Hillary's health

[2A_Tom]

Hillary in a Darth Vader outfit^^^^

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[hoosierdoc]

Oh. I'm not conceding. I'm denying that I ever truly had the point.

ah, denying your own previous statement when called on it. That's an advanced move

 

[david890]

I have to wonder at what point is a minimum standard on health or mental capacity, or especially "taxes" even objective? Is it even possible to establish such a thing that is crony-proof beyond whatever benefit it would provide?

The candidate would submit to standards and practices for that industry. A cholesterol test might be hard to spin, but not as much as blood pressure. I trust there are enough docs at Bethesda that you'd get a balanced report of the more objective data. As for taxes, the entire form isn't needed. We don't need to see all 12K pages of Trump's returns to know if something is shady.

You're never going to convince everyone, regardless of how objective the data. We have "Flat Earth" people voting this year, FFS. However, I think the middle 80% would like to see the info. Fox, BBC, CNN, etc. can spin it however they choose, and people will choose to believe those that tend to confirm their biases.

 

[printcraft]

The candidate would submit to standards and practices for that industry. A cholesterol test might be hard to spin, but not as much as blood pressure. I trust there are enough docs at Bethesda that you'd get a balanced report of the more objective data. As for taxes, the entire form isn't needed. We don't need to see all 12K pages of Trump's returns to know if something is shady.

You're never going to convince everyone, regardless of how objective the data. We have "Flat Earth" people voting this year, FFS. However, I think the middle 80% would like to see the info. Fox, BBC, CNN, etc. can spin it however they choose, and people will choose to believe those that tend to confirm their biases.

hitlary supporters are flat earthers too? Freaking weirdos.

 

[jamil]

Hillary in a Darth Vader outfit^^^^

I guess I walked straight into that lightpost.

 

[jamil]

The candidate would submit to standards and practices for that industry. A cholesterol test might be hard to spin, but not as much as blood pressure. I trust there are enough docs at Bethesda that you'd get a balanced report of the more objective data. As for taxes, the entire form isn't needed. We don't need to see all 12K pages of Trump's returns to know if something is shady.

You're never going to convince everyone, regardless of how objective the data. We have "Flat Earth" people voting this year, FFS. However, I think the middle 80% would like to see the info. Fox, BBC, CNN, etc. can spin it however they choose, and people will choose to believe those that tend to confirm their biases.

What is the objective standard for when blood pressure makes a candidate incapable of executing the office of the President? If the docs at Bethesda think one candidate's ideology is better suited to them, how objective can they be? Of course it wouldn't have to be a panel of doctors from Bethesda. Maybe it could be a panel chosen by some bipartisan practice. But with as complicated as that would become, is that juice even worth the squeeze? After putting more thought into this, I think that in terms of what is practically achievable, this probably wouldn't add as much value to the quality of elections over what we already have.

Let's apply it to this election. If we took an anonymous survey of Bethesda doctors about their political leanings, how do you think they might decide if they were of the mind that Trump is morally unfit to be president? Or Hillary? Can they actually be objective when the stakes are, they have the power to disqualify people they don't like for other reasons. It is a rare person indeed that can wield such power with the responsibility required.

The concept of having some physical minimum requirement to become president has a manifest benefit. I'm just saying the practical implementation would fall far shorter than the pure goodness of the concept.

 

[jamil]

I forgot to include my thoughts on this:

You're never going to convince everyone, regardless of how objective the data. We have "Flat Earth" people voting this year, FFS. However, I think the middle 80% would like to see the info. Fox, BBC, CNN, etc. can spin it however they choose, and people will choose to believe those that tend to confirm their biases.

There are ignorant, and intelligent, and politically informed people voting in every election. And the media can influence every one of them. It would be another manifest benefit to reduce the influence the media has on elections, and it seems having some objective standard that they can't spin would solve that problem. I just think objectivity in politics isn't possible. You're not objective. I'm not either. We both can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions if for no other reason than our world views have different priorities.

I would wager that there are some nefarious reasons the networks spin things the directions they do. And I'd also wager the individual contributors just want to do what they think is right, but are biased to believe the spin themselves. For example, I don't think Don Lemon actively seeks out angles with which he can deceive the public. I think he's largely given a script by the people who control the spin, and he actually believes the nonsense he broadcasts. It would be great if we could put a stop to that. But how can one codify objective standards for broadcasting information to the masses without infringing on freedom of the press?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Hillary refuses to take neurocognitive test | New York Post

 

[david890]

But how can one codify objective standards for broadcasting information to the masses without infringing on freedom of the press?

The "Fairness Doctrine" worked for quite awhile.

Again, there are well-established standards for what qualifies as "high" regarding blood pressure, PSA, etc. A candidate might (rightly) claim that their blood pressure was unusually high that day, but a 230/150 with a cholesterol of 500 would be hard for *any* doctor to spin as "healthy". A person can live quite long with such numbers, but I think the consensus of docs, regardless of party or personal opinion, would claim them as "high". Anything else, and that doc might face some unwanted professional scrutiny. I don't think we could include mental health, as the signs are fairly subjective. Each of the networks already has their "expert" making statements about fitness and such.

No one has the unilateral power to disqualify a candidate, nor would that be the purpose of such an examination. Ideally, we would require several exams, over several years, to get an accurate picture of someone's general health. A doc can say, "He won't last a year!" (and some did with FDR), but that's just an opinion, and can be countered by others on the exam team.

Again, using Bethesda/Walter Reed docs makes sense to me, as they'll be the go-to folks in case of any significant emergency. A Prez can appoint their own personal doctor, but that choice might be questioned if the doc is, say, a dermatologist vs. a thoracic surgeon.

