Dr. Drew "Gravely Concerned" About Hillary's Health & 1950's Care [audio]
Board-certified medicine specialist and TV personality Dr. Drew Pinsky says he is "gravely concerned" about Hillary Clinton's health, noting that the treatment she has received is "bizarre" and could explain the "weird side-effects" that people are seeing.
For a more detailed description, listen to this short 3 minute audio recording: [video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRtdA1w7AAQ]
“...based on the information the information that she has provided, her doctors have provided, we were gravely concerned, not just about her health, but about her health care.”
“...she is receiving 1950’s level care, by our evaluation...”
Not being a medical professional, knowing nothing at all about this subject, I cannot add anything to this discussion, however Hillary's health has been a growing concern and several well researched essays have discussed this at great length:
Comments
TV or radio Dr, not weighing in.
Synthroid is common for hypothyroidism. For the past 20+years? I have had a dog and a mother on synthroid. Dunno, too many angles here.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I respect Dr. Drew for his work on addiction
But his comments here are very weird.
First of all, I'm not sure what sort of 'ism' to attribute to his slam about Arkansas (regionalism, perhaps?), but I'm pretty sure there are some very fine physicians there. I grew up on the Left Coast, so I've been ignorant of the South and it's ways, but I have lived for a couple years in Alabama, and health care someone close to me got at UAB was much more professional and SAFER than care I've received at UCLA (and they have MUCH more capacity than is available currently in Austin where I currently reside, although to be fair, Austin's med school is just taking it's first class of students this month - before the new school, Austin has not been known as a medical mecca - Birmingham, however does have that well-earned distinction in Alabama).
Had Clinton been getting care in Arkansas, I'm sure it would be from top doctors. But, as we know, she's getting her care in New York. So, that comment about Arkansas was just a throw away by Pinsky and quite unprofessional. Frankly, it was an expression of bigotry.
Second, Armour thyroid. I've been on the newer-fangled thyroid medicine, synthroid, and it didn't work for me. We're getting MUCH better help from that drug they used in the 1960s since I've been on it for about 6 months now. I have been on Coumadin/warfarin for over 20 years and have had multiple, life-threatening issues with both bleeding and clotting. If there were a HINT of Armour causing those issues, they would not have let me near the drug with a ten-foot pole. My blood tests to monitor warfarin since I've been on Armour have been in the normal range. I have started other drugs where this was not the case - I know what that's like. Believe me, if there were an issue, I'd have bumped into it, I've been a magnet for such trouble.
Third, the following comment is from a physician who doesn't mind being quoted w/o attribution about the Pinsky comment - was having a convo about Pinsky's comments yesterday:
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
These are very, very common disagreements; except one
It's quite common for doctors to disagree about the utility of old-style vs newfangled treatments. I hear it all the time. Many are like Drew; what they use is "modern," everything else is outdated. Others feel newer drugs are oversold and poorly vetted. Neither side is crazy, they just disagree.
For instance, there's a big group of hypothyroid patients now who organize online to demand more access to Armour. Some patients do quite well on Synthroid, the most common drug. It provides T4, which your body converts to the active T3 thyroid hormone that actually does the work. However, many patients are convinced they do better receiving both T3 and T4 combined, which is what's in Armour. Armour is also more 'natural," since it's made from desiccated pig thyroid.
There are strong points of view on both sides, but neither is crazy. Either could prove right after more research a few years from now.
The one point Drew makes that's unassailable--Hillary's brain damage was serious. It might be all better now, but people don't even seem aware of it, and they should be.
Dessicated pig thyroid.
Nice way to utilize the entire animal, but what else are you getting with your pig T3 and T4? It's not like feedlot porkers enjoy a privileged life gnashing on the finest Whole Foods organics. You are what you eat is true of all creatures.
I'd choose synthetic before I went with a pig derivative, and not just because I practice a vegan diet. My SO has been doing fine for many years on the synthetic version, but I do understand that is not universally true for all others who need help with hypothyroid conditions.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
Most people eat bacon. I do.
The thyroid is just another part of the pig.
It's a known fact that the what-are-you-getting question really applies to the synthetic thyroid substitutes, not to Armour. The FDA lowered the boom a couple of years ago because all of the leading manufacturers were producing sheer crap with wildly varying amounts of T4. They've cleaned up a little but even today docs do not like you to just switch brands, because the dosage and filler and effects are so different. They shouldn't be, it's just Upton Sinclair level manufacturing malfeasance.
Snythroid here for years
I have Hashimoto's Disease and take fairly large doses of Synthroid daily - not generic, brand name. My doctors have not wanted me to use Armour as they felt they could control the T4 more accurately with the Synthroid. Works for me. My father (about to turn 87) has been taking the old Armour thyroid med for well over 50 years with no issues, and no reason to change. We'll all different.
Thank you for the feedback...
Thank you for the feedback from a medical professional whom you trust and from your own personal experience. Given all of the lies, cover-ups, and outright corruption we've seen from Hillary, the DNC, and Hillary's Clinton Foundation criminal / fraudulent activities, and given her track record over the past 18 months of hiding from the both the press and general public, everything that is officially reported about her health I find entirely suspect. That being said, a flawed medical assessment of officially reported facts does not help in our layman's analysis.
I would however like to stress that I did not interpret Dr. Drew's comment about Hillary's Doctor to necessarily or simply be a "slam about Arkansas physicians," although that most certainly is the main notion Dr. Drew seems to be suggesting, rather, I took it to ALSO or maybe far more importantly be suggesting (to me, at least) the notion that Hillary has chosen to continue using her family Doctor "friend" from Arkansas because he can be "trusted" to hide, and quite frankly, lie about the full true facts about Hillary's failing health. And anyone who suggests that ascertaining Hillary's true full health (i.e.: separating fact from fiction) is not only of paramount importance, but actually the most critical of discussions, given the gravity and stress of the CiC-USAF's responsibilities, is outright lying, and further to the point, they are doing this nation and humanity a profound disservice.
