Fainting Hillary

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If she already knew the diagnosis, and had obviously decided not to follow the doctor's recommendation of rest for a few days, and if she knew being taken to a hospital was going to blow her cover(the diagnosis) and play right into Trump's and the health conspiracy theories, then she might decide to be taken to her daughter's house instead. If I am trying to keep the diagnosis under wraps, and also trying to not elevate the health conspiracy theories, I think I would have done the same thing. She knew she had pneumonia. If she thought, "oh my God, I'm having a massive heart attack", then yeah, that would be one dumb decision. But, of course, the whole thing plays into her rep for not being trustworthy and her rep for hiding things from public view. But I have no problem believing it happened the way it did, for the possible reasoning I'm using here.

Is fainting a typical symptom of pneumonia? Even if it is, it's become pretty obvious that these fainting spells are something she deals with regularly. Anyone who believed her when she stumbled through her answer saying that she can only recall it happening twice has simply committed themselves to ignoring obvious lies. So the question is, should we be concerned about someone who faints frequently (anything more than once every two years seems very frequent to me because in my entire life I have not witnessed anybody around me fainting even once) and refuses to tell the truth about it? I don't know why frequent fainting would happen or what it would mean.

BTW, some people are saying that the big black guy who is almost always at her side is both a secret service agent and a trained medic. He is apparently there because he knows exactly how to treat Hillary when this happens. At least part of her security detail is obviously in on the effort to keep the underlying cause of this condition a secret. Clinton will probably continue to characterize those who think she has some sort of health issues as conspiracy theorists, but there is clearly something going on. I have a hard time sympathizing with any logic that says the public doesn't deserve complete answers. What I really think the public deserves is a replacement candidate. In my view she has disqualified herself about half a dozen different ways.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I do think that the overall health of candidates that could win is a topic worth discussing if their health gets to a point that it would impact their ability to perform.

But I find all of this wild speculation about Hillary to be more political grandstanding and point scoring. She got sick, it happens. No, I do not trust her but I see no reason to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon here.

Move on to something that matters.

Yeah. Honesty is so overrated.

 

[Stoked]

Is fainting a typical symptom of pneumonia? Even if it is, it's become pretty obvious that these fainting spells are something she deals with regularly. Anyone who believed her when she stumbled through her answer saying that she can only recall it happening twice has simply committed themselves to ignoring obvious lies. So the question is, should we be concerned about someone who faints frequently (anything more than once every two years seems very frequent to me because in my entire life I have not witnessed anybody around me fainting even once) and refuses to tell the truth about it? I don't know why frequent fainting would happen or what it would mean.

BTW, some people are saying that the big black guy who is almost always at her side is both a secret service agent and a trained medic. He is apparently there because he knows exactly how to treat Hillary when this happens. At least part of her security detail is obviously in on the effort to keep the underlying cause of this condition a secret. Clinton will probably continue to characterize those who think she has some sort of health issues as conspiracy theorists, but there is clearly something going on. I have a hard time sympathizing with any logic that says the public doesn't deserve complete answers. What I really think the public deserves is a replacement candidate. In my view she has disqualified herself about half a dozen different ways.

Obvious lies? Based on what? Is there a documented history of fainting? Perhaps we have a different view on what is obvious. I know you won't be convinced and that's OK.

All I see here is a desire for her to be lying. I really do believe that you are stretching on this specific issue.

 

[babe]

I want to believe you But, I suffer a certain affliction. I'm embarrassed to even admit it; over the years it has caused me great psychic pain. But the simple truth is that I have a mind that just prefers rationality and logic. Yes, I know, but please, no pity. There are worse handicaps. Anyway, it's no fun being able to recognize irrational, illogical, and conspiratorial gobbildy goop for what it actually is. No fun at all. Much more fun to just dive in and come out a conspiracy believer on the other side. Instead, I feel like a stranger in a strange land.

I give you credit for having a sense of humor/sarcasm..... but the factual basis of progressive politics is indeed wanting. Particularly the politicized history departments of colleges across the US, there is a story line being pushed that I think is patent nonsense...... which is your particular belief set. You are what you are, change-agent scholastics are what they are, but factual history seems to me to be something else.

