• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The new birthers: Debunking the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy

calamity said:
The right wing lunacy is following its predicated path. And, people wonder why we don't trust these folks to elect someone with access to the nuclear codes.
Click to expand...

Why is this lunacy? Was Bernies call to see her Wall Street transcripts lunacy?
 
calamity said:
The right wing lunacy is following its predicated path. And, people wonder why we don't trust these folks to elect someone with access to the nuclear codes.
Click to expand...

Yet, Ironically you do trust a proven corrupt liar that sold access to her SOS position through the Clinton Crime Foundation to hostile governments all over the world.

BTW - The nuclear argument is a testament to liberal stupidity, Trump cant just hit a shiny red button on his desk any time he wants, but then again Hillary could be keeping those codes on her unsecured private e-mail server. I wonder how much access to that information costs? Do I write my check to Hillary or the Clinton Crime Foundation?
 
eohrnberger said:
I believe that Hillary has released some of her health information. What else would have Dr. Drew (and another doctor) reviewed and become so concerned about her medical care?

Predictably, it says nothing, as I'm sure it was carefully reviewed to remove any incriminating evidence, also a often repeated Clintonian modus operandi.
Click to expand...

Something in her health report would be incriminating?
 
She's 70 years old, I think, why would her health NOT be failing?
 
blaxshep said:
She's 70 years old, I think, why would her health NOT be failing?
Click to expand...

She's 68, and likely not in perfect health (very few 68-year-olds are), but the claim is that she's oh-so-clearly suffering from some sort of debilitating neurological condition, and there's scant evidence of that.
 
Paperview said:
Something in her health report would be incriminating?
Click to expand...

OK. Perhaps not the best adjective. Which adjective would be more appropriate? Undesirable? Concerning? Damaging? Questionable?

Point being is that nothing she didn't want in those medical records would be allowed to be made public, so it's really and empty nothing.
 
Kobie said:
She's 68, and likely not in perfect health (very few 68-year-olds are), but the claim is that she's oh-so-clearly suffering from some sort of debilitating neurological condition, and there's scant evidence of that.
Click to expand...

I agree. Too bad there isn't a maximum age as well as a minimum age. I cant even fathom why someone in there 68-70 would want the job. It has to be very stressful.
 
Fletch said:
Why is this lunacy? Was Bernies call to see her Wall Street transcripts lunacy?
Click to expand...

That you have to ask proves my point.
 
blaxshep said:
Absolutely not true. Its not a well known fact. It's absurd hyperbole.
Click to expand...

there will be other people involved but other than a military coup theres nothing preventing it. the only person who can authorize a nuclear strike is the president
 
blaxshep said:
I agree. Too bad there isn't a maximum age as well as a minimum age. I cant even fathom why someone in there 68-70 would want the job. It has to be very stressful.
Click to expand...

I'm 15 years younger and I wouldn't want that job. Hell, who the hell wants a harder job after about 45 anyway? I've been winding down since 40, actually. Cutting back on travel, hours, responsibility and, of course, stress.
 
Fletch said:
No, if you are unable to answer, it proves you have no point.
Click to expand...

Paranoid delusions require no answer. "Hey, look! There's a cookie monster under your chair."
 
blaxshep said:
I agree. Too bad there isn't a maximum age as well as a minimum age. I cant even fathom why someone in there 68-70 would want the job. It has to be very stressful.
Click to expand...

70 is the new 50.
 
Kobie said:
70 is the new 50.
Click to expand...

LOL, im not even 50 and I feel like im 70.

The other thing I just don't get is why anyone with enough money to live the rest of their life without working doesn't just retire and enjoy life.
 
calamity said:
Paranoid delusions require no answer. "Hey, look! There's a cookie monster under your chair."
Click to expand...

Explain how wanting to see a prospective presidents medical records is a paranoid delusion. And how wanting to see his/her tax returns is not. Thanks.
 
Fletch said:
Explain how wanting to see a prospective presidents medical records is a paranoid delusion. And how wanting to see his/her tax returns is not. Thanks.
Click to expand...

IMO neither one is any of the public's business. I believe the IRS should clear them and a doctor should clear them and that's the extent of what the public is owed.
 
blaxshep said:
IMO neither one is any of the public's business. I believe the IRS should clear them and a doctor should clear them and that's the extent of what the public is owed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. I am just perplexed as to why asking for tax returns or texts of speeches is ok, but asking for health records is lunacy. I suspect liberal hypocrisy is afoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom