[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?
Author Thread
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  8:39 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  8:39 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:OK, here's what I don't get about the health concerns of some here. Worst case scenario and hopefully this never happens but if Hillary can't do the job, Kaine becomes President. Is there anyone here who was considering voting for Hillary but is so concerned about a Kaine Presidency that they'd rather vote for Trump now?

Well for one it puts into question what a Kaine administration would do about TPP and other concessions Hillary has made to the Berniecrats. Kaine didn't go thru the crucible of a primary.

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2016  8:52 AM
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:OK, here's what I don't get about the health concerns of some here. Worst case scenario and hopefully this never happens but if Hillary can't do the job, Kaine becomes President. Is there anyone here who was considering voting for Hillary but is so concerned about a Kaine Presidency that they'd rather vote for Trump now?

Well for one it puts into question what a Kaine administration would do about TPP and other concessions Hillary has made to the Berniecrats. Kaine didn't go thru the crucible of a primary.


Yeah I get that but would it actually mean someone who supports Hillary now votes for Trump?!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2016  8:52 AM
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Nalod wrote:I vote for Hilary over trump even if she is on Chemo, one lung and in a coma.

what about if hillary can be replaced with someone else (biden?) who you can vote for? What if in 2 weeks we find out that hillary is too unhealthy to run and just drops out?


Another poster pointed out earlier you can't change the state ballots this late.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/if-hillary-had-to-leave-the-ticket-this-is-how-a-n.html

The bottom line is that if Clinton dropped out before September ends, with plenty of time before the general election, all indications are that the DNC could anoint the candidate of its choice—again, likely Kaine, Biden, or Sanders—and make the late substitution with only the slim possibility of extreme GOP legal obstructionism getting in the way. After September, it would be a huge mess that would increase American political self-loathing by 300 percent.

So, there’s your answer—now let’s hope Clinton returns to the campaign trail later this week in good health, and this is all a moot point.


OK, that's good to know
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  9:00 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  9:00 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:OK, here's what I don't get about the health concerns of some here. Worst case scenario and hopefully this never happens but if Hillary can't do the job, Kaine becomes President. Is there anyone here who was considering voting for Hillary but is so concerned about a Kaine Presidency that they'd rather vote for Trump now?

Well for one it puts into question what a Kaine administration would do about TPP and other concessions Hillary has made to the Berniecrats. Kaine didn't go thru the crucible of a primary.


Yeah I get that but would it actually mean someone who supports Hillary now votes for Trump?!

I agree, that is doubtful. But this election is going to be about turnout as well. An 11th hour shakeup to the ticket is not very comforting, let alone some debate performance disaster. Could it depress support enough to give Trump more paths to a win than he currently has? It's still an up"hill" battle for Trump.

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/12/2016  9:05 AM
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  9:12 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  9:14 AM
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
Welpee
Posts: 23162
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/12/2016  9:16 AM
gunsnewing wrote:And the Hussain Obama is used to make to make the point this this current administration bends over backwards to defend everyone around the globe but our fellow Americans. NOT to be racists towards our black President
When are you guys going to give the whole "Hussain" thing a rest? Everybody knows what you're trying to do. It didn't work eight years ago, it didn't work four years ago, it doesn't work now. Cheap shots may make YOU feel good, it turns off people on the fence who could actually be persuaded to joining your side if you weren't so divisive. Think about it (though I'm sure you won't since I'm sure you probably believe being PC is a bad thing).
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  9:22 AM
Welpee wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:And the Hussain Obama is used to make to make the point this this current administration bends over backwards to defend everyone around the globe but our fellow Americans. NOT to be racists towards our black President
When are you guys going to give the whole "Hussain" thing a rest? Everybody knows what you're trying to do. It didn't work eight years ago, it didn't work four years ago, it doesn't work now. Cheap shots may make YOU feel good, it turns off people on the fence who could actually be persuaded to joining your side if you weren't so divisive. Think about it (though I'm sure you won't since I'm sure you probably believe being PC is a bad thing).