We can throw out epithets or insults if we care too, but I just don't roll that way.... well, not seriously. I can see where you'd think I might be doing that, but that view requires subscription to the rhetoric and symbolism of the progressives, who are not dedicated to truth imo.

Jonah makes a better effort to be factual imo. I find stuff in his view I can buy.

 

[babe]

Obvious lies? Based on what? Is there a documented history of fainting? Perhaps we have a different view on what is obvious. I know you won't be convinced and that's OK.

All I see here is a desire for her to be lying. I really do believe that you are stretching on this specific issue.

I find Joe's comment to be pretty understandable. I've been seeing Hillary's pattern of minimal public appearances, coughing episodes, loss of facial "composue" or involuntary spasms of various kinds, and reported falls or stumblings consistent enough over a long period of time that her dismissals of the obvious is not credible.

She must have a medical condition that underlies it all, and it must be long-term and not episodal.

The reason most Parkinson's Disease sufferers die from pneumonia is because they have difficulty swallowing right or handling their spittle normally, and fluid goes down into their lungs rather than their stomach, causing a particularly recognizable characteristic cough like hers, and fluid builds up in the lungs. Antibiotics are not a "fix", the only way to cope is reduce speaking times and standing appearances, and that is what Hillary has been doing for two years.

A Hillary Presidency will minimize public speaking events of all kinds. She will not be able to project leadership in the way a healthy person normally does, ie "Stand and Deliver" public relations.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Obvious lies? Based on what? Is there a documented history of fainting? Perhaps we have a different view on what is obvious. I know you won't be convinced and that's OK.

All I see here is a desire for her to be lying. I really do believe that you are stretching on this specific issue.

What I'm saying is that the answer she gave in the phone interview with CNN was an obvious lie. I guess it could be my desire for her to be lying, but it honestly stuns me that anyone could listen to that answer and think she was telling the truth. The interviewer (possibly Anderson Cooper) asked her how often it happened. She waffled and then said, "Well, only twice... that I can think of." Then she goes on to say something like, "It's something that I'm aware of and that I know how to deal with." Her own words make it impossible for me to believe that she is telling the truth. Meanwhile Bill gave an interview on the same subject. He said that it happens frequently, then corrected himself to say that it happens rarely (which is a odd). But his answer also made it obvious that even they know there is something going on.

I've been looking for video on the Hillary answer but can't find it. Here's video on the Bill answer. His edited wording is so Clintonian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmECSdH5IS4

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Here's video of the Anderson Cooper interview. He asks her how often she has these dizzy spells. If you believe she is answering truthfully (just based on interpreting her words and tone in this single answer) then I don't know what to say. IMO, you're easily duped if you think this sounds like truth. She admitted to knowing about two occasions, which just happens to be the exact number of occasions currently in the public record, but then left some wiggle room just in case evidence of another occasion or two eventually comes up. How does the second part of her answer even make sense if yesterday was only the second time she had ever experienced dizziness like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D__O6iD5ZKc

 

[candrew]

Obvious lies? Based on what? Is there a documented history of fainting? Perhaps we have a different view on what is obvious. I know you won't be convinced and that's OK.

All I see here is a desire for her to be lying. I really do believe that you are stretching on this specific issue.

Unfortunately HRC has a history of hiding medical conditions. In 1998 she had a blood clot in her leg, a potentially fatal condition and didn't tell anyone because of how it would be perceived if she was to go into the hospital during the Lewinsky fiasco.

Having said that, I think you're probably right - this is a big nothing made into something by the Hillary haters who question everything she says about anything anyway. HRC is well known for putting in 15-20 hour days - the problem is she's almost 70 and it's taking its toll. She looks like crap - but it's probably just fatigue.

 

[Stoked]

Unfortunately HRC has a history of hiding medical conditions. In 1998 she had a blood clot in her leg, a potentially fatal condition and didn't tell anyone because of how it would be perceived if she was to go into the hospital during the Lewinsky fiasco.

