WHATS WRONG WITH HILLARY CLINTON ? Seizure? Health Problem? CRAZY?
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
opcorn:Because Reagan with early stages of Alzheimers was still a better POTUS than pretty much any Democrat.
I'm not afraid of Hillary's health issues as much as I'm afraid of her lies, her corruption and her general level of incompetency.
That being said the Benghazi incident of 2012 and her concussion issues at that time partially explain why she was asleep at the switch.
That being said the Benghazi incident of 2012 and her concussion issues at that time partially explain why she was asleep at the switch.
I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try .......
Yes, the video lies. The content was manipulated by removing relevant audio and video and emphasizing material that the video's author wanted you to focus on.
If you go to the ORIGINAL video, you would have seen what really happened. During her speech several protesters started to create a commotion in the crowd which included some shoving and yelling. You can definitely hear it in the original video. Clinton stopped speaking because they were so loud and watches as security converged on the group. The big black guy on stage that hustled over to her was security/secret service. He took her by the arm in case he needed to take her off stage, he stood slightly in front of her and he also watched the protesters (Hillary and agent were looking in the exact same direction). This is all standard security MO. If you look closely, 2 other security/secret service agents came in from the left a few seconds later. Once the big Agent saw that the situation was contained, he said, "It's okay" and directed the other two agents to leave and then left himself. Hillary then jokes about the "Trump protestors" - which, by the way, was still in your video and should have been your first hint that what you were watching was manipulated.
You will note that the sound in the video was turned down, just as Hillary stopped talking. This is because the video's author was removing the sound of the protesters.
You will note that Hillary appears to freeze for 1-2 seconds to make her look stunned. This is because the video's author froze the frame in an effort to make Hillary look frozen. (can also be confirmed in original video).
Hillary's 3 main campaign "handlers" are all women. If indeed Hillary was having a speech problem, I'd suggest it would be one of them that came out to support her, definitely not a giant attention grabbing individual.
The big black guy - look at other news footage of her more closely. He's in several shots and in every case it's pretty obvious he's security.
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they are easily manipulated because they desperately want to believe anything, no matter how illogical, as long as it feeds their passion for conspiracy. Science be damned. Logic be damned. Obvious manipulations be dammed. Even when presented with absolute proof from several different sources, these poor fools will immediately default to: "they are all lying" or "the press is being controlled", "you don't have an open mind"
This video has also been manipulated. If you go to the original video you will see the female reporter quickly shouting a question to Clinton and Clinton having some fun by pretending she is stunned by the aggressiveness of the reporter. The reporter as well as several other people there at the time have since stated this video is manipulated.
If indeed Clinton was having some type of seizure, why do many of the people around her go from neutral expressions to a bit of shock to full smiles - it's because they initially responded to the joke and then realized she was joking around. If they thought something bad was actually happening, surely we would have seen at least one person responding and moving to aid her - but no one did, because a seizure never happen.
Can you provide me a link from the actual wikileaks site supporting your statement? Other than obviously doctored videos from clearly anti-Democrat sources, are you able to provide any real proof of any of your claims? A document from a doctor who examined her. A reputable independent forensic doctor that has studied original television footage of her?
...not being a republican.
I can easily get why people don't want to vote for Hillary but considering the US is essentially a binary system you are admitting to being a Trump supporter (and that is flat our sad on so many levels).
If the GOP had any reasonable candidate - Clinton would be down looking up instead of Trump. Trump is a dangerous buffoon too easily manipulated by Putin and others - NSA / CIA are right - he is a huge security risk.
It's kind-of sad how most people fixate on things like religion and politics. People become so completely and obsessively aligned with their politically party, they choose to ignore anything and everything that is a black mark on their chosen obsession.
Kennedy is a perfect example. He's an American super-hero, yet the man was a liar, manipulator of democracy, adulterer and almost started WW3 over ego. Although he had several major scandals, the true cause and resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was perhaps his biggest and most dangerous and the truth was kept secret from the American public for many years. Kennedy didn't just flinch, he pissed his pants.
Reagan will always be fondly remembered as the President that forced the final collapse of Communist Russia and for the tearing down of the Berlin wall. However let's not forget the Iran-contra affair, Saving & Loan crisis (as part of Reagan's deregulation in an industry that needed regulation), Reaganomics, Sewergate (where Reagan tried to fix elections) Debategate, Inslaw affair, DoH grant rigging, Lobbying scandal and Lebanon Marine barracks bombing. Many argue it was actually Reagon that encouraged, financed and supplied arms to early Islamic groups that later became terrorist groups. It was rumoured that as an actor Reagan spied on fellow actors and producers for the FBI as part of McCarthyism in order to gain future political points. His "Office Of Public Diplomacy" which was a secret propaganda machine designed to manipulate the American public.
^-- Anyway, we probably don't know the whole truth on many of these, but my point is Reagan was no angel. Politics by its very nature encourages lies and corruption, so why are we surprised by truly horrible politicians like Trump and Clinton? I pity the USA and the world over the next 4 years.
For the record, I think Trump is by far the worse of two evils.
I agree that no politician (or person for that matter) is ever a complete angel. I also agree that EVERY politician lies about something, eventually. However, some politicians lie about more important things, and some less important.
Clinton is 68 and Trump is 70. Clinton has some documented health concerns (and I'm not referring to any internet videos). BOTH of them should submit complete medical records for scrutiny. You wouldn't hire someone as the CEO of your company at that age and require any less.
i agree completely, but I'd suggest it be taken one step further; historical records should be provided AND both should be required to go to the same independent doctor for examination. The doctor/institution would need to be independent and reputable. Not sure who that could be, maybe Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Mayo, Johns Hopkins, UCLA medical center? I don't believe the actual details should be publicly released, just any pass/fail criteria that could impact their ability to perform their duties.
Also, I believe all POTUS candidates should be required to:
- Have an independent audit performed of their personal financial records, tax records, investments and business records including off-shore interests and money.
- A full background check including birth records, credit check and criminal background check
Unfortunately today's politics is more about slandering your opponent than explaining your own positions on issues and your plan to address them. Hillary is bad for this, but Trump wrote the book on slander and lies. I wish the voting public would demand more from their politicians.
Yet they are still the people that Americans chose to run in the election. It's not like voters in the primaries were unaware of their ages when they selected them.
If this included a psychological examination , Trump would be immediately disqualified.
That's fucking stupid. The Democrats do not accuse most GOP candidates of racism because most of them aren't racists. Bush was many things, but not racist. Romney, McCain, etc, not racists.
Trump is accused of being a racist because he is one.
Lots of people who are 68 or 70 are in good enough health to perform as POTUS (Bernie Sanders is 75 and no one has raised any health concerns about him). However, a large number of others would not be. A relatively small portion of the electorate participated in the primaries (a point made over and over again in relation to Trump, although the point is even more applicable to the Democratic primaries). Now that the full electorate has to decide who should be president, the standards of reasonable disclosure are higher. Independents and undecideds certainly would find it relevant whether a candidate suffers from any condition that would reduce their effectiveness, or might even threaten completion of their term of office (just like any reasonable person charged with hiring a CEO would).
Don't worry. Trump would have if he was the nominee.
It is interesting that in a couple hundred years of presidents, this is the first time that claims of not being healthy have become a (pseudo)issue. It's not like it was a major campaign issue with FDR. Of course with FDR, there were were no heavily edited youtube videos claiming that was physically incompetent.