+1 — Any president is a walking assassination target so this canard about him caring more about the rest of the world than the one he was born in and has had ancestors in since before its founding is just retarded. (See I can be non PC too)

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

9/12/2016  9:23 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  9:30 AM
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
nixluva wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:
blkexec wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:Assange: Next Release Of 100,000 Clinton Docs Will Finish Hillary
http://yournewswire.com/assange-next-release-of-100000-clinton-docs-will-finish-hillary/

small quote:

We have tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with, the WikiLeaks founder said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity.

There are some, several … in response to the DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact, and so they have stepped forward with additional material.

Good to hear that more people are coming forward.

So for the Trump supporters.....Are Clinton supporters suppose to believe that Trump doesn't have a similar crooked email traffic? We are talking about a guy who refuses to release his taxes. Just think for a second, if Trump released his taxes...and the Govt released his deleted emails, will Trump supporters still follow? Yes.....Because it's deepers than Hillary's emails.

Emails that jeopardize our national security?

Which of Hillary's emails actually jeopardized U.S. Security? So far nothing that has been reported has been shown to do that. In Theory it could've happened but there's been nothing brought forth to this point.


That's a great question. Everyone always says the other political party is compromising national security. There has to be some burden of proof to show that this actually happened.

When emails are classified as secret or top secret, by definition they can compromise (national) security. We are talking the Secretary of State. Not a small town Mayor.
She CLEARLY put lives at risk and what this all amounts to as far as overall US security going forward is a bit scary. (The following is months old and the email leaks have gotten worse in that time and more are on the way.)
(Read these in order)
http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

First of all, the emails found on her server were of the lowest classification, no header on those documents stating classification...3 of 30k were marked with a small (c)..I think the actual number is 36k..But that's .0001% of the emails on her server...

What old and new leaks are you taking about??..The FBI release more emails after the initial batch..I think the FBI director is trying ti screw Hillary but that's just me..The more to come you are referring to, is the hacked emails by Russia of the DNC, which were forwarded to Wikileaks, who claims to have more goods on Hillary...Obama and Hillary were trying to extradite Julian Assange to bring him up on charges...This is payback for Assange with Russia's help..

She broke the law. The FBI's job or the DOJ, is not to show intention, it is just to enforce the law. She broke it.
Regarding more leaks, see here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-says-wikileaks-release-significant-clinton-campaign-data-023226471.html

The FBI has already said that there is no link found between Russia and the leaks. It was Hillary who went down that route. (Tough thing to prove anyway.)

What law did she break???..It is not illegal to have a personal server...It cannot be proved she forwarded the three emails that had the (c) in the body of the email. So what law did she break??..Look it up...

The FBI cannot prove Russia passed the hacked emails to Wikileads...The US government knows that Russia hacked the DNC..And what does Hillary have to do with the DNC being hacked???

It is illegal for government officials to have official emails on a private server.
No, it isn't illegal to have private email on a private server, but that is not the case.

You guys all know about the Freedom of Information Act? Well, Hillary just removed years of emails from those records. Think about that.

So you decided "NOT" to look it up...Well there happens to be precedence..

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Laws were update in 2014 and sign by Obama, after Hillary left the State Department...

martin
Posts: 76227
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
9/12/2016  9:30 AM
BRIGGS wrote:
martin wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
martin wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
martin wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
martin wrote:
mreinman wrote:
martin wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Like Trump is hiding something about his taxes??

yeah ... probably ... what does that have to do with hillary hiding an illness?

I'm not worried about what Hillary's illness could mean to national security..I want to know who Trump is beholden to overseas...Clearly he doesn't want us to know ..

perhaps she would be a better president than trump (or she definitely would be) even with the illness. That is not the point. If she is sick, she should disclose that. Perhaps even getting a viable democrat to replace her if she is sick enough to not be able to perform her job.