With the multiple rather troubling video clips of her, I don't trust a single thing she says on any issue, much less, anything her doctor says about her health. And given what we know of Hillary, only a fool would doubt that she would pay her Doctor to "doctor" her official medical report. Hence, as far as I am concerned, the rumors, conjectures, and educated speculations, all have merit to me and are worthy of consideration given the gravity and weight of the position --- Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces (CiC-USAF). I think it would be irresponsible of us, as citizens, to not consider and openly discuss all the possibilities, given the decisions of the President of the United States (POTUS) could directly affect the life and death of millions, if not billions.
I have said this during the primary and I will say this again now.
Hillary Clinton has never been vetted. NEVER. Fact is, she has been hiding within a well crafted insulated media bubble with a scripted narrative for decades, actually, forever.
She has been hiding.
And is she still hiding during the 2016 Presidential General Election because of poor health or is she now hiding because of poor ethics? My guess is BOTH.
And, the longer Hillary does hide from doing regular "full court" Press Conferences, (which Hillary has not done in over 250 days, and which Trump has been doing almost weekly since the beginning of his campaign) and the longer Hillary hides from the General Public (even canceling 3 or 4 of the scarce few open rallies she had scheduled since the convention, while Trump is doing almost daily or sometimes even twice a day), the more I absolutely do believe Hillary's health is a major issue, again, no matter what her Doctor "officially" reports.
The CiC-USAF is the most stressful job on the planet, bar none, and as such, if Hillary is hiding from the Press/Public, I must believe she does have a severe crippling health issue, a health issue that would prevent her from performing her primary duty as POTUS CiC-USAF. Mere public appearances should be trivial compared to the demands of being on-call 24/7 as POTUS. This is the only reliable information we have on Hillary's health, and thus THE ONLY reliable way to vet her ability to physically handle the demanding rigor and duress of the job. Would we appoint a General or an Admiral to command the US Military, if he or she had a crippling medical condition? Obviously not. Hillary's trustworthiness and qualifications to be POTUS are critical questions, no doubt, but what is even more critical is whether or not she is even physically capable of doing the job, and given her absence from the public light, I must conclude that whatever health issues she is suffering from, they do disqualify her. If Hillary cannot conduct a rigorous political campaign in full public light, then she cannot handle being the POTUS and CiC-USAF.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
We have not needed a Commander in Chief since...
... the early 1800s when we first had a standing army.
The US Constitution has this to say about CiC:
NB: a president must be ASKED to lead the military forces IN PERSON - not sit behind a desk and give orders. ONLY Congress can declare war and provide monies to pay for war (See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11, ad passim). It was only necessary then because we did NOT have a standing army when the US Constitution was signed.
The only time I know of when a CiC was ASKED to lead a military force AFTER he was elected is 1791 when Washington went IN PERSON to lead the militias to fight the Whiskey Rebellion.
After we got a standing military in the early 1800s the CiC function was obsolete and unnecessary. The US Congress has power over the military. Period.
Politicians ignored the CiC title for a couple of hundred years..., until Dumbya, the AWOL pretzelnitwit..., fell in love with himself as Captain Codpiece and constantly referred to himself as the Commander in Chief..., because he wanted to be remembered as a war president. Obama has referred to himself as CiC..., and even $Hillary has mentioned (starting with the second "debate" that we "elect a Commander in Chief." NO, we do NOT "elect a Commander in Chief;" our political "leaders" do not consist of a military junta.
The AUMFs Congress passed under Bush I and under pressure from Dumbya and Dickie, and which Obama has used since to claim authority to start wars are unconstitutional. There is no provision in the US Constitution to transfer war powers (to go to war against little fanatical guerrilla gangs, no less) to another branch of government, least of all a president. The AUMFs need to be repealed in full on the basis that they ARE unconstitutional.
At best, the Commander in Chief title is ceremonial now. It does not come with any power or authority since we began to have a standing military force since there is now no reason for Congress to ASK a president to lead our military IN PERSON.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
You are quoting broad stroke text to imply meanings
that are entirely misleading, with the clear intent to deny the weight of the day-to-day real life 24/7 role and responsibility of the office of the Presidency.
Who do you think you are fooling with this spin?
Who do you want to fool with this spin?
And let's be clear, this is war time. We have been engaged in war for what, 15 years? ... Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and who could forget Hillary's delightful (and so very worthy of a chuckle) "military intervention" in Libya, (aka "WAR"):
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM]
And what new War will Hillary, the known WARMONGER, with her oh so trusted advisor, Henry Kissinger, get us in to next?
And who can forget Hillary's ominous 3 AM Phone Call Ads?
Before you peddle this spin again, please watch:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg]
Sounds to me like Hillary is selling herself as the most qualified to be the CinC USAF. Yeah, I am almost speechless that you would dare to suggest that "At best, the Commander in Chief title is ceremonial now. " Please do not do this again. Please. It is very dishonest, deeply offensive, and deeply wrong, because it puts the very survival of our species at risk --- it puts our survival in the hands of someone who, evidence suggests, has a crippling debilitating illness. You are denying the weight of the decisions and the necessary presence of mind that guides and directly affects the very life and possible death of millions, if not billions, and the constant 24/7 stress from that responsibility, discounting the weight of dealing with, responding to, preparing for, strategically avoiding, or tactically counteracting, threats foreign and domestic.
To put it bluntly, your quotes mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when contrasted with this real life image and the weight of the office of the "CinC-USAF" and the Military Command Decision that go along with it, over the days/ weeks/ months/ years behind this moment:
And isn't Hillary's expression so very fatefully telling?
...and NOT in a good way!
Yeah, Hillary is prepared to be CinC-USAF, sure she is... in her effin' dreams, or rather, in our nightmare.... or living hell. I would seriously laugh, if the stakes were not so very high and the consequences so very dire.
TO WIT:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCOv7C9g7xo]
And you would dare to use this spin to effectively suggest that someone who has a crippling illness can perform the job of POTUS CinC USAF? Seriously? Do you understand the gravity of what you are suggesting? Do you? Your spin attempting to deny and discount the weight of the office of the Presidency as CinC USAF is doing this nation and humanity itself a profound disservice.
If Hillary does not even have the physical stamina to conduct a proper President Election Campaign, needing to hide from both the Press and the General Public, then she is not physically capable to be the POTUS - CinC USAF and yes, the job absolutely does include Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces --- in both substance and form, whether it is from behind a desk, or from a bed, the "buck" of the command decisions begin with, and end with, the President of the United States of America. This is the first thought when they wake up, and this is the last thought when the go to sleep, and if it is not, then they should be FIRED.
THIS IS A FACT THAT IS BEYOND DISPUTE AND I AM, QUITE FRANKLY, SHOCKED AND APPALLED THAT YOU WOULD DARE SUGGEST OTHERWISE.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
So here's Donald Trump. Not someone's interpretation,
his own words:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1eXRXL0nkk width:500]
Heaven forbid we should be "politically correct" and concerned about collateral damage - that's just their families, go ahead and hit them hard.
So you have the sociopath versus the psychopath. What is your solution?
We are far from knowing that Hillary "has a crippling illness".
Please don't attack NonnyO like that. I think she's mistaken and you're correct on this point: The CiC doesn't have to physically lead the troops in battle to be CiC and make the big decisions. But let's try to have a better attitude here than they do over at TOP. Just attack the facts, not the person.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thank you, elencarlena....
To be frank, I couldn't understand most of sensetolisten's various tangents, so ignored it.
I will just point out what the US Constitution says about the CiC role (and it is ONLY mentioned once in the entire document; Article I is quite explicit that Congress has control of the military and the president has nothing to do with it except in one specific instance):
That means Congress does not have to ask a president to personally lead militias (and that's all we had at the time the US Constitution was written since the Continental Army had been disbanded by then). With the lack of knowledge of American history, "journalists" in Moronic Media were completely bamboozled when Dumbya fell in love with the CiC title and didn't bother to do the research into what it meant, find out that it holds no more power since we now have a standing military, or find out that a president must be ASKED to lead militias (military forces, nowadays, one might think).
There is NO Article I provision to transfer the congressional control of the US military to a president (or anyone else).
On a personal note, the honorable discharge of one of my ancestors who served some six years and several months in the Revolutionary War was signed at Newburgh in June 1783 by 'G. Washington' himself while waiting for the ship to arrive from France with the signed Treaty of Paris AND, more importantly, money to pay the soldiers who had not been paid in ages. I have copies of my ancestor's muster rolls from the Valley Forge winter of 1777-78, there's an online map of where their regiment was stationed at Valley Forge, a list of the battles in which he fought (I'm amazed he was not injured or wasn't killed) from his pension application, and copies of the paper authorizing official furlough for the troops at Newburgh until the ship came, as well as a copy of the honorable discharge for my ancestor (yes, I verified the signature).
History at the time the US Constitution was written takes on a whole 'nuther meaning when one gets into the nitty gritty of finding out precisely where one's ancestors were during and after the Revolutionary War, altho incidental to that is researching what the Continental Congress was doing when they wrote the document and what they meant in terms of life in their day. The document could still work IF we went back to the basics of what it says. The big problem now is that we are a fucking warmongering nation since Dumbya was installed as pResident on 12 December 2000, and we haven't even gotten back to basics. Many things written in the US Constitution & Bill of Rights have been violated beyond recognition since then, most notably the separation of church and state provisions (the office of faith-based initiatives' is a toe in the door to a government-mandated religion which is antithetical to the opening words of the First Amendment), and our rights were taken away and have still not officially been returned to us (Patriot Act Section 215, MCA '06, FISA '08, MCA '09), and since Al Qaeda was only a fanatic little gang of guerrillas who represented no one but themselves and were not part of any nation's army, no official declaration of war could be made..., hence the unconstitutional AUMFs. The invasion of Iraq violated every treaty passed, and that officially made us war criminals as a whole for initiating an aggressive war, not just for torture.
We desperately need to get back to some semblance of a law-abiding and constitution-abiding nation again, and for that we need to start with historical basics.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
I will grant you your historical accuracy, but as you note, we
are no longer abiding by the Constitution. Fact is, Presidents will conduct hostilities pretty much anywhere they like and Congress will not stop them. In fact, Congress would go further. http://townhall.com/columnists/briandarling/2016/01/26/mcconnells-author... (Warning - RW site - but they seem correct on this):
Here's McConnell's bill, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/29 Note the President would be able to fight against ISIL, anyone associated, "and any successor organizations". Where does it end?
So how warmongering the President is, is a huge deal. Whether CiC is the accurate or legal term, they act that way (more or less) by issuing orders from the safety of the White House.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I have said many, many times over the years...
... that the AUMFs are unconstitutional and illegal. In reading the entire US Constitution, there is NO provision to transfer the power of one branch of government to another. The US Congress cannot transfer their war powers to a president; that would make him (or her) a dictator. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11, ad passim, provides for congressional power over the military (even if the only military extant at the time was militias which had existed since the Mayflower landed, but they were anticipating future plans for a standing military; many of my ancestors are listed on the Able to Bear Arms lists)..., and there simply are no clauses for the legislative branch to transfer any of their powers to the executive branch, whether it be war powers, the absolute authority of civilian legislative/congressional control of the military, or otherwise.
Starting in 1991 and the first Gulf War there arose the conundrum of fanatical guerrilla gangs who had no affiliation with any country, were/are not part of any country's military, are not a political force in any country, did not speak for or represent anyone except their own little criminal gangs, but their guerrilla warfare tactics were harming a lot of people and had to be stopped. Since they had nothing to do with any country, a legal declaration of war could not be made. Hence: AUMF as a "compromise" way of using US military forces to stop them - that AUMF had a limited time frame to it. It has always mystified me that the Mideast countries who have their own military forces and which receive billions in US military aid (guns, munitions, planes, missiles, etc.) just couldn't seem to manage to stop Al Qaeda. Why the fuck was it left up to the US military to go in and stop them?
Guerrilla warfare tactics have been used for millennia; the Celts in Gaul and Germania bedeviled Caesar's armies two thousand+ years ago, much to his frustration. The same tactics were employed to a lesser degree in Britain until the Boudiccan Rebellion.
Then, under Dumbya, the AUMF was more relaxed, lacked a time frame, and Dumbya & Dickie abused the original intent of the AUMF to switch directions and for false reasons did start a genuine war by invading a sovereign nation; that was a war crime in and of itself since aggressive wars are banned by treaties signed ages ago. The approval of torture, also forbidden by treaties unto which the US is a signatory, was a separate war crime..., and came with a separate issue of what to call the prisoners in Gitmo since we didn't have any legal wars going on and they could not legally be called Prisoners of War [POWs]. They became "detainees." [Don'tch love newspeak? /s] Remember, the Red Cross was furious that Dumbya wouldn't let them in to see if the prisoners were being treated humanely because they were not legally "Prisoners of War?" They finally relented and were able to go in to check out the detainees a time or two. Most of the civilized world was (still is) furious at the US for illegal wars and torture..., and worse: Obama continued the illegal and unconstitutional wars Dumbya started, when, in fact, a constitutional scholar should have stopped all of that within a month of taking the first oath of office. Adding insult to injury, Obama started his own drone bombing and violating laws and treaties less than a week after he took the first oath of office. And, of course, he used Dumbya's AUMFs as "authority" to do so.
The unconstitutional and illegal AUMFs need to be repealed in full..., as do the unconstitutional 'office of faith-based initiatives,' Patriot Act Section 215 which was passed two days after the rest of it was finally allowed to expire (Gee, thanks Senator Patrick Leahy! - NOT.), MCA '06, FISA '08, MCA '09 (the latter passed under Obama). We need our constitutional rights returned to us; they were illegally taken away from us in the first damned place. The only one who ever seemed to discuss these things was Keith Olbermann, particularly when he had Jonathan Turley on as his guest.
Yes..., I know. I keep repeating what I've been writing about and adding to with new indignities and illegal and unconstitutional actions for the last fifteen years.... Siiiiiiigh.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
Lisa Bardack, M.D. is a woman in New York
So, Dr. Drew doesn't seem to have been paying attention to facts, but rather to impressions when he made the Arkansas comment is the best sense I can make of it...
Have I misunderstood your response?
I had asked up thread (I think - it's somewhere here) how recently Clinton had had a full physical - looks like the last one was just before she announced her candidacy, and this statement does not say Bardack has seen her since that time:
I certainly agree Clinton has never been vetted. And I agree that her health doesn't appear to be up to the job - I don't care if we call it CIC or not. I think that's been used as a title to inflate significance militarily, but the truth is that it's stressful to be the 'leader of the free world' or whatever.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Digging down into the link, I found something interesting
Hillary returns to work next week. Look at the date of the report. Within two days HRC was not back at work, she once again was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis. Don't we all have crystal balls!?
Billy Boy claimed it took six months hard work for her to
complete her recovery.....
Since he's a Lying Liar who Lies, just like his wife, you can take that with as much salt as you think it needs.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Actually, I think you clicked through a second link
This one: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/politics/clinton-back-to-work/index.html
Site isn't registering my thumbs up for this comment.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Her private medical business is none of our concern.
Physicians who have actually treated her and know the actual details of her medical history have said that she is physically and mentally capable of serving. That should be enough.
Is there a neurological report?
It is my understanding that medical records released for Hillary are just about physical health.
And yes, her mental health is our concern. In fact, it's a very serious concern. We didn't vote for Nancy Reagan to be president but that's what we got during Ronnie's second term because of his Alzheimer's. We should have been told. For that matter, he should not have run at all. Instead we had astrologers running the country.
Disagree.
We've had at least 2 presidents who hid serious health issues from the public:
1) Grover Cleveland Alexander & surgery for cancer.
2) Woodrow Wilson's stroke.
You could possibly add JFK's Addison disease (especially given the rotten treatment he got). And then of course were the early symptoms of Reagan's alzheimers hidden from us?
Many people didn't know that FDR
couldn't walk unassisted. That seems so amazing to us now. But I didn't know that JFK had red hair until I saw him in person. Now we're all well acquainted with every zit, and think we deserve to be.
I suppose it was a big deal back then.
But my father had polio as a boy, and from as far back as I can remember he had to use a cane. Polio affects the muscles, not the brain (unless we're talking bulbar polio). You don't die from polio if it didn't kill you in the first place, and eventually having to use a wheelchair doesn't affect your reasoning.
Recurring blood clots could eventually affect your brain. Although, know that I think of it, didn't Nixon have blood clots in his leg? If so, another way he & Hillary are alike.
I didn't mean to infer that there was an issue
with the president having polio. I just find it amazing that few people knew. Both Reagan and Wilson had wives who ran the country for a period of time because of their spouses' disabilities.
Here's an interesting thought: What happens if Hillary wins and becomes unable to fulfill her job responsibilities? The constitution says the VP should take over, but as we saw with Reagan and Wilson, their spouses stepped in, and the public was unaware. Hillary's spouse, constitutionally, can't step in. But, we know the Clintons. Constitution, schmonstitution. They run the country like they own it. If she wins (it's shower time), we need to keep a close watch on both of those creeps.
Grover Cleveland, you mean
GC Alexander was a baseball player. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Twain Disciple
New times, new standards.
Where was the internet when Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were presidents? Besides both of those illnesses, I believe developed AFTER their elections--not before. So unless you have a modern-day crystal ball, with the exception of a few genetically-determined illnesses, prediction of future health problems cannot be accomplished. In Medusa's case, the disease(s) are already manifest. They also seem to be progressing at an accelerating pace.
So any ADA issues should cover running for POTUS...
Not sure I can agree with that.
Living with neurological issues, myself, if I were running for such an important position, I believe people would have a right to know what my limitations and likely potential limitations may be because their well-being is in the hands of the president.