Having said that, I think you're probably right - this is a big nothing made into something by the Hillary haters who question everything she says about anything anyway. HRC is well known for putting in 15-20 hour days - the problem is she's almost 70 and it's taking its toll. She looks like crap - but it's probably just fatigue.

Fair enough.

I don't trust her either but that doesn't send me out making wild assumptions that I know nothing about. Not that you are doing that, but there are plenty who are.

Personally I'd rather hit her on policy (like her support for endless wars) than the possibility that she might be misleading people on a rumored health condition.

To me it is just more of the same BS that leads to people being dupes.

 

[babe]

Fair enough.

I don't trust her either but that doesn't send me out making wild assumptions that I know nothing about. Not that you are doing that, but there are plenty who are.

Personally I'd rather hit her on policy (like her support for endless wars) than the possibility that she might be misleading people on a rumored health condition.

To me it is just more of the same BS that leads to people being dupes.

If the DNC is not holding meetings to develop a plan for the contingency of Hillary's dropping out of the debates or otherwise implodes on the campaign trail, I'd be surprised. I do think there is reason enough for mainstream leadership.... big box retailers, cartel ownership, and community leaders in every segment of organized society.....to be concerned about continuity of "progress". The "alt right" movement has some momentum going on, and some may think the "alt right" is core Trump support. I don't know. I just don't think Trump is a careless player, after all. When Trump announced his candidacy, I found some news reports about how he called Hillary to give her the news before he publicly announced it, and I thought he had a sort of cozy little deal going on with Hillary..... I thought Hillary encouraged him to do it in order to break up the Republican party and split the opposition vote like Perot did for Bill Clinton.

But even if that could be in the history, Trump has the instincts of a winner. He is not a principled man dedicated to an ideology, but he is an American and he is a dealmaker. Being an American, and seeing how people really want an alternative to the "mainstream leadership plan", I think he has decided to hang ten on this ride, and really give America a reset. If he wins, I expect he will be the dealmaker who brings "mainstream leadership" to the table and incorporates them into the way forward. So it is not the defeat of the progressives some Hillary supporters make out of it. And it is not the win the "alt right" thinks it will be.

 

[Red]

I give you credit for having a sense of humor/sarcasm..... but the factual basis of progressive politics is indeed wanting. Particularly the politicized history departments of colleges across the US, there is a story line being pushed that I think is patent nonsense...... which is your particular belief set. You are what you are, change-agent scholastics are what they are, but factual history seems to me to be something else.

We can throw out epithets or insults if we care too, but I just don't roll that way.... well, not seriously. I can see where you'd think I might be doing that, but that view requires subscription to the rhetoric and symbolism of the progressives, who are not dedicated to truth imo.

Jonah makes a better effort to be factual imo. I find stuff in his view I can buy.

And I see your particular mind set as dominated by the seemingly default mode of thinking in the modern era. Conspiracy thinking.

In general:

Conspiracy thinking has become a dominant genre of popular thought. People seem to be increasingly subscribing to fictional narratives of current events, and historical events of recent vintage.

These can include some that loosely resemble a collective specie of schizophrenia. A schizophrenic may imagine the government is beaming rays into his mind to control him. He is personally insane. A group of people may imagine the government is trying to harm them with chem trails. A type of collective "insanity", created by fictionalizing current events. It's as if large numbers of people are trying to turn their own lives into characters in a science fiction novel. And acting out their lives with the conviction that their narrative is the truth, that this version of reality is the actual history of our times.

As far as pop culture is concerned, we are living in the Age of Conspiracy Theories. It seems to be that pervasive. It's not likely a mode of thought that will lead to truth. It's sloppy thinking. In its many variants dominated by political themes, it can easily alienate large segments of the electorate from reality. It can be seen as the antithesis of Jefferson's belief that a healthy and functional democracy depended on an educated electorate. World views dominated by conspiracy narratives are ill prepared to resemble education in how to use the discriminating faculty of the mind. Far more likely they will encourage upwellings of irrational thought and beliefs.