You are making massive leaps of speculations..

to believe that is your right

so, you know that she has an illness and is purposely hiding such a thing? Otherwise it is speculation, right?

What am I missing?

And why are we speculating this nonsense?

I don't "know" anything and of course its speculation and its definitely not nonsense. No idea why would are so touchy about it, even the Washington Post ran a story today about this serious speculation of Hillary's health.

lots of people every day get sick. They faint, they have to lie down, they miss work. Your first instance when someone misses work is not: "Perhaps even getting a viable person to replace her if she is sick enough to not be able to perform her job."

That is an utter nonsense reaction to a perfectly normal thing that happen every day.

What is not norm is exactly what Trump has been doing and continues to do so every day.



She's had like 3-4 serious coughing fits out of no where the last month she's had multiple seizure like movements where she thrashes her head or becomes stick in neutral(her movements just stop) her eyes look awful she looks weak.
Something is not right. Yes Martin speculation but there is reason to speculate

Please point these out to me. Use credible sources.

This is just one of her "slips" today. Shes been doing it for a few months. This and the excessive coughing fits. Im not going to post every vdieo--there are a million of them.

no BRIGGS, use something credible. That was created by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice

martin--it couldve been created by Bugs Bunny---all you need to do is have followed along. This video happens to be 3 weeks old. If you have been watching shes been unsteady and having coughing fits for 2 months. This video comes from a bias source--although we know Dr Drew isnt in that crowd--but in this case its all honest events.

so you got nothing?

I dont lie martin--and I dont need to do homework for you. Shes had like 8-10 coughing fits in the last two months that are out there. Shes had numerous times where shes been seen unstable physically. Its not funny --she needs to be checked out by a neutral physician and that has nothing to do with Trump or anything else. She is running for the President and could be winning--so you want a person with potential serious physical issues to take the helm? Not me.

you've made a claim that you cant substantiate and then you say it's easy enough to look up but you can't do it yourself.

That's called throwing **** against a wall and hoping it sticks. Nothing more.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

9/12/2016  10:03 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  10:04 AM
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)


I have seen doctors physically examine a patient and make the wrong diagnosis, much less some guy making an assessment on the internet...
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
9/12/2016  10:04 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  10:09 AM
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
nixluva wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:
blkexec wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:Assange: Next Release Of 100,000 Clinton Docs Will Finish Hillary
http://yournewswire.com/assange-next-release-of-100000-clinton-docs-will-finish-hillary/

small quote:

We have tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with, the WikiLeaks founder said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity.

There are some, several … in response to the DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact, and so they have stepped forward with additional material.

Good to hear that more people are coming forward.

So for the Trump supporters.....Are Clinton supporters suppose to believe that Trump doesn't have a similar crooked email traffic? We are talking about a guy who refuses to release his taxes. Just think for a second, if Trump released his taxes...and the Govt released his deleted emails, will Trump supporters still follow? Yes.....Because it's deepers than Hillary's emails.

Emails that jeopardize our national security?

Which of Hillary's emails actually jeopardized U.S. Security? So far nothing that has been reported has been shown to do that. In Theory it could've happened but there's been nothing brought forth to this point.


That's a great question. Everyone always says the other political party is compromising national security. There has to be some burden of proof to show that this actually happened.

When emails are classified as secret or top secret, by definition they can compromise (national) security. We are talking the Secretary of State. Not a small town Mayor.
She CLEARLY put lives at risk and what this all amounts to as far as overall US security going forward is a bit scary. (The following is months old and the email leaks have gotten worse in that time and more are on the way.)
(Read these in order)
http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

First of all, the emails found on her server were of the lowest classification, no header on those documents stating classification...3 of 30k were marked with a small (c)..I think the actual number is 36k..But that's .0001% of the emails on her server...

