Her health is being managed hourly, much less daily. Watch the video again. None of her secret service agents or handlers were surprised. One agent strides in from off screen before she even starts falling to block the video.
Sean, did you not notice that everyone in the video is used to this happening? This was not the first time.
And it wasn't that hot. Reports are it was under 80 degrees. So around 25 celsius. She is not well, and it's been obvious for weeks.
27 degrees and very humid. And if you didn't notice, she has a mild case of pneumonia. She rested briefly and was back up and around. Stop with the Prison Planet conspiracy bullshit.
And that’s the real problem with Spayd’s argument: Refusing to treat campaign stories differently is a judgment call. It communicates to readers that Clinton’s email server is as shocking and newsworthy as, for example, Trump’s pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country.
And any newspaper that’s afraid to make that judgment call -- that’s afraid of telling readers what’s really at stake in November -- is shirking one of the most basic and important functions of a free press during election season.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/12/new-york-times-proves-false-bal...
27 degrees and very humid. And if you didn't notice, she has a mild case of pneumonia. She rested briefly and was back up and around. Stop with the Prison Planet conspiracy bullshit.
Woudl be fabulous if this line of "Hillary's health" BS stopped, yes. But that's about as likely as misogyny stopping, I'm afraid.
Given that they're pretty much the same thing, I have to agree. Unfortunately.
Her health is being managed hourly, much less daily. Watch the video again. None of her secret service agents or handlers were surprised. One agent strides in from off screen before she even starts falling to block the video.
if you watched the video closely you would've seen they were constantly talking and coordinating. then if you'd've thought a bit you woulda also realized they are highly trained in protocol of what to do when and how. which explains your astonished comment below
Sean, did you not notice that everyone in the video is used to this happening? This was not the first time.
don't mistake training and expertise to "used to this happening".
And it wasn't that hot. Reports are it was under 80 degrees. So around 25 celsius. She is not well, and it's been obvious for weeks.
i read it was equivalent to 104F with humidity.
if she's freakin well enough to stand there for 1.5 hrs in 37C+ weather conditions with upper resp problems wearing a suit and keval vest she's certainly got more wellness going on than me a 37 year old. i would've blown it off.
I'm sure no real progressive is secretly hoping that Clinton has to withdraw, for reasons of "health" or "death" or anything like that.
They're just genuinely concerned for her well-being, human to human. And pneumonia can be tough!
Sometimes it just makes sense to take, say, the next eight years off and look after yourself.
Living in Canada, I have the luxury of not having to worry about domestic US issues. The only thing I care about in this election is, which candidate is less likely to start a war? Which candidate is more likely to bring US troops home (the US has something like 150 overseas military bases)? Which candidate would be less likely to think "regime change," ANYWHERE, is a good idea? Which candidate is less likely to cozy up to Islamic fanatics...like the Saudi royal family?
Clinton and Trump are both vile and neither should be president of anything. But I'm more scared of Clinton. Once again, I'm not American (or gay, or Muslim) so maybe that's easy for me to say.
Sean, did you not notice that everyone in the video is used to this happening? This was not the first time.don't mistake training and expertise to "used to this happening".
And it wasn't that hot. Reports are it was under 80 degrees. So around 25 celsius. She is not well, and it's been obvious for weeks.i read it was equivalent to 104F with humidity.
yes -- exactly.
Nah, he gets his handouts from Dubai:
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/damac-boss-denies-stealing-donald-trump-f...
And some over there are smart enough to see that he is talking out ob both sides of his mouth:
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/opinion-time-for-gulf-firms-review-their-...
As for who is more likely to start a war:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-woolsey-idUSKCN11I2KS
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a vocal advocate of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harbored illegal weapons, will serve as a senior national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the campaign announced on Monday.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11057968/donald-trump-iraq-war-2002
BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott found evidence when they looked through old recordings of Trump on The Howard Stern Show back in February. They came up with one hell of a scoop from the September 11, 2002, episode:
STERN: Are you for invading Iraq?
TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.
"Yeah, I guess so" — the words of a true statesman, weighing in on the most important foreign policy question of the 21st century.
Who believes Clinton now?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/13/us-voters-doubt-clintons...
I don't usually double-thread post, but this racist, conspiracist crap (Oct 2015) is too good:
"Not only do they have an illuminati logo, they also have backers who speak Hebrew"
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/194211/russia-today-airs-bizarre-anti-se...
[youtube]Keen5zqTacE[/youtube]
I honestly can't decide which I like less, the cockamamie conspiracy theories coming from Clinton's opponents (as if Trump is somehow any less of an NWO candidate) or the blatant Russophobia coming from her supporters.
In the meantime, shocka!
If a Clinton (male or female) makes a statement to you, that statement deserves some very careful parsing.
ygtbk your link was already posted in this thread.
as for the gasps, about more disbelieve in the poll to the amount who believe, in the now twice linked article article, are they freaking serious?
i give nothing about Hilary but the difference in how men and women are treated when running for the top job is mind boggling.
how about you start talking about Trumps huge lies ygbtk?
In the meantime, shocka!