EDIT: Have removed 'privacy' from subject line.
Hat Tip: HappyinNM
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I agree.
BTW, it's not the ADA. It's the HIPAA laws that require privacy. However, when you put yourself out as a candidate, you become a public person, and you no longer have privacy rights. And really, whether it be Clinton or Trump, a letter from a doctor isn't a medical record. We need to see the results of tests and their interpretations. Few doctors feel obligated more to the public than their patient.
Yes, but...
You're correct about privacy issues. I've removed 'privacy' from my subject line.
But I really do think I mean ADA with respect to rights of people to be in positions regardless of what other people may think or mis-think about the job candidate's health issues. ADA protects access to jobs for people with disabilities. I believe she's disabled, and I think it may be in a way which would ACTUALLY disqualify her from being able to fulfill the responsibilities of such a position. If she really, potentially, cannot DO the job, than ADA does not protect her from other people objecting to her serving in that capacity.
I may have said or argued that badly -but perhaps my thinking makes more sense in this context.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
It's been over a year since her physicians cleared her
and since then, there's video footage of some weird things going on with her.
A lot can happen in a year. Previous POTUS candidates have had to come off their medical records. It should be no different for Clinton.
Once again: Her doctor "cleared her" again 3 days ago.
I've posted this directly in response to your comments along these lines twice before in the past two days. It has NOT been over a year since her doctor issued a statement that she is in good health and fit to serve. Her doctor issued a new statement on August 16, 2016.
I will keep posting this as long as you keep repeating this incorrect statement.
here's the link:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/fake-clinton-medical-records/
Here's the doctor's statement from the article:
Please note, I'm not saying anyone has to believe this doctor is telling the truth. In fact I expect a lot of people will assume it's not. But the fact remains, Hillary Clinton has been "cleared" by her actual physician very recently.
So it's either accept the statement, or call the Director of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System at CareMount Medical in New York a liar and in violation of medical ethics.
There are plenty of very strong reasons to oppose Clinton for the presidency. This isn't one of them.
agree with your last sentence very much, thanks /nt
https://www.euronews.com/
I'm doubtful about much of
This "omg, Hillary has seizures" etc. that's on the internet right now.
But there's a tiny seed of doubt that her health isn't quite as good as her campaign wants us to believe. Why? Because of what Joel Benenson (he was the Clinton attack dog leading up to NY) said on MSNBC yesterday:
.
[Benenson also made reference to how Obama addressed the birther question. Unsaid was that he released his long form birth certificate; note, Not By asking for McCain's birth certificate.]
we all know that Clinton is usually projecting, and certainly trying change the story the media is covering, when she pulls one of her "well, where's his". Taxes, medical records, etc.
I agree that trump's doctors letter was a joke. But Hillary has also only released a doctor's letter. You want to put the rumors to rest? Then let's see more of Your Medical information. McCain made his medical records available; why don't you make yours available? After all, if there is no there there, then it's the quickest way to
Shut things down (at least among 70% if the population. Nothing works with the 30% that thinks the moon landing was faked, etc).
Link to article on Hillary's doctor's letter (sorry, I'm not finding the legit letter for all the fake stuff out there right now) http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-health-excellent-d...
Full politico article on the current Hillary health rumors & push back by campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-health-concerns-pushback-2...
Doubt as much as you like; you're not alone
Once again, I'm posting this only to correct one very specific incorrect statement: that it's been over a year since her doctor issued a statement clearing her health. That is simply wrong. I posted the link to the article on factcheck.org and copied the text of the doctor's statement (dated Aug 16, 2016) from the article in my comment above.
A couple of further observations in response to your comments. Even if they release what they say are her medical records, will that be any more believed than the doctor's statement? NO. People who want to think otherwise will simply dismiss such records as being incomplete or falsified. It will put nothing to rest. It's not a legal document like a tax return or a birth certificate. It's personal information, and medical records would have to compiled from any and all medical visits, doctors, incidents, etc. It's very likely any such records they released would not be complete in any case.
Most people already don't care about health issues for either candidate, and given how absolutely horrifying they both are on so many levels, their health is the least of our worries in my opinion.
We have emails (verified as real) between Clinton and Huma Abedin that say Hillary is "often confused" and doesn't know what's going on in her own office. Who cares if that is because she has a medical condition or she's just incompetent because she's incompetent?
My bottom line remains the same: both Trump and Clinton are unacceptable and unfit for the presidency. I do not need to see, nor care about, doctor's records on either of them. Hillary's chronic dishonesty, neoliberal political positions, shady ethics, illegal shenanigans, horrible judgment, warmongering... we have so many better reasons to oppose her.
No, the medical issues are important
A big portion of the voting public thinks Hillary's the only choice because everybody else is just crazy.
But the reality is, she has incontrovertibly suffered brain damage by her own admission. That's what those glasses were for--they weren't to fix any problem in her eyes. She's had neurological problems in the past, and we don't know if she still does. She certainly looks like she does, with all the photos and videos coming out.
I know you don't think it's important, but others do, and we are going to talk about it.The more attention the issue gets, the better.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I recall the
explanation for the glasses as having to do with correcting double vision. And then, once the injury healed, she no longer had double vision. I guess double vision may be a result of a brain injury. But I think there's a difference between brain damage and brain injury. Because my father had several strokes, I kinda know a bit (a very little bit) about brain damage. I don't think "damage" heals. With stroke patients, through exercises (all different kinds) a different part of the brain learns how to perform those tasks lost due to the stroke. It's a long process. IIRC (if I remember correctly), HRC only wore those glasses for a few months.
And, while it's fun to seek reasons why HRC shouldn't be president, in this case Drew Pinsky = Bill Frist.
And, one more thing. I believe Armour thyroid medication is so named because Armour handles lots of pigs. The medication is made from pig thyroids. I've heard, although I've never tried it (it's difficult to come by), because it's natural, it works better than Synthroid. Only the best for the rich!!