What old and new leaks are you taking about??..The FBI release more emails after the initial batch..I think the FBI director is trying ti screw Hillary but that's just me..The more to come you are referring to, is the hacked emails by Russia of the DNC, which were forwarded to Wikileaks, who claims to have more goods on Hillary...Obama and Hillary were trying to extradite Julian Assange to bring him up on charges...This is payback for Assange with Russia's help..

She broke the law. The FBI's job or the DOJ, is not to show intention, it is just to enforce the law. She broke it.
Regarding more leaks, see here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-says-wikileaks-release-significant-clinton-campaign-data-023226471.html

The FBI has already said that there is no link found between Russia and the leaks. It was Hillary who went down that route. (Tough thing to prove anyway.)

What law did she break???..It is not illegal to have a personal server...It cannot be proved she forwarded the three emails that had the (c) in the body of the email. So what law did she break??..Look it up...

The FBI cannot prove Russia passed the hacked emails to Wikileads...The US government knows that Russia hacked the DNC..And what does Hillary have to do with the DNC being hacked???

It is illegal for government officials to have official emails on a private server.
No, it isn't illegal to have private email on a private server, but that is not the case.

You guys all know about the Freedom of Information Act? Well, Hillary just removed years of emails from those records. Think about that.

So you decided "NOT" to look it up...Well there happens to be precedence..

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Laws were update in 2014 and sign by Obama, after Hillary left the State Department...

That is besides the point. My mentioning of the FOIA is on top of the real problem - breaking the law.
Anyway, it wrong for a government official to essentially remove from records something that will in time belong to the public - law or no law.

ps - I would really not use the War Mongerer Kissinger in any points you would like to prove.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
9/12/2016  10:06 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/12/2016  10:07 AM
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)


I have seen doctors physically examine a patient and make the wrong diagnosis, much less some guy making an assessment on the internet...

You don't need a doctor for this, use your own eyes. Tell me what you think.
Real simple guys - forward and watch at 7:42 and 9:57. The lady clearly has either Parkinsons or some form of epilepsy.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
mreinman
Posts: 37827
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/14/2010
Member: #3189

9/12/2016  10:12 AM
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

And what about all the other Parkinsons like behavior? Was that the Pneumonia coming on for a few months?
They will cover this up until they can no longer do so.(Business as usual)


I have seen doctors physically examine a patient and make the wrong diagnosis, much less some guy making an assessment on the internet...

You don't need a doctor for this, use your own eyes. Tell me what you think.
Real simple guys - forward and watch at 7:42 and 9:57. The lady clearly has either Parkinsons or some form of epilepsy.

unfortunately, I know a lot about parkinsons and the 7:28 mark with the hand position makes me queasy.

so here is what phil is thinking ....
holfresh
Posts: 38679
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/14/2006
Member: #1081

9/12/2016  10:14 AM
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
holfresh wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
nixluva wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:
blkexec wrote:
earthmansurfer wrote:Assange: Next Release Of 100,000 Clinton Docs Will Finish Hillary
http://yournewswire.com/assange-next-release-of-100000-clinton-docs-will-finish-hillary/

small quote:

We have tens of thousands, possibly as many as a hundred thousand, pages of documents of different types, related to the operations that Hillary Clinton is associated with, the WikiLeaks founder said in a radio interview with Sean Hannity.

There are some, several … in response to the DNC publications, a lot of people have been inspired by the impact, and so they have stepped forward with additional material.

Good to hear that more people are coming forward.

So for the Trump supporters.....Are Clinton supporters suppose to believe that Trump doesn't have a similar crooked email traffic? We are talking about a guy who refuses to release his taxes. Just think for a second, if Trump released his taxes...and the Govt released his deleted emails, will Trump supporters still follow? Yes.....Because it's deepers than Hillary's emails.

Emails that jeopardize our national security?

Which of Hillary's emails actually jeopardized U.S. Security? So far nothing that has been reported has been shown to do that. In Theory it could've happened but there's been nothing brought forth to this point.


That's a great question. Everyone always says the other political party is compromising national security. There has to be some burden of proof to show that this actually happened.

When emails are classified as secret or top secret, by definition they can compromise (national) security. We are talking the Secretary of State. Not a small town Mayor.
She CLEARLY put lives at risk and what this all amounts to as far as overall US security going forward is a bit scary. (The following is months old and the email leaks have gotten worse in that time and more are on the way.)
(Read these in order)
http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

First of all, the emails found on her server were of the lowest classification, no header on those documents stating classification...3 of 30k were marked with a small (c)..I think the actual number is 36k..But that's .0001% of the emails on her server...

What old and new leaks are you taking about??..The FBI release more emails after the initial batch..I think the FBI director is trying ti screw Hillary but that's just me..The more to come you are referring to, is the hacked emails by Russia of the DNC, which were forwarded to Wikileaks, who claims to have more goods on Hillary...Obama and Hillary were trying to extradite Julian Assange to bring him up on charges...This is payback for Assange with Russia's help..

She broke the law. The FBI's job or the DOJ, is not to show intention, it is just to enforce the law. She broke it.
Regarding more leaks, see here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-says-wikileaks-release-significant-clinton-campaign-data-023226471.html

The FBI has already said that there is no link found between Russia and the leaks. It was Hillary who went down that route. (Tough thing to prove anyway.)

What law did she break???..It is not illegal to have a personal server...It cannot be proved she forwarded the three emails that had the (c) in the body of the email. So what law did she break??..Look it up...

The FBI cannot prove Russia passed the hacked emails to Wikileads...The US government knows that Russia hacked the DNC..And what does Hillary have to do with the DNC being hacked???

It is illegal for government officials to have official emails on a private server.
No, it isn't illegal to have private email on a private server, but that is not the case.

You guys all know about the Freedom of Information Act? Well, Hillary just removed years of emails from those records. Think about that.

So you decided "NOT" to look it up...Well there happens to be precedence..

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

What's more, the Supreme Court held that the Kissinger documents did not have to be turned over under FOIA — even though they were notes taken while Kissinger was at State — because State did not have possession of them.

Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in 1980:

"We hold today that, even if a document requested under the FOIA is wrongfully in the possession of a party not an 'agency,' the agency which received the request does not 'improperly withhold' those materials by its refusal to institute a retrieval action. When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld'requested records in violation of the standards established by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA."

Laws were update in 2014 and sign by Obama, after Hillary left the State Department...

That is besides the point. My mentioning of the FOIA is on top of the real problem - breaking the law.
Anyway, it wrong for a government official to essentially remove from records something that will in time belong to the public - law or no law.

ps - I would really not use the War Mongerer Kissinger in any points you would like to prove.

Are you now claiming that you know these records were removed by her and not sent to her??..Are you also claiming the origin of these "classified" emails were from State Department or another governmental database with classified restrictions and not drawn up by another person on another private server??

mreinman
Posts: 37827
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/14/2010
Member: #3189

9/12/2016  10:20 AM
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

Q Does an employer have the right to ask prospective or new employees about their long-term or recurring medical/health conditions?

A An employer does not have any rights, as such, to request information from a prospective employee, but clearly, if the candidate wants the job, it would be wise to supply the information being requested as long as it is a reasonable and lawful request. To enable an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled candidate to attend an interview or to carry out a role, the employer would need to ask relevant questions. It would be legitimate, for instance, to ask if they had a disability or any special needs to assess. For new employees, there are no rights for an employer to be provided with information. However employers can make it a condition of their offer of employment that certain information is provided to them.

If the post being filled requires the employee to meet certain medical requirements then the employer could ask the employee to complete an additional health questionnaire and make this and the successful medical assessment a condition of employment.

Q If someone is taken on and it comes to light they have covered up a health condition, what steps can an employer take?

