Clinton reportedly has ‘medical episode’ at 9/11 ceremony

[Cardinal]

Up until this incident I pretty much ignored the "stairgate" incident, the seizure ruckus and the coughing spells. This incident is one that put me firmly on the suspicious side of the issue. It happened and the story changed several times, as usual with the Clintons. She has a long history of lying. Her husband has a long history of lying. After so many lies, regardless of who it is, I get to the point where I perceive everything they say as suspect. The factors this time they put out too many versions of the incident. I also think that Bill screwed up and slipped this morning on CBS. If it was a screw up he didn't cover it very well.

Regardless of your perception of their lying this is all just a narrative created by obsessively honing in on a specific issue. If you look hard enough for demonstrations of illness (significant or not) you will find it. If you predict that someone will be sick, you will be right. And the reason is because, though we often joke about Clinton being a cyborg, she is in fact a human being, just like George Bush was when he got the flu and threw up on the Japanese prime minister.

As I've said throughout this thread and which nobody is thrilled about actually addressing, if a news crew followed you around for a couple years and compiled every instance of you coughing or losing your balance, the perception could easily be created that you had a week to live, if that.

 

[bubbabgone]

That is what I'm told, thats what you told me, that what you said....I'm weary, you are the clinician, you made yer diagnosis with yer powers of perception.....who am I to argue, yer omnipresent.
It doesn't take much defending.....when you can't produce anything to support yer empty accusations.
Well, thats yer claim, it is entirely yer job to show whatever you got to make it stick, to defend yer position. Good luck, our resident omnipresent.

What are you challenging?
You doubt the Clintons' net worth?

The general consensus tends to put her somewhere in the middle, with Politico saying Clinton is worth about $32 million, and Forbes rating her at $45 million. Fortune, however, claims that the Clintons combined are worth $110 million.

What Is Hillary Clintons Net Worth Wealth
How did they make their many millions?
She was the only one who had a job.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What are you challenging?
You doubt the Clintons' net worth?

You have completely lost the trail, the argument was for you to show that the Clintons were making money from their charity. You questioned their SOURCES of income, now you have moved to their "net worth". Yer all over the place, you have lost whatever point you had, you don't even remember what point you were trying to prove........and you don't even know whay my original point was.

What Is Hillary Clintons Net Worth Wealth
How did they make their many millions?
She was the only one who had a job.

Since 2001, BC did not have a "job"? Really? Since the bulk of his income was from speaking engagements, since that time he was making the majority of their combined wealth.......he didn't have a "job".

OTAY!

Lemme know how any of this relates to my original point.....the one you forgot.....as you went down yer rabbit hole.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Regardless of your perception of their lying this is all just a narrative created by obsessively honing in on a specific issue. If you look hard enough for demonstrations of illness (significant or not) you will find it. If you predict that someone will be sick, you will be right. And the reason is because, though we often joke about Clinton being a cyborg, she is in fact a human being, just like George Bush was when he got the flu and threw up on the Japanese prime minister.

As I've said throughout this thread and which nobody is thrilled about actually addressing, if a news crew followed you around for a couple years and compiled every instance of you coughing or losing your balance, the perception could easily be created that you had a week to live, if that.

I understand what you are saying. I also even agree, to some degree with what you are saying. I am just basing my skepticism on issues that give me reason not to believe anything she says.

Let's just stick to this one issue and forget my reasons for not believing her. She passed out, collapsed, whatever. The press got wind of it. There was an immediate response from a good amount of the press to cover for Clinton by fabricating possible explanations. The Clinton staff didn't help this situation by ignoring it. They finally came out with a response that she was over heated. The next day they finally stated that it was pneumonia. After that Bill said Hillary had the flu. The next day he came out with his explanation. His explanation "Frequently — well, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing’s happened to her when she got severely dehydrated". What? Frequently, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion over the last many many years, all in one sentence? What does that even mean?

In that short span there are at least three different stories and differing intervals that this has happened. How could I not question it? How can a person NOT question that something is screwed up?

 

[matchlight]

I understand what you are saying. I also even agree, to some degree with what you are saying. I am just basing my skepticism on issues that give me reason not to believe anything she says.

Let's just stick to this one issue and forget my reasons for not believing her. She passed out, collapsed, whatever. The press got wind of it. There was an immediate response from a good amount of the press to cover for Clinton by fabricating possible explanations. The Clinton staff didn't help this situation by ignoring it. They finally came out with a response that she was over heated. The next day they finally stated that it was pneumonia. After that Bill said Hillary had the flu. The next day he came out with his explanation. His explanation "Frequently — well, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing’s happened to her when she got severely dehydrated". What? Frequently, not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion over the last many many years, all in one sentence? What does that even mean?