You're not mistaken. The glasses were
to correct double vision from a concussion. She wore them for about two months. Her physician has stated that she's fully recovered from it.
Not everyone who hits their head in a fall is permanently brain damaged. I believe most people recover from such incidents without becoming mentally disabled for life.
#WheresHillary? Shredding all her medical records
Given what I have seen over the past year, I would consider H. Clinton, B. Clinton and Trump to be brain dead corporate zombies. H. Clinton reminds me of the typical walking dead extra. I hope they don't do any nude effigies... I do hear that there are thousands of Haitians sticking pins in their Clinton rag dolls and boggle heads as a payback for the way the way they ripped off billions of $s of aid money.
To conclude, an over looked symptom: Powell has 'no recollection' of Clinton email dinner conversation
And a critical review of Bardack's pre-Clinton (?) practise. 25 ratings with a 2.5 ouit of 5.0 http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Lisa_Bardack/reviews
From the Light House.
Of course
I'm well aware that most people will continue to think whatever they want to think.
If they released documents today that they said are her medical records, showing that she has fully recovered from her concussion and has no residual cognitive impairments, I'm certain that a lot of people would dismiss them, and continue to insist that a 5-second video of her making a silly face at the balloon drop proves she has a major medical problem. You think it's important, I don't.
If she somehow proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that she doesn't, I will continue to think she's incompetent and unfit for public office anyway.
It's my opinion that focusing on her health is an irrelevant distraction, unprovable and unnecessary. Her mammograms and Pap smears are her business, not mine or yours. So I too will continue to talk about all the many real reasons not to vote for her, whenever I have time and energy to bother.
But but but
Happy Rockefeller & Betty ford had breast cancer. Roslyn Carter had a d&c. Reagan had colon cancer (and we heard more than we wanted about that). George bush 1 threw up on the Japanese ambassador, prime minister.
When you get remembering, there have been a lot of people in the White House with health issues. Kind of hard to say none of our business when you want to be president.
Unless she has cancer, I don't want to know about pap smears &
breast exams.
I think neurological issues are on a different level and they are necessary to know about.
I don't care about the balloon drop video... but the stumbling images and the 'Cold Chai' face, head snaps & weaving videos are quite concerning.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Two questions for you
1. What could she possibly do that would absolutely convince you she doesn't currently have medically diagnosable neurological issues?
2. If she did that, would you consider her fit for the office of the presidency?
I understand your second point - it's a good one.
The answer there is of course, no. But that's just (you and) me (and some others) who feel that way. There are many who believe she IS fit in all ways who may reconsider if she know she's got neuro issues.
As to the first question, I think it's WHOM as opposed to what. I'm not a physician. Dr. Drew, for instance, does not seem credible on her health to me. I'm probably a bit less convinced than Alligator Ed that she's as bad off as he believes she is, although, he knows a lot more than I. His comments concern me and have me wanting to know more.
I don't know whom I'd trust unequivocally. I don't trust all of my doctors on every topic, but I trust them on the topics I see them for. I certainly want more than one page of, 'she's fine.' She's clearly not entirely fine.
In a perfect world, I think it would be possible to have a non-partisan set of docs take an objective look at her records and provide an assessment.
I happen to think the woman is a sociopath which I believe should disqualify her, although I don't know that we have a test to document such a finding. A sociopath with dementia or other serious neurological issue would be even more concerning. I think we need to know more. That we had Reagan serve with Alzheimer's is not ok with me.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
What did John McCain provide back in 2007?
or 2008, whenever he actually did that?
He coughed up written records and recently-dated statements in writing from his doctors, yes?
Can you be clearer on whether or not the recent statement
was only in writing or verbal? That might help...
I believe I saw it - or text of it... It was written
and I think you mean 'oral' - verbal can be either oral or written, if you will excuse the quibble.
At any rate, the communication was pretty much, 'she's still fine, already.' It really didn't have as much detail as the previous letter had.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Ya, probably
that's what I meant--no sweat
And yes, this is kind of how I read it, which is exactly why I questioned it again:
And if the "medical records" were in fact fakes (which I always kind of thought they were, but this could have been what is referred to in the vernacular as "well-poisoning", though that's a whole post by itself), well, then, I'd say a formal look-see at "medical records" is in order. At least the kind that John McCain had to submit back in 2007 for a similar purpose.
People aren't going to let this go, you can be sure.
The problem is, she's not just a lying liar who lies,
she also gets other people to lie for her. Even people whom you would not ordinarily expect to lie, and especially not in ways and about things that can be easily proved to be lies.
She is totally corrupt, she corrupts everyone around her, and she absolutely cannot be trusted. Nor can anyone be trusted who speaks for her or on her behalf.
The rot is too deep, and too widespread.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I don't trust either doctor, Clinton's or Trump's.
I think they should be be examined by a different doctor. Doctor Jill Stein.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
How recently has this physician done a full physical on her?
Has it been since last year's letter was written? On what basis is she sure that there have been no changes since the previous letter?
And while I'm ranting, do we have any idea (of course we do not) whether this is ACTUALLY her regular physician or just someone hired to make an assessment for public consumption?
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Thank you for posting this
I had not seen your "once again" comments in the last two days. I note this website pushback is dated 8/16. I haven't actually been here that much, lately, so all I can tell you is "I missed it until today", the 19th.
I realize you're not asking me to believe it--as long as it's not your position that I'm posting this "incorrect information" with malice aforethought. Frankly, I no longer know what to believe because there is so much noise and garbage put forth about that woman. Here's the thing, though: her doctor's "statement" to that website is at direct odds with more than the faked medical records. Forget what you're asking or not asking of me--why should anyone who has seen those videos of her believe this one website?
Yes, and frankly, this is just another reason--there will always be this question dogging her, of "is she really healthy?". There are, of course, other very strong reasons to oppose the woman. I'll grant you, to me, this "illness" or lack of same just fell way down the list in order of importance, but I doubt one website will be enough to stem the tide of rumors, particularly when it's only a denial issued to a website.