 

[david890]

Hillary refuses to take neurocognitive test | New York Post

Do you think Trump would? Do you think he would if Hillary did?

No, and no.

 

[2A_Tom]

Is that cool aid tasty Dave?

 

[spec4]

At some point she will be "releasing medical information" by collapsing again in public. Preferably when its too late for Biden to put his inept butt in the ring.

 

[printcraft]

Is that cool aid tasty Dave?

Warning! demoncrat koolaid may cause: fainting, fatigue, dehydration, disjointed eye movements, lying, perjury, murder, classified information leakage and massive secretion of bovine excrement.

 

[jamil]

The "Fairness Doctrine" worked for quite awhile.

Again, there are well-established standards for what qualifies as "high" regarding blood pressure, PSA, etc. A candidate might (rightly) claim that their blood pressure was unusually high that day, but a 230/150 with a cholesterol of 500 would be hard for *any* doctor to spin as "healthy". A person can live quite long with such numbers, but I think the consensus of docs, regardless of party or personal opinion, would claim them as "high". Anything else, and that doc might face some unwanted professional scrutiny. I don't think we could include mental health, as the signs are fairly subjective. Each of the networks already has their "expert" making statements about fitness and such.

No one has the unilateral power to disqualify a candidate, nor would that be the purpose of such an examination. Ideally, we would require several exams, over several years, to get an accurate picture of someone's general health. A doc can say, "He won't last a year!" (and some did with FDR), but that's just an opinion, and can be countered by others on the exam team.

Again, using Bethesda/Walter Reed docs makes sense to me, as they'll be the go-to folks in case of any significant emergency. A Prez can appoint their own personal doctor, but that choice might be questioned if the doc is, say, a dermatologist vs. a thoracic surgeon.

1) fairness doctrine. It's was just a journalistic standard imposed by the whim of a regulatory body's leadership. That outlines the absurdity of giving regulatory bodies such authority. Regulatory bodies are inherently vulnerable to cronyism. And those bodies change and their ruling whims with their leadership.

The ideologies of today seem to be just fine having their pet issues presented by media with all the bias ideologue reporters can muster. Hell, an honest reporter trying to present both sides of the story is now twitter-shamed relentlessly. How dare anyone be unbiased when it comes to Trump, either for or against? The fairness doctrine couldn't possibly survive 2016, because today's electorate has a larger fringe than I've seen in my lifetime, and they mostly don't want fair.

2) medical standards. I suppose there is a way it could work. A medical panel could be created in some bipartisan way, that's not commissioned by the government. I would trust a panel more knowing exactly the politics of the makeup of the panel. Each candidate essentially gets mob-shamed into being examined by this panel, much like candidates are mob-shamed into showing their taxes. A candidate may decide not to be examined. But then there would be a political cost to decline.

I think anything more than a pass/fail report wouldn't work out well. I don't think the public needs to know a candidates cholesterol count. And if it's a summary like "good|fair|poor|bad", that just gives media and campaigns much more room to spin that as potentially more important than it is. Does "poor" mean can't perform? Probably not.

A pass/fail would just ask the question, is there a health problem that would prevent the candidate from executing the office for the term. If "no" then that's really all we need to know. And the "no" wouldn't even need to be made public. You file your paperwork to run, and it becomes more politically expedient to get to report your "pass" during the primaries. You'll be mob shamed if you don't.

If you're going to fail, you probably know before you even file. You do have your own doctors, after all. If you're "surprised", maybe you can appeal. Or maybe you're really in bad shape. Anyway, you can appeal or drop out of the race for "family reasons" before the "fail" is ever published. If you pass, then the results get published, and you're on equal ground with all the other candidates who passed theirs.

 

[jamil]

Do you think Trump would? Do you think he would if Hillary did?

No, and no.

Yeah. I think he would. But only if it was his doctor. Probably the same with Hillary. And their doctors are biased.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Do you think Trump would? Do you think he would if Hillary did?

No, and no.

they shouldn't have to, but if they don't then questions of health are fair game. If they'd like to stop the rumors then either stop demonstrating serious medical problems or submit to the test.

 

[foszoe]

Do you think Trump would? Do you think he would if Hillary did?

No, and no.

Wow.

The first no I could agree with, the 2nd is a real stretch.

 

[jamil]

they shouldn't have to, but if they don't then questions of health are fair game. If they'd like to stop the rumors then either stop demonstrating serious medical problems or submit to the test.

As far as that goes there hasn't been a reason to question Trumps health except for the fat that Hillary's health has come into question.

 

[KG1]

As far as that goes there hasn't been a reason to question Trumps health except for the fat that Hillary's health has come into question.

I posted these excerpts upthread of transcripts taken from the Limbaugh show and he really nails the media on this exact issue.


More Misdirection on Hillary's Health - The Rush Limbaugh Show

What's the big story today in the Drive-By Media? The big story today is the health of Donald Trump and his appearance on The Dr. Oz Show. Has Trump collapsed? Has Trump had to suspend campaigning? Has Trump disappeared for days at a time? Have doctors diagnosed Trump with any disease whatsoever that would explain erratic physical behavior? Does he have to have people hold on to him and help him get up flights of stairs?

Does he need a Secret Service agent or doctor rubbing his back, telling him, "Just keep talking, everything's fine, we're gonna get through it"? Does he need that like she does? Does he have a health care worker on standby taking his pulse simply walking down the sidewalk? Is Donald Trump chronically dehydrated? Have we heard stories about how Donald Trump hates water, doesn't like to drink water, has to have water forced in him?