In that short span there are at least three different stories and differing intervals that this has happened. How could I not question it? How can a person NOT question that something is screwed up?

What the meaning of our impeached ex-President's statement is depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. The Horny Hick's gobbledygook was just what's to be expected when one damned liar tries to cover the hind end of another damned liar.

 

[Peter King]

I won't follow you very far off the topic of this thread, but the waterboarding technique the Defense Department approved for use, and which was used in 2002-2003 to get vital information about Al Qaeda from three jihadist murderers, is not torture under any applicable U.S. law. In fact it is almost identical to the waterboarding technique the U.S. has carried out on thousands of its own servicemen as part of their survival training, designed to give them some idea of what they might be exposed to if captured. The assertion that this form of waterboarding constitutes torture, which almost never appears supported by any legal facts, is a staple of anti-American propaganda.

OK, I am also not going to go off topic any further too but the definition of what torture is, is the one used/given by the Red Cross/Geneva convention and the US has signed that convention and thus is held to it by international law.

Thank goodness the 2 candidates do not get waterboarded before coming president because that would be really unhealthy for people of their age.

 

[Peter King]

Not torture, and it's something we used on our own troops during training.

Watching that European pastime known in the US as soccer... How they flail around after being touched equivalent to the force of a fly landing on their skin... Cutting someone's finger nails would be considered torture by Euers.

It is not smart to discuss sports because usually those discussions do not end well

What is obvious is that neither of the 2 candidates is that athletic at this time of their life.

 

[bubbabgone]

You have completely lost the trail, the argument was for you to show that the Clintons were making money from their charity. You questioned their SOURCES of income, now you have moved to their "net worth". Yer all over the place, you have lost whatever point you had, you don't even remember what point you were trying to prove........and you don't even know whay my original point was.

Since 2001, BC did not have a "job"? Really? Since the bulk of his income was from speaking engagements, since that time he was making the majority of their combined wealth.......he didn't have a "job".

OTAY!

Lemme know how any of this relates to my original point.....the one you forgot.....as you went down yer rabbit hole.

I was trying to lead you to discover the answer for yourself since it's more rewarding for you that way.
btw - Speeches are sources of income but they don't constitute a job unless that's your profession.

Bill wasn't a professional speaker any more than Hillary.
But they both made a ton speaking to people who could do them some good. e.g. Wall Street Bankers

Hey did you hear about Colin Powell's email complaining about how he lost a speaking gig because the sponsor already had paid too much to Hillary and they didn't have enough for Colin.
He didn't get the gig, but you wouldn't say Powell's job is that of a speaker would you? Especially after Hillary milked the sponsor dry.

But since you brought it up - actually I brought it up earlier and you avoided it - Bill's exorbitant speaking fees often went hand in hand with Foundation donations and Hillary's party favors she passed out to the donors before and after those speeches and donations. So in that way Bill made a lot of money using the Foundation ... not directly FROM the Foundation.
Those people are professional scam artists ... the good ones are subtle.

So you don't think over $200 million in 10 years is a lot to make by speaking?

 

[matchlight]

the definition of what torture is, is the one used/given by the Red Cross/Geneva convention and the US has signed that convention and thus is held to it by international law.

All you are saying is that the definition of torture which you think applies to the waterboarding technique used by U.S. officials is the one used by the International Red Cross. But the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel who studied this question in great detail--and they are the best of the best in the Justice Department--concluded that that technique did not constitute torture under any applicable law. I have studied their memorandums pretty carefully, and I agree with that conclusion.

The Geneva Conventions are treaties. The U.S. is bound by only such terms of those or any other treaties which it has agreed to; which the Senate has ratified; and which have then either been codified as U.S. law or have in effect become U.S. law by usage. No U.S. official answers to any foreign authority in the conduct of military affairs--only the laws of the U.S. apply. As I said earlier, U.S. negotiators agreed with most of the terms of the 1994 Convention Against Torture, but not all of them. The terms it agreed to are codified in section 2340 of the U.S. Code.

As to Mrs. Clinton's medical condition, the fact she is a flagrant and habitual liar does not work to her advantage on this issue. The shameless lies she has told during her career form a long catalogue, and now she is trying to deceive the American people about her health. But they have already seen enough that she's out of chances. One more public show of physical affliction during the next six weeks, and she will be finished.

 

[Anthony60]

Waterboarding Is Torture, Says International Red Cross - WSJ

It is torture as the red cross, the overseers of the Geneva treaty have clearly determined/stated so to claim it is not torture is untrue.