If a Clinton (male or female) makes a statement to you, that statement deserves some very careful parsing.
A lot of them doubt the explanation for the original 911 collapse.
ygtbk your link was already posted in this thread.
as for the gasps, about more disbelieve in the poll to the amount who believe, in the now twice linked article article, are they freaking serious?
i give nothing about Hilary but the difference in how men and women are treated when running for the top job is mind boggling.
how about you start talking about Trumps huge lies ygbtk?
I think I noted that neither male nor female Clintons are trustworthy, but I can take requests, even on a thread that is actually on the topic of Hillary. (Check the thread header - it's a giveaway).
So I agree that both Trump and Hillary are very bad choices. Both of them say things that are clearly not true. Neither of them have anything like what you would want in a chief executive. So what to do?
You tell me. I already suggested voting for Gary Johnson. You may have a better solution.
You tell me. I already suggested voting for Gary Johnson. You may have a better solution.
Pick a funny fake name, and write it into the "write in" section of the ballot and get other disillusioned friends to do the same with the same name.
It could be funny if some news station, or even just Wikipedia, had to report that in the 2016 Presidential Election, "Hugh Jass" got 0.05% of the popular vote.
I think that would be more fun, and maybe more progressive, than voting for someone who wants to abolish income tax. Trump and Clinton aren't progressive, but a flat tax is now?
I thnk the US needs a Rhino Party candidate either that or Mr. Peanut. I always liked Mr. Peanut.
Many consider Mr. Peanut to have been an ideal candidate because he didn’t utter a word during or even after his campaign. All the talking was left to his manager John Mitchell who had some great lines, including:
“The mayoralty election is something everyone is concerned with and, as artists, we can use this as an open arena. I’m sure people are as ready for one nut as they are for the next.”
http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/mr-peanut-for-mayor-when-politi...
Many consider Mr. Peanut to have been an ideal candidate because he didn’t utter a word during or even after his campaign.
What could he need to say, that a top hat, a monocle, a walking stick and spats didn't say clearer than words could?
Many consider Mr. Peanut to have been an ideal candidate because he didn’t utter a word during or even after his campaign.
What could he need to say, that a top hat, a monocle, a walking stick and spats didn't say clearer than words could?
When the choice is betwen nuts he would be the best.
You tell me. I already suggested voting for Gary Johnson. You may have a better solution.Pick a funny fake name, and write it into the "write in" section of the ballot and get other disillusioned friends to do the same with the same name.
It could be funny if some news station, or even just Wikipedia, had to report that in the 2016 Presidential Election, "Hugh Jass" got 0.05% of the popular vote.
I think that would be more fun, and maybe more progressive, than voting for someone who wants to abolish income tax. Trump and Clinton aren't progressive, but a flat tax is now?
This is not an astonishingly stupid platform compared with the front-runners:
I personally like a flat tax because it gives politicians less room to bribe specific constituencies, and therefore gives them less power, but perhaps that's just me.
A flat tax, eh.
Where's Stephen Harper, George Bush Jr., Trump, the Fraser Instiute, and the rest of the right-wingers when you need them?
How to screw the less priviledged in one simple lesson! 
Following on my post at #103, two other takes on the Spayd editorial:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/times-writes-disastrous-def...
How can the news media appropriately cover Trump and his clearly flawed opponent without creating an indecipherable din of equivalent-sounding criticism, where one candidate’s evasive use of a private email server looms larger than the other’s promise to commit war crimes?
Liz Spayd, the New York Times’ new public editor, dismisses the problem out of hand in a column that is a logical train wreck.
And this:
http://billmoyers.com/story/journalism-truth-election-fact-check-debates/
After Today show glad-hander Matt Lauer disgraced himself on NBC Wednesday night — failing to correct Donald Trump’s lies about the Iraq war, promoting the notion that Hillary Clinton’s notorious emails constitute a serious blow to national security and repeatedly interrupting Clinton as she spoke whole sentences in response to his fatuous questions — squadrons of actual journalists stepped forward to deplore his insensitivity to truth.
Rightly so. If ever there was a need to pile on in defense of the old-fashioned idea that journalism requires a commitment to truth (not equal time for flat-earthers but truth), this was the time.
It's like people have forgotten that Clinton is already a war criminal.
The idea that any of the mainstream media in the US have ever been committed to truth is pretty laughable.
It's like people have forgotten that Clinton is already a war criminal.
The idea that any of the mainstream media in the US have ever been committed to truth is pretty laughable.
My understanding of this denial is that, so was Bush/Clinton/Bush Jr. etc, so to care about that for Hillary now is sexist. Pointing out she lies is sexist because every politician ever lies (while conveniently ignoring the fact that she lies a lot even for a politician). Pointing out that her story went allergies->"overheated but I feel fine"->pneumonia in the course of hours suggests the "pneumonia" may not be the truth either is sexist. Frankly, I hope it's true, pneumonia is a lot less severe than parkinson's which is what the haters have been calling it for a month - but it's hard to tell.
Or pneumonia in your body double.