Nothing will quell the rumors
Because rumors are rumors, not related to facts one way or the other.
Factcheck.org is a widely used source, not just some unknown website. Clinton's physician gave them the statement, they reported it. Snopes.com and several mainstream news organizations have picked it up from there.
Dr. Bardack has been publicly identified as Hillary's personal doctor for some time. People are certainly free to disbelieve her, of course, but she holds a high level position at a major medical institution, so accusing her of violating medical ethics by lying about this is a high bar.
I think the general public is far more likely to believe Dr. Bardack and factcheck.org, than "rumors" which are bring propagated primarily by Sean Hannity, the trump campaign, and breitbarf - which are basically all the same thing. I'd personally rather not see c99p in company with them, but that's just me.
(Edited to correct typos)
The Trump Campaign
Has been bringing up Hillary's health?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yes, of course they are!
http://www.infowars.com/trump-spokeswoman-hillary-health-questions-must-...
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/291662-trump-makes-claims-on-clinto...
Google is your friend.
They are hardly alone in questioning it, of course
I think it's about time to write a post about "well-poisoning". Perhaps I'll be able to get to it this weekend...
No one said they are alone in doing it
You seem to have a habit of responding to things that weren't said.
You'll note that someone above asked if the trump campaign was questioning her health, apparently doubting they would do such a thing. My comment in response was simply answering their question. Both campaigns are rumor mongering about each other's health. Hardly a surprise.
What we don't have, on either side, are any actual reputable doctors or medical professionals who have examined or seen medical records of either of them and providing any actual diagnoses of any medical issues for either of them. Frustrating ain't it. I heard a rumor Hillary is a synthetic clone too. Sigh.
I asked bc I was beginning to think
Trump was running for Hillary instead of against. As for keeping "up to date" with the shit that comes out of Trumps mouth, I've thus far been able to navigate around that quite successfully. So your gratuitous remark about Google being "my friend" was therefore unnecessary.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Whether rumors are fact-based or not,
the damage is done here. And essentially, you're right to say nothing will quell them--this isn't going away, no matter how hard she or any of her minions wave at it...
It's not Hillary's health
that worries me, it's her enthusiasm for regime-changing.
native
Disagree with the last sentence of your comment
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Clinton and this IS one of them. Let's put this on a more personal level, shall we, since we, as individuals will all be personally involved by the outcome of this election. Would you like to fly on a plane whose pilot was epileptic? No? But isn't that unfair? Isn't that discriminatory? I my opinion, very few people would knowingly fly on an airplane with an epileptic pilot.
Let's expand the scale of this "personal" challenge to one which is much broader and affects millions of lives. Would you like the pilot of a nuclear bomber to be epileptic? Any takers on that?
Let's go one further step in extension of the illogical premise of the above promise. Would you like to have the finger on the button of all U.S. military might belong to a person with progressively dementing illness--think Ronnie Raygun before his Alzheimer's became obvious? Does any one on this site OR anywhere else wish to affirm the proposition that the mental status of the commander-in-chief is irrelevant?
You do? Color me shocked! :)
I have only a few minutes to answer this as I have people coming for dinner in less than an hour.
1. I don't fly on airplanes and you won't find me on one unless it's a life or death matter and I have no other choice. But no, pilots have medical requirements in their job description and I don't consider that discriminatory. If they have been actually diagnosed by a doctor as having any number of disqualifying conditions, they can't fly a plane. Such is life. My friend drives a handi-van and he has to take drug tests, which I think sucks, but it's part of his job. Such is life.
2. I don't want anyone to be a pilot of a nuclear bomber, ever.
3. As I have said a lot of times already, I don't want either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to have their finger on the button of the US military, under any circumstances, even if they are in "perfect health" because I think they are both "nuts" in my entirely nonclinical judgment.
I worked next to (in the same cubicle) a woman who did have epilepsy for more than 4 years. She was perfectly competent and capable and very good at her job, so I don't share your prejudice against people with that condition, even if Hillary does have it. Which, obviously, there is no evidence she does. And NO, I do not consider a couple of internet videos of her making silly faces to be "evidence" and it is certainly NOT enough to make a diagnosis - as any competent and ethical doctor knows.
Lastly, if you really want the office of the presidency or any elected office to include a medical requirement like piloting a plane does, I suggest you get started on a constitutional amendment that adds that requirement, because currently there isn't one.
Gabby Giffords was my rep until she got shot in the head, and there are lot of people around here who wanted to recruit her to run against McCain for Senate, after her injury, and who gladly would vote for her if she did. She has a real, very serious traumatic brain injury and she could still run for office if she chose to. She can't speak very well, or walk without support, or use her arm normally. So? That doesn't disqualify her from running for office. Sorry.
I respect the heck out of Gabby Giffords, but I'm not sure she's
actually capable of doing her former job sufficiently by herself- I would be grateful to know that she's substantially recovered if she is.
But living with neurological issues, myself - none as acute as hers, but serious enough to complicate my life considerably - I know it's a real struggle to keep track of myself, let alone professional responsibilities.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Clinton's physical was a year and a half ago I see
and Dr. Bardack feels that's recent enough to assume nothing has changed. Perhaps she missed the cold chai video.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Nothing in this Election
Is, or has been, what it seems. Anything at this point coming out of the Clinton enterprise is suspect. That you feel her health and fitness for office isn't one of them is curious.
**this was meant as a reply to PsychoDrew
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
This all seems to be
mute and irrelevant as far as the election goes and even for her upcoming reign. Why would the criminals who own and run the country and the Clinton crime family do the right and legal thing? They rigged the primary they fight illegal criminal wars, they globally pillage and practice pay for play and both parties have destroyed the rule of law. The duopoly electoral system is nothing but a circus and once any of them are elected none of them are willing to do a damn thing that's democratic, legal or constitutional. All we get from all the branches is a kabuki show that's not for one minute believable on any level.