And sorry, I don't want to use the same techniques that ISIS uses because that kind of defeats our purpose if fighting the evildoers.

That is so meaningless. So, it became torture in 2014 because the Red Cross says so? I really don't care if they consider it torture or not, it certainly is not in the same league as throwing people off roof tops and cutting fingers off.

 

[Anthony60]

A choir boy compared to Hillary's lies. Holy craphola, that is the problem with people living in the bubble (both democratic bubble and especially conservative bubble) is that they cannot see the lies their own candidate tells. And in the case of Trump he tells a lot of lies all of the time and he repeats those lies and doubles down on those lies all of the time. The man is a lie machine and he is a successful leader? Yeah, by stealing, ripping off, defrauding, not paying, bankrupting, etc. etc. etc. and as he is too much of a coward to release his tax returns we do not know that he is successful at all. He would be an unmitigated disaster as president. Hillary would be less of a disaster because she at least as a bit of potential to do the right thing and lead a semi-open and semi-honest government. Two things I very much doubt crooked Trump would be able to do.

Oh, you hold Hillary in much to high regard. Trump might be able to do some good, get the economy going, appoint competent judges that will follow the Constitution. We know Hillary will do none of that. Especially the judges. We will get judges that actively circumvent and ignore the Constitution, which protects me from the government. No thanks!

 

[Peter King]

That is so meaningless. So, it became torture in 2014 because the Red Cross says so? I really don't care if they consider it torture or not, it certainly is not in the same league as throwing people off roof tops and cutting fingers off.

Nope. it is always been torture but if you do not care about things like that (as the Bush administration did) most things are allowed, no matter the legality.

 

[Peter King]

Oh, you hold Hillary in much to high regard. Trump might be able to do some good, get the economy going, appoint competent judges that will follow the Constitution. We know Hillary will do none of that. Especially the judges. We will get judges that actively circumvent and ignore the Constitution, which protects me from the government. No thanks!

:roll: You seem to have reading difficulties if you claim that I hold Hillary in high regard. Or you are just writing things that are untrue to make the embarrassment that the republicans have chosen as their candidate seem less embarrassing, sorry, but that is not going to work because no matter how much you malign Hillary Clinton, the worst democratic candidate of the last 25 years or so, she still is better than the thieving, crooked, fraudulent, corrupt, incompetent, lying, sexist, racially insensitive, dead beat, arrogant, pathetic bully like Donald fake republican Trump.

 

[Excon]

No your opinions about a medical professional are very negative without any justification.

Wrong.
She claimed it was something it could not be. Do you really not understand that?

You cannot prove she lied because you do not have access to the test results or the medical data that this doctor had access too.

Wrong again. I do not need access to those to judge the words she herself used. There is no such thing as what she said.

Holy crap, what an irrational statement, of course he should release a proper medical summation of his medical history.

There you go showing that irrationality we previously spoke about.

Neither candidate is required to release such information. Period.

Hillary releasing them is predicated on the perception the voters have of her health because of what she herself has released and displayed of it in public.
Trump has no such issues has has not generated a need to release them.
So stop with the absurdly silly irrationality.

The man is even more untrustworthy as Clinton.

He refuses to release his medical information

iLOL Irrelevant irrational nonsense.
He has no need to release anything in regards to his health, but as we already know he played everybody again and provided health information to Dr.Oz. iLOL

and he clearly is too scared to release his tax returns because than everybody can see he is not as rich as he claims and that he is every bit as shady as people suspect of him.

Oh look, more irrelevant irrational nonsense.
Stop making crap up to believe.
He said they will be released when the audit is over. Period.

The man is a thief, crook, swindler and an idiot, pure and simple. Clinton might not be trustworthy either but compared to Trump she is much more trustworthy because she does not have to hide behind a clown doctor and at least she is honest enough to release her tax returns.

And then I am not even talking about him playing the big charity giver with other people's money. More evidence that he is morally bankrupt, at least the Clintons (who make much less money than Trump) give a sizeable portion of their income to charity.

Oh look, just more irrelevant irrational nonsense.

---

Except for the fact that he said he would.....whenever he felt like it.

Whenever he felt like it? That is not what he said. What you just engaged in is nothing more than irrationally biased spin.
He clearly said when the time is appropriate.

any POTUS candidate, especially those older ones, need to release their medical history.

There is no "need" for any such thing.
You may desire that, but that is all it is, a desire.

 

[Mr Person]

To us laymen without a doctor's degree, it seems reasonable to be suspicious of the pneumonia thing. Especially since it was floated after the initial diagnosis, the dehydration diagnosis, was quickly replaced with the pneumonia diagnosis 2 days after the diagnosis. Couple that with the trip to Chelsea's apartment rather than the hospital, along with previous similar incidents. Your correct. No reason to be even slightly suspicious.

Well, we know she makes some irresponsible decisions. I find it entirely believable that she would incorrectly conclude that hiding the illness and soldiering through would produce a better result. ("See, I'm healthy!" etc.)

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I was trying to lead you to discover the answer for yourself since it's more rewarding for you that way.

No, this is how the game goes, you make a claim, you are challenged, if you can't come up with the goods, yer SOL.

btw - Speeches are sources of income but they don't constitute a job unless that's your profession.

Oh, OKAY, you are the authority on defining "job".

Bill wasn't a professional speaker any more than Hillary.

Cool, now you get to define "professional".

But they both made a ton speaking to people who could do them some good. e.g. Wall Street Bankers

"Some good"=paying their speaking fees, ie, getting paid in exchange for providing a service, ie, a job.

Hey did you hear about Colin Powell's email complaining about how he lost a speaking gig because the sponsor already had paid too much to Hillary and they didn't have enough for Colin.
He didn't get the gig, but you wouldn't say Powell's job is that of a speaker would you? Especially after Hillary milked the sponsor dry.

Cool story bro.

But since you brought it up - actually I brought it up earlier and you avoided it - Bill's exorbitant speaking fees often went hand in hand with Foundation donations and Hillary's party favors she passed out to the donors before and after those speeches and donations. So in that way Bill made a lot of money using the Foundation ... not directly FROM the Foundation.

And here you are again, talking a lot.....without the goods.....so yer SOL again.

Those people are professional scam artists ... the good ones are subtle.

And now we learn that yer an expert on "artists" too.

So you don't think over $200 million in 10 years is a lot to make by speaking?

See now, yer just further exposing that you are completely clueless on their income sources since 2001.....and yer not even sticking to your original timeline.

When you have the goods, drop me a line.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, this is how the game goes, you make a claim, you are challenged, if you can't come up with the goods, yer SOL.

Oh, OKAY, you are the authority on defining "job".

Cool, now you get to define "professional".
"Some good"=paying their speaking fees, ie, getting paid in exchange for providing a service, ie, a job.

Cool story bro.

And here you are again, talking a lot.....without the goods.....so yer SOL again.
And now we learn that yer an expert on "artists" too.

See now, yer just further exposing that you are completely clueless on their income sources since 2001.....and yer not even sticking to your original timeline.

When you have the goods, drop me a line.

It would have been helpful if at the start you had indicated you had no intention of being receptive to uncomfortable information.
Could have saved you & me some time.
So given your absence of good will, troll on, my friend ... troll on.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, we know she makes some irresponsible decisions. I find it entirely believable that she would incorrectly conclude that hiding the illness and soldiering through would produce a better result. ("See, I'm healthy!" etc.)

You'da thought she'd at least tell her running-mate what the plan was.
Putting the best face on it I guess you could say maybe she figured making him lie so early and so big in their partnership would be kind of gauche.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It would have been helpful if at the start you had indicated you had no intention of being receptive to uncomfortable information.
Could have saved you & me some time.
So given your absence of good will, troll on, my friend ... troll on.

This is classic, "I don't have to document my claims, I don't have to back my arguments, and if you ask for proof.....I get to call you a troll"..

Yer argument process.....is pathetic.

 

[Quazimodo]

Dr. Bennet Omalu says Hillary is being poisoned by Trump and Putin. I wonder if he is a Board Certified Witch Doctor?

 

[Mr Person]

You'da thought she'd at least tell her running-mate what the plan was.
Putting the best face on it I guess you could say maybe she figured making him lie so early and so big in their partnership would be kind of gauche.

When I was more young and reckless, I'd probably have tried to push through anyway. But at her age? Pretty poor judgment.


The sad thing is that Trump is still miles worse.

 

[Peter King]

Wrong.
She claimed it was something it could not be. Do you really not understand that?

Nope, you are claiming things you know nothing about. if she has had test results that she was no longer contagious than that is possible. Can you provide medical data from Hillary's medical file that proves she was still contagious when the doctor said she was not? I don't think so, so all you are doing is parroting opinions from people who have no access to Hillary's medical data and are just giving an general opinion based on their opinions (and not on medical data).

Wrong again. I do not need access to those to judge the words she herself used. There is no such thing as what she said.

more opinions based on other people's opinions rather than on the medical data/information her doctor had. You are just repeating things you cannot prove. Now sure I cannot prove it either because I also do not have access to that data so in lieu of evidence to the contrary I am going to accept the opinion of the only person who had access to Hillary's medical data.