The idea that any of the mainstream media in the US have ever been committed to truth is pretty laughable.
I suppose those articles were written by elves.
You know, no one is denying that there are problems in the mainstream media, least of all me, who posted those articles. But it is blanket statements like the one you make there which make me ask the same question about this place all the time.
With the difference that I do know there are some here who care about it.
A flat tax, eh.
Where's Stephen Harper, George Bush Jr., Trump, the Fraser Instiute, and the rest of the right-wingers when you need them?
How to screw the less priviledged in one simple lesson!
I think it depends how you do it, i.e. tax rate and level of personal exemption.
Think about two alternatives, inventively called A and B.
A) 50% flat tax from first dollar of income.
B) 35% flat tax with first $25K of income exempt, and dividends and capital gains taxed the same as ordinary income.
Alternative A would at first glance crush low-income people, although you might be able to offset that by providing lots of services. I think it's a non-starter.
Alternative B is (to me, anyway) not obviously worse than the current system.
There are two different aspects of a "flat tax," for some reason they always get stapled together.
The first aspect is "no brackets."
So instead the current system of (roughtly) no tax on first $10000, then 15% tax on the next $25000, then 22% on the next $45000, then 33% on the next $60000, etc, you would have either just one bracket of (say) 18%, or you would have two brackets, with the first X dollars being tax exempt and the rest at a slightly higher rate.
The argument in favour of that half of a "flat tax" is that if tax rates get too high (say above 50%) then there's no incentive for people who are already making several hundred thousand dollars a year to make even more in a year. I don't think anyone here needs me to debunk that theory, but I'm happy to if anyone needs it. The above system benefits the rich relatively speaking as they will pay relatively less tax.
The other aspect of a "flat tax" is more interesting from a progressive point of view, as long as the tiered bracket system remains in place. The other aspect is "get rid of all the deductions." Essentially, the super rich have many deductions and loopholes that they can use to reduce the amount of tax they pay, to the point where Warren Buffet famously pointed out he pays less tax as a percentage of income than his secretary does. Some obvious and common examples of this are how investment income is taxed at preferable rates. The poor and middle classes only get minor benefit from most deductions. Tax deductions disproportionately benefit the rich.
So if you eliminate the deductions, the increase in tax revenue from eliminated the thousands of deductions allows overall rates to decline. I don't know the numbers, but as a hypothetical example you might be looking at brackets of 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% at different tiers of income (rather than 15%, 22%, 29%, 43% or whatever it currently is).
Nobody advocates for just one or the other though, they are always sold as a pair even though the two concepts are only tangentially related.
I could most likely support eliminating deductions so everyone with the same income pays the same amount of tax, although I haven't exhaustively researched the issue.
True dat. Thanks Smith.
I think part of the reason they are put together (closing loopholes and flat taxes) is to create horizontal "fairness" while maintaining the same advantages for wealthy companies. Closing loopholes and flattening the tax would not do anything to make the system more progressive or collect more -- they would make the treatment of one company the same as another of the same income.
The problem is that some of these loopholes are to encourage good policy objectives. We should not ditch them unless we maintain a progressive system as a beneficiary.
Now the basic exemption means there are two rates -- one at zero and the other at wherever the exemption ends. So a flat tax in theory has no exemptions. Those who want a high exemption are really calling for a two tier system. And a two tier system can be made to be fair if it is high enough. Look at the impact a large exemption woudl do on effective total tax rates. So a true flat tax is just about the most regressive you can have while a high two tier could be more progressive than we now have. Imagine setting the exemption at $40,000 and a rate of tax above that of 30%. Those earning $60,000 may pay 30% on 1/3 of their income but they get 2/3 of their income untaxed. At 100,000 they get 60% of their income taxed at 30% but still see 40% untaxed. If the exemption is high enough and the percentage of tax above it is high enough you ahve a steeply progressive result. If the exemption or the tax rate is low then you ahve a regressive tax system.
One reason some people are nervous of this is you could design a progressive flat tax with high exemption (not a real flat tax) and then the next government with only a slight tinkering could make it more regressive than what you started with. I think the reason progressives don't like this approach is not that they do not understand how to make it progressive, but they worry how easliy you could make it very regressive.
Then there is the issue of indexing. Not done properly and you will have creep on the exemption until it is worth less. The solution to that could be to set boldly the exemption at the median wage or perhaps 75% of it. If you think about that i is not entirely unreasonable an idea. Or you can use a national cost of living calculation. The latter could even be slightly adjusted based on cost of living in different parts of the country.
If I'm not mistaken, Johnson isn't proposing to replace a marginal income tax with a flat income tax. He's proposing to replace ALL income tax with a flat consumption (sales) tax.
If I'm not mistaken, Johnson isn't proposing to replace a marginal income tax with a flat income tax. He's proposing to replace ALL income tax with a flat consumption (sales) tax.
You are correct - a consumption tax with a "prebate" (clumsy word for exemption) is what he's proposing. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
I personally like my alternative B) better, but I'm not running for President.
On the issue of Hillary's health, her collapsing on 9/11 in combination with the other symptoms means that