A If the employee has lied about their condition, the employer could argue there has been a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence. The employee’s employment could be fairly and lawfully terminated. The challenge for the employer is determining if the lie could justify termination and ensuring their actions are not discriminatory. If the employee provided the information as a condition of their employment and/or the employer relied on this information to recruit the employee, the employer could claim there has been a breach of the contract or a misrepresentation that led to the employer into entering into the contract. The employee could face a civil court claim to recover damages and to answer claims of fraud and negligence as has happened in the Cheltenham Borough Council High Court claim against its former managing director.

so here is what phil is thinking ....
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  10:25 AM
mreinman wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

Q Does an employer have the right to ask prospective or new employees about their long-term or recurring medical/health conditions?

A An employer does not have any rights, as such, to request information from a prospective employee, but clearly, if the candidate wants the job, it would be wise to supply the information being requested as long as it is a reasonable and lawful request. To enable an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled candidate to attend an interview or to carry out a role, the employer would need to ask relevant questions. It would be legitimate, for instance, to ask if they had a disability or any special needs to assess. For new employees, there are no rights for an employer to be provided with information. However employers can make it a condition of their offer of employment that certain information is provided to them.

If the post being filled requires the employee to meet certain medical requirements then the employer could ask the employee to complete an additional health questionnaire and make this and the successful medical assessment a condition of employment.

Q If someone is taken on and it comes to light they have covered up a health condition, what steps can an employer take?

A If the employee has lied about their condition, the employer could argue there has been a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence. The employee’s employment could be fairly and lawfully terminated. The challenge for the employer is determining if the lie could justify termination and ensuring their actions are not discriminatory. If the employee provided the information as a condition of their employment and/or the employer relied on this information to recruit the employee, the employer could claim there has been a breach of the contract or a misrepresentation that led to the employer into entering into the contract. The employee could face a civil court claim to recover damages and to answer claims of fraud and negligence as has happened in the Cheltenham Borough Council High Court claim against its former managing director.

What is this text from?

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
mreinman
Posts: 37827
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/14/2010
Member: #3189

9/12/2016  10:28 AM
DrAlphaeus wrote:
mreinman wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

Q Does an employer have the right to ask prospective or new employees about their long-term or recurring medical/health conditions?

A An employer does not have any rights, as such, to request information from a prospective employee, but clearly, if the candidate wants the job, it would be wise to supply the information being requested as long as it is a reasonable and lawful request. To enable an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled candidate to attend an interview or to carry out a role, the employer would need to ask relevant questions. It would be legitimate, for instance, to ask if they had a disability or any special needs to assess. For new employees, there are no rights for an employer to be provided with information. However employers can make it a condition of their offer of employment that certain information is provided to them.

If the post being filled requires the employee to meet certain medical requirements then the employer could ask the employee to complete an additional health questionnaire and make this and the successful medical assessment a condition of employment.

Q If someone is taken on and it comes to light they have covered up a health condition, what steps can an employer take?

A If the employee has lied about their condition, the employer could argue there has been a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence. The employee’s employment could be fairly and lawfully terminated. The challenge for the employer is determining if the lie could justify termination and ensuring their actions are not discriminatory. If the employee provided the information as a condition of their employment and/or the employer relied on this information to recruit the employee, the employer could claim there has been a breach of the contract or a misrepresentation that led to the employer into entering into the contract. The employee could face a civil court claim to recover damages and to answer claims of fraud and negligence as has happened in the Cheltenham Borough Council High Court claim against its former managing director.

What is this text from?

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-failure-to-disclose-illness/

so here is what phil is thinking ....
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781

9/12/2016  10:29 AM
mreinman wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
mreinman wrote:
DrAlphaeus wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Welpee wrote:
mreinman wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:
mreinman wrote:
holfresh wrote:Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia(on Friday)..

pneumonia is very often caused by serious illnesses

Like Alzheimer's doctor??

like PD or cancer or many things that can fuk with the lungs ... eh ... nah ... I'm sure she's fine


I'm going to guess that out of all the pneumonia cases each, a very, very small percentage of them relate to cancer or Parkinson's!

of course but when there is so much speculation that someone is suffering from a debilitating disease and then this person gets pneumonia ... now if this person was denying that they were ill because lets say ... they did not want to lose their job, what would you think then?