There you go showing that irrationality we previously spoke about.

Neither candidate is required to release such information. Period.

No, the only irrational person who keeps on using the word irrational time and time again would be you. Trump is an old geezer and people have the right to know if he is going to be healthy enough to be president. You may not feel it is required but for an old overweight unhealthy food eating orange terror, the people have the right know if he is healthy. You may disagree with but that is an irrational position to hold when looking at Trump's age, his unhealthy lifestyle and his anger issues.

Hillary releasing them is predicated on the perception the voters have of her health because of what she herself has released and displayed of it in public.
Trump has no such issues has has not generated a need to release them.
So stop with the absurdly silly irrationality.

No, it is based on countless lies about her health from conspiracy nutters and the Trump surrogate liars like Rudy "committing war crimes is totally OK" G.

Trump has a lot of issues, fat, old, unhealthy eating habits, anger issues, unhealthy color, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But where Hillary is being accused of being secretive, the one who is really the secretive person is Trump.

iLOL Irrelevant irrational nonsense.
He has no need to release anything in regards to his health, but as we already know he played everybody again and provided health information to Dr.Oz. iLOL

The man who does not want to release his taxes or his general health description. Rather than that the crook goes to the fraud that is called Doc Oz. Trump is and remains a fake TV personality. :lamo Dr. Oz, yeah, really trustworhty.

Oh look, more irrelevant irrational nonsense.
Stop making crap up to believe.
He said they will be released when the audit is over. Period.

No, his son has confessed/told that he will not release them even after the audit. Also, there are loads of years that are not under audit. More lies from the biggest crook in politics today, Donald "Just lies and more Lies" Trump.

Oh look, just more irrelevant irrational nonsense.

And again a response without actually responding, good work but it still does not disprove any of what I said about the thief that is Donald "Just not pay his bills" Trump

 

[Excon]

Nope, you are claiming things you know nothing about. if she has had test results that she was no longer contagious than that is possible. Can you provide medical data from Hillary's medical file that proves she was still contagious when the doctor said she was not? I don't think so, so all you are doing is parroting opinions from people who have no access to Hillary's medical data and are just giving an general opinion based on their opinions (and not on medical data).



more opinions based on other people's opinions rather than on the medical data/information her doctor had. You are just repeating things you cannot prove. Now sure I cannot prove it either because I also do not have access to that data so in lieu of evidence to the contrary I am going to accept the opinion of the only person who had access to Hillary's medical data.



No, the only irrational person who keeps on using the word irrational time and time again would be you. Trump is an old geezer and people have the right to know if he is going to be healthy enough to be president. You may not feel it is required but for an old overweight unhealthy food eating orange terror, the people have the right know if he is healthy. You may disagree with but that is an irrational position to hold when looking at Trump's age, his unhealthy lifestyle and his anger issues.



No, it is based on countless lies about her health from conspiracy nutters and the Trump surrogate liars like Rudy "committing war crimes is totally OK" G.

Trump has a lot of issues, fat, old, unhealthy eating habits, anger issues, unhealthy color, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But where Hillary is being accused of being secretive, the one who is really the secretive person is Trump.



The man who does not want to release his taxes or his general health description. Rather than that the crook goes to the fraud that is called Doc Oz. Trump is and remains a fake TV personality. :lamo Dr. Oz, yeah, really trustworhty.



No, his son has confessed/told that he will not release them even after the audit. Also, there are loads of years that are not under audit. More lies from the biggest crook in politics today, Donald "Just lies and more Lies" Trump.



And again a response without actually responding, good work but it still does not disprove any of what I said about the thief that is Donald "Just not pay his bills" Trump

And again you provide a wall of irrational opinion and it is dismissed as such.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

You know what lying through sampling error is? Catch every cough and clearing of the throat on video, compile it, and falsely create a "she's gonna die!" narrative. If the same was done to you it would give the perception that you had a week to live.

Also, love the anonymous witness story. This narrative is bull**** and I'm pretty sure you know that it's bull****.

Deny, deny, and deny some more.

I am amazed at the lengths Hillary supporters will go to in their denial of what is right in their face as a factual truth.

IT REALLY HAPPENED!

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I guess we will all just have to see. But the "basket of deplorables" was a hideous mistake on Clinton's part...and definitely an unforced error for which I believe she will pay dearly.

Insulting Trump supporters as often as possible seems to be a popular activity for many besides Hillary.

Their actions will be met with similar results as those of Hillary's.