Some conspiracy theories compel. The JFK assassination perhaps the best known, and believed by many, with a score of various villains behind the scenes. I believe a conspiracy killed JFK. I just don't really know the details with any certainty. And there are no doubt other conspiracy theories worth the look. But we are at the point where it has become the default mode of thinking for interpreting events in our lifetime. Millions of people are engaged in fictionalizing the events current in their lives. Millions are writing an alternate history of the modern era in their minds. And in their collective selfs as proponents of whatever pop conspiracy theory informs their view of the world they live in. The Hillary illness conspiracy theory is just a minor sample from the alt right's stable. No lasting value. It's as simple as "people get sick", but to the conspiracist, the world is always far more sinister. It's not a good trend if one feels increasing irrationality in thinking is not a good trend.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I've said a few times, if I had to choose between Trump or Hitler it would give me something to think about. Short of that, #nevertrump.

Probably one of the more stupid things posted here. Trump is awful, but he's not near that level.

 

[Dr. Jones]

 

[Gameface]

Probably one of the more stupid things posted here. Trump is awful, but he's not near that level.

Dude, I already said I'd be 90% for trump at that point.

But I don't think it's a bad comparison. Not at all.

Let's elect the strong man, the demagogue. And let's not admit how bad an idea that is. Let's pretend like history doesn't exist.

The strong man scapegoating the already marginalized. Exerting authority and playing to our pride.

If you can't see retarded Hitler when you look at Trump, I'm sorry. That is the only thing I can see. That is who Trump is to me.

 

[Gameface]

And let me say, it's gonna be stupid comparing people to Hitler right up until we elect another Hitler.

Trump is playing the same game Hitler played. DQ'd for me. I'll take anyone but Trump and to have an alternative as good as Hillary Clinton? Well, I will not be disappointed on Nov. 8th. I will not be at all.

 

[Dr. Jones]

And let me say, it's gonna be stupid comparing people to Hitler right up until we elect another Hitler.

Trump is playing the same game Hitler played. DQ'd for me. I'll take anyone but Trump and to have an alternative as good as Hillary Clinton? Well, I will not be disappointed on Nov. 8th. I will not be at all.

Are you German?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LOT78zhA5w
Make America Great Again!

 

[RandyForRubio]

Dude, I already said I'd be 90% for trump at that point.

But I don't think it's a bad comparison. Not at all.

Let's elect the strong man, the demagogue. And let's not admit how bad an idea that is. Let's pretend like history doesn't exist.

The strong man scapegoating the already marginalized. Exerting authority and playing to our pride.

If you can't see retarded Hitler when you look at Trump, I'm sorry. That is the only thing I can see. That is who Trump is to me.

You don't think it's a bad comparison? What the hell is wrong with you? Even saying that 1/10 times you would take Hitler over Trump is asinine.

As much as I dislike Trump, and his antics, I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate a certain ethnicity. I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate mentally ill people, homosexuals, and fat people (consider yourself lucky, Trump doesn't want to kill you).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You don't think it's a bad comparison? What the hell is wrong with you? Even saying that 1/10 times you would take Hitler over Trump is asinine.

As much as I dislike Trump, and his antics, I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate a certain ethnicity. I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate mentally ill people, homosexuals, and fat people (consider yourself lucky, Trump doesn't want to kill you).

Even if he wanted to eliminate some type of people (and I agree with you that he doesn't) it's impossible for me to believe that the American people would go along with it. This is not Nazi Germany.

 

[Gameface]

You don't think it's a bad comparison? What the hell is wrong with you? Even saying that 1/10 times you would take Hitler over Trump is asinine.

As much as I dislike Trump, and his antics, I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate a certain ethnicity. I have zero doubts that he does not want to eliminate mentally ill people, homosexuals, and fat people (consider yourself lucky, Trump doesn't want to kill you).

We get to see what Hitler became. Trump has already emboldened the white nationalists in the U.S.. Sure, because of our system of government he would almost certainly not be able to round up certain ethnicities and incinerate them, but the people who like that idea like Trump, and they like him a lot.

Now if Trump starts WWIII and it goes sideways there is absolutely no telling what could happen. Most of the atrocities in Nazi controlled areas started happening after WWII was well underway.