I see this 'issue' as another waste of time, like the unicorns people said Bernie had up his sleeve. As for The Mad Bombers mental issues my god the woman is and always has been a psycho killer who believes she should rule the world as it's her turn. She's always been mad. Just look in her eyes. Goldwater, Kissenger, Cheney? Are these people sane? We came we saw we killed. Of course she's unfit to run or be president but when did that ever stop any power mad lunatic from going on a bloody rampage globally and creating hell on earth.
The Family her church thinks that all means to power are yankee doodle dandy and 'worth it' cause Jesus and Hitler. If a society/empire gets to the point where democracy, universal human and civil rights and human's common good are nothing but an impediment to their criminal agenda then Hillary's neurological health is irrelevant. Their is always another psycho killer waiting in the wings to assume the throne. You all seem to forget that there is no longer any checks or balances on power. No justice, no peace nothing to stop the madness. It's wishful thinking that ignores the story line and focuses on minutiae that overlooks the real crimes and issues we face.
Nope
It's irrelevant to those who usurp liberty--it's relevant to the rest of us.
So yeah, I hear you, but this is just another problem of all the problems there are to have. Minimizing it, trivializing it or trying to act like it just won't matter doesn't change the fact that it's a relevant problem in the here and now.
The rumors don't go away because some people want them to, in other words. They are what they are, and no one here can control that.
Of course it's relevant
and a symptom of the usurpation of all our liberty. Please explain to me how focusing on this symptom is an any way going to affect any electoral outcome without any legal means to do something about it? Seems to me to be a big distraction from the 100 guerrilla sitting in the seats of government in DC or your state, county and city. I'm not saying stop it if it makes you feel better go for it. I am sick and tired of this brand of politics as it isn't going to change a damn thing. It's part of the media circus and will not move 'the rest of us' forward.How about focusing on non-partisan issues and stop the persona attacks on the pols of mass deception. They are all complicit and most of them are mad. It's just in fighting in the cage match arena and is just what they want as then we all end up voting for degrees of insanity. Hillary or Trump pick you poison they both a 'brain damaged'. Most of the freaking population seem brain damaged to me.
In the sense of the people get the government they deserve
Your comment is spot on. It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent people can vote against their own interests. For instance those seniors dependent upon social security voting for Republicans who want to do away with that which allows those seniors to continue living. Our "choices" in this election cycle are admittedly bad. We could have had Bernie in pl;ace of these two evil knaves--but the election was stolen. I doubt that even stronger protests from Bernie would have made much of a difference, although I do fault him for not making this thievery more of an issue.
I do not blame the people
not one bit. What interests? There is no interest other then the interest's of the powers that be to vote for. People have been jerked around for decades and inundated with fear and loathing. Of course the election was stolen. You don't think The Mad Bomber and the Democrat's want to do away with SS? lol. The Cat Food Commission. We have no choice bad or good. That much is clear. What to do? I don't know. It's good to remember that history and politics are not static. Why consent to this nightmare with your vote.
Play it as it lays is my only thought. Any relief we humans globally get is not going to come from our sick, mad politics in the USA. Going on and on about Killary's obvious mental problems will do nothing. Hillary is not an outlier like Trump she's the psycho they settled on to represent the interests of the USA. Willing, able and so breathtakingly mad that she will do exactly what is needed. Nobody deserves this government none of us. Apathy is not what brought us to this point it's blind hate and fear that did the trick.
Bernie meh! He did what he did and it's about as relevant as The Mad Bomber falling on her head and being unfit to rule. Seriously we really need to get off this bus, it's smoking and is going nowhere but over a cliff. People can and do find a way to stop the oligarchy when they go this far. I know they will once avian get rid of this pestilence on the planet and all the critters including alligators who live here on earth.
Moot. Just sayin.
If we were mute, we wouldn't be talking about it.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
true that elenacarlena
but seriously what's the point? I mean moot in the sense that it maters not. It's just another useless sputter to say The Mad Bomber is mad cause she fell on her head when after all she has always been mad. Like i said go ahead and post endlessly about this. I'm sure it's true but seriously will it rid us of the Clinton's? Nah! Even if it did whoever they replace her highness with it will be nothing better. The fix is in. If it amuses you to think this will make a difference go ahead have at it. However it really is a waste of energy that could be spent talking about other ways and means to rid ourselves of these psycho's.
I'm on your side actually, to the point that I have mostly
refrained from commenting in these diaries because I'm tired of the fights.
I don't consider doctors to be credible who will publicly diagnose someone they have never examined. I do consider both candidates to seriously need examination by qualified neurologists and psychiatrists, but doubt they will subject themselves to such, and if they do, they will not authorize release of the information.
Now, let's make sure Jill is on the ballot in every possible state.
And cheer Judicial Watch and hope they move along very quickly. And let's put Trump in jail for Trump U fraud.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Fights? There are no fights about this,
There are people trying to blow it all off as "no big deal"; there are people who think there's a whole lot of There there; and there's a few in between.
OK then, I'm tired of repeating myself
I am in between. While I think there might be something there, I think we will never get to the bottom of it, therefore I agree with Shah that there are more important things to think about, and I tend to blow it off. But you know that.
I hope all the speculation results in the candidates being examined by doctors. If it does and they actually release information that says either of them is unfit, I will be shocked. And I will publicly say I was wrong and you were right. But I put the chances at slim to none.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I've never seen a Presidential candidate
…who wasn't also a perfect candidate for a brain scan. And that includes Jill Stein. It's just a very good practice in the 21st century. After all, there were seventeen candidates debating in the Republican primaries, and they all could have been poster children for the science of brain scans.
They should all pee in a cup, too.
It's a serious job.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Yeah Pluto
There all nuts. Scan these candidates brains so we can all see what were dealing with according to Science Man. That will do they trick.
^^THIS^^ !!!
Says it all. Exactly. Thank you sharazade.
Lots of concern about
Hillary's Health on the Intertubez today. Hell, I'll bet if I looked, I could find a bunch more....
Maybe we can raise the issue
Of her religious beliefs.
(Snark alert).
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.