Do you think that Hillary has a serious illness that she is hiding?


The only people who are "speculating" aren't exactly objective and certainly have an ulterior motive and a track record of fueling conspiracy theories.

You could say anybody is possibly hiding a serious illness. You could easily make the case a certain republican candidate has the early stages of a mental disorder based on the volume of false statements he makes and his apparent detachment from reality. It's a very dangerous game people play when they start playing doctor and attempting to diagnosis people over the television.

Personally I agree with Ben Carson, both should have a complete physical examination that's made public. I think there should be a standard, comprehensive medical form all candidates need to have completed. No more of these meaningless "doctor's statements."

of course anyone can be ill but as an objective better would with no skin in the game and a trump hater, I say she is hiding and we will soon find out.

I like your/Carson's suggestion but perhaps the president should have the same HIPAA protection that anyone has and not have to divulge if they believe that it won't affect their performance? Nothing wrong with a president with Parkinson's or dementia.

Even if you can't force a candidate to reveal or submit to a physical examination, I think public/media pressure can certainly compel them to do it. If you don't want to reveal your medical info or tax returns fine, you won't get our votes. I know it's pipe dream, but if the majority of voters took this stance with either party, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with things like this.

The standard procedure should be that some neutral physical at Walter Reed Hospital put the final two candidates through a battery of examinations and review the files from their personal doctors (though I suspect a crack pot like that Trump doctor can't be trusted). I think the public has a right to know the physical condition of the person about to run the country.

Does the public have that right constitutionally though? Interesting point upthread about their health patient privacy rights fit into the mix. The tax thing is voluntary it seems, a post-Watergate concession. I'd be surprised if Trump releases them any sooner than the last minute if at all. But I do agree I'd love to see a lack of transparency rewarded with a lack of votes.

Q Does an employer have the right to ask prospective or new employees about their long-term or recurring medical/health conditions?

A An employer does not have any rights, as such, to request information from a prospective employee, but clearly, if the candidate wants the job, it would be wise to supply the information being requested as long as it is a reasonable and lawful request. To enable an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled candidate to attend an interview or to carry out a role, the employer would need to ask relevant questions. It would be legitimate, for instance, to ask if they had a disability or any special needs to assess. For new employees, there are no rights for an employer to be provided with information. However employers can make it a condition of their offer of employment that certain information is provided to them.

If the post being filled requires the employee to meet certain medical requirements then the employer could ask the employee to complete an additional health questionnaire and make this and the successful medical assessment a condition of employment.

Q If someone is taken on and it comes to light they have covered up a health condition, what steps can an employer take?

A If the employee has lied about their condition, the employer could argue there has been a breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence. The employee’s employment could be fairly and lawfully terminated. The challenge for the employer is determining if the lie could justify termination and ensuring their actions are not discriminatory. If the employee provided the information as a condition of their employment and/or the employer relied on this information to recruit the employee, the employer could claim there has been a breach of the contract or a misrepresentation that led to the employer into entering into the contract. The employee could face a civil court claim to recover damages and to answer claims of fraud and negligence as has happened in the Cheltenham Borough Council High Court claim against its former managing director.

What is this text from?

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-failure-to-disclose-illness/

That site is from the UK... the Cheltenham Borough Council High Court thing tipped me off.

Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
mreinman
Posts: 37827
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/14/2010
Member: #3189

9/12/2016  10:32 AM
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from dismissing or failing to hire a chronically-ill employee on the basis of that disability “if they are able to do the job with reasonable accommodation”
so here is what phil is thinking ....
Where the heck is Hillary Clinton?

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy