You're a goddamn liar. Your sources are Infowars and Limbaugh.
People using serious medical conditions for political gain is both immoral and offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself. I doubt you are.
Secratery Clinton had a heat episode today.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
People using serious medical conditions for political gain is both immoral and offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself. I doubt you are.
What is strange is that psychiatrists are prohibited from opining on candidates mental health unless they have treated them. Physicians seem to be allowed to say whatever they want. Why the difference?
I'll be happy when people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground stop using epilepsy as a bullshit political weapon. About a half dozen posters on this forum should be goddamn ashamed of themselves, but they aren't. Because the ends justify the means for these assholes.Don't worry. Be Happy.
Well that's an interesting question. Would epilepsy even be considered a condition that would exclude a Presidential candidate? I've worked with a couple of people who had epilepsy and other than one time a guy had a brief seizure in the office they didn't seem impacted by it day to day.
That's also an important point and I wish I'd mentioned it. No. It's not disqualifying. I've been so concerned with the misinformation I forgot to bring that up. Thanks for that.
So the Donald was supposed to be going on the quack TV Dr. Oz reality show to release his medical records. Now his campaign manager says he has a right to privacy and will not. And Dr. OZ will not question him about things he doesn't want to talk about. So he quite obviously has something he wants to hide, or he'd be taking full advantage of Hillary's illness. Let's start speculating about it. He's not hiding the mental health issues very well, so must be something else.
You don't think Hillary's dr's note was a tiny bit more credible than Trump's gastro note? If he is so fabulous, why is he seeing a gastro?
I get that you're being facetious. But, as reckless a candidate as Donald Trump typically is, even he knows how big of a mistake it would be for him to be railing on HRC's illness. He doesn't need to -- it's one of those self-inflicted errors where the other candidate just needs to offer a word of sympathy and otherwise leave it alone.
The primary problem Hillary has here isn't questions about her health -- that's incidental and secondary.
FYI my next door neighbor just got back from a trip in Europe (jealous). His granddaughter has epilepsy and been diagnosed with photosensitive epilepsy. He picked up some Zeiss Z1 blue lenses for her only available in Europe not the US based on a Drs recommendation and she seems to be getting some relief. So FYI there is such a thing as "seizure" lenses just not available in the US yet.
Hey Dave,
Can you read my Hillary cannot be trusted with National Security thread that I started?.... 15 minutes+ have gone by without a single view... censoring? I know you probably would have read it.... thanks...fireforeffect....
Well he does have a fetish for crosses, and you seem to be on one, so who knows?
Learning what that there is such a thing as lenses for seizures speaking of incapable. Have not read the HRC lens claims but think this only works for adolescents. Although she sometimes likes to act young I don't think she qualifies. You need a chill pill to quell your hate for anyone that questions you.
You know, I've checked out Alex Jones' radio show a couple times and that guy is clearly a certifiable lunatic. I see now where the whole "prepper" thing comes from. In fact, even almost all of his ads seemed to follow an apocalyptic theme. Weird stuff.
But, that said, he was among those out in front of Hillary's health issue. And he and Drudge (whom I do cherish) have been at least partially vindicated on this. Even Chris Cillizza, who had given them both barrels the week before, had to swallow his price and concede this.
Now, I don't know what kind of wild speculating he's doing on what's "really" ailing Hillary. I don't (and can't) listen to his radio show and I only end up on his website when Matt links a story. I certainly don't have a problem with people noticing and pointing out certain symptomatic things -- the coughing fits or whatever. But I do think it's wholly irresponsible to be speculating about what she does or doesn't have.
Yesterday, there was discussion (on Reddit, of all places) about a supposed "neurological test" that one of her aides was said to have given her -- the "squeeze my hands" test. The "evidence" for this was a still shot taken from a video. Well, guess what: somebody found the actual video and, lo and behold, the photo was a fraud. There was no such test.
Goat, you need to wake up a bit here.
We live in a hypercharged political environment where anything and everything that could possibly be used for political gain will be used for political gain. And it doesn't matter who it is, their party, whatever. To this day, Reagan-haters are still harping on about his Alzheimer's...particularly the assertion that he was suffering from the disease during his presidency. Not long ago, Will Ferrell had signed up to take part in a film lampooning this and only backed out because Patti Davis publicly protested it. Had it been most anybody else questioning the propriety of such a film -- even Michael Reagan, who I doubt holds much purchase in Hollywood -- I suspect it would've fallen on deaf ears.
I wasn't around when FDR was president. But it's perfectly clear that he hid his health issues from public view for political reasons. And I'm not just talking about his paralysis. Even during his final election campaign, when he was sicker than a dog from congestive heart failure (among other things), he presented a façade of health to the public. According to one researcher, during the 1944 campaign FDR employed the Office of Censorship (which was formed for purposes of WWII) to conceal information about his health:
In Secrets of Victory, the author suggests that President Roosevelt abused the censorship system. Censors restricted photographs of the President and information on his whereabouts. These restrictions allowed him to hide his infirmity during the 1944 presidential election campaign and cover up his affair with Lucy Rutherford.
If any presidential candidate is having health issues, I don't care who it is, you know full well that their detractors and opponents will be pouncing on that....whether it's immoral and offensive or not. I'm not condoning it or endorsing it. But let's not kid ourselves here.
Not just Reagan-haters, O'Reilly has a book on the subject that is not flattering to Reagan (based on what I've heard about it, his books are just made up and presented as fact so I refuse to read them).
Yeah, I can't imagine what would ever compel me to read anything Bill O'Reilly wrote -- and I'd have said that before his Reagan book.
But, then again, I've also long been put off by Ann Coulter....because I think she frequently (and intentionally) crosses the line to be a provocateur -- such as when she openly wished the 9/11 attackers had chosen the New York Times building, and she said something intimating a hope for a SCOTUS justice's early death. I hate it that she's one of conservatism's most prominent TV talking heads (and she does have a prominent head!).
That said, I do have to concede that she's a very effective writer. I've read a couple of her books and they were very well done. You can tell that she's a lawyer -- she is superb at making and supporting arguments....which makes it such a shame that she's rendered herself basically indefensible.
My question:
If someone gets sick, the usual response is sending flowers, praying for quick recovery, or at least sympathies.
How is it that, when Clinton gets sick, we see thousands of criticisms for being sick as if she has control over it, and ill wishes? Is this the new American way by the Alt-right, those who claim to be Christians?
If someone gets sick, the usual response is sending flowers, praying for quick recovery, or at least sympathies.
How is it that, when Clinton gets sick, we see thousands of criticisms for being sick as if she has control over it, and ill wishes? Is this the new American way by the Alt-right, those who claim to be Christians?
I'd say those kinds of reactions are to be expected from certain kinds of people anytime a presidential candidate gets sick. It's not just an alt-right thing. You think the more rabid Dems out there would be sending Donald Trump flowers if he took ill? Of course you don't.
That said, I really think the (much) bigger issue for Hillary here isn't the illness itself, but their clumsy and futile attempt to cover it up....and that's because she's already been battling distrust.
Whoever made it, that was a really dumb decision.
Exactly.
And in today's hacked Colin Powell emails (in addition to calling Trump a disgrace) it recounts an email exchange where Sheldon Whitehouse recounted back in 2015 that HRC could "barely climb the podium steps" at an event. And she hasn't had pneumonia for a year and a half.
This health thing has been out there. If she even appears to be trying to hide something it's going to look bad for her.
Must you abuse the name of God while you're pretending to read someone's mind? You're no mind reader, no matter how loudly you scream. You do NOT know his source and neither does anyone else here, but you bellow anyway.
Do you think that screaming and swearing makes your false attributions true? Yell louder then.
Goat, your attention is invited to this study.
http://www.epilepsy.com/connect/for...-z1-blue-lenses-treat-photosensitive-epilepsy
I disagree. He would and will continue to push for full medical release from Hillary, while not doing the same. The surrogates have already done so.
I've already read it. It confirms what I said already: in a small percentage if epileptics, blue lenses can be helpful. This does NOT mean someone wearing blue lenses is an epileptic. People wear the same lenses for all sorts of reasons.
I don't need to read his mind. No competent medical authority would say what he said. Therefore he is lying. The fact that he - like you often do - gets these opinions at the exact same time the right wing blogosphere is blowing up makes it likely that's the real source.
I expect you are correct that other purposes could find such lenses in use. What might those reasons be?
I'm not bitching about questioning the candidate's health. Question away. I'm bitching about randomly selecting a particular affliction (epilepsy) that they know nothing about and trying to pin that on her because it sounds spooky. First of all, as someone else reminded me needs to be said, epileptics are in fact entirely functional. Second of all, using epilepsy in this way only encourages more misunderstandings.
Now how do you know 1. What he is thinking and 2. What medical opinions he might have access to? You always seems to have every answer for every question you don't like. In every discipline you hold all the trump cards claiming expertise in areas where you have no apparent background or training at all. How are we to believe that your knowledge on every subject is superior to that of every poster on this board? Is that what you claim? If so, just say so.
Whatever they are manufactured for. They weren't invented for epileptics. It was a happy accident that was only discovered about ten years ago that this shade of blue was particularly effective for photosensitivity. The glasses already existed.
Remember, only about 3% of epileptics are even photosensitive. For most, attacks are brought on by other triggers. Also, photosensitive epilepsy, especially a severe enough case that medication won't work, isn't likely to develop when you are in your 60s. The most likely reason she was wearing those glasses is that they reduce glare by some 80% or so.
I have dealt with epilepsy my whole life. It runs in both sides of my family. I have watched people have seizures of various kinds. I have experienced them myself. I take 1500 mg of Keppra twice each day to prevent seizures. It's the third anticonvulsant I've taken since I was 15 (the first one stopped working and the second one had terrible side effects). I may not be an MD, but I know enough about this particular topic to tell when someone is full of shit.
Happy?
Does this include a few of the lefties that talk about Trumps mental health, that he is a psychopath, mentally unstable, etc, or just when it fits your narrative?
Oh, I agree with that.
Nobody who (a) isn't a healthcare professional, and (b) hasn't examined Hillary Clinton in person has any business speculating about what condition she does or doesn't have -- be it epilepsy, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or merely the bout of pneumonia we've been told about.
But I don't have a problem with people chronicling and pointing out symptomatic things like her coughing spells -- particularly when it would appear that these are something beyond the routine frog-in-the-throat. A lot of people have been giving a lot of crap to Alex Jones and Drudge recently. But, clearly, those guys have been at least somewhat vindicated with this recent development. I certainly can't say that I've followed everything they've said -- if they've gone so far as to speculate about a diagnosis, then I won't defend that.
But, still, they were tracking a story that the regular media was not only leaving alone, but was scoffing at those who weren't.
