other high Governmental positions engage in non-heterosexual activities? The Soviet Union, Iran, China, and a number of other foreign entities would have had a field day with that back then.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's Health
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2016, 08:52:03 AM »
A couple of clarifications and corrections on what I said earlier in this thread.  McCain released his medical records during the 2008 campaign, which ran to about 1000 pages, in response to initial concerns about his health.  They contained a lot of bad stuff, but the act of releasing them quieted the concerns and his health was not a media issue after that.  Obama never said anything about McCain's health, I think because he assumed that if McCain decided that he was healthy enough to run it was not his concern.

The other is that I said Clinton was contagious for only a day or two after her diagnosis.  Her doctor's note said she had a small spot of pneumonia in one lung and that she was not contagious at all.  Walking pneumonia is easily contracted and easily treated.  It's commonly associated with dehydration and fatigue, which Clinton has a tendency towards.  Her doctor said those are not significant health concerns and that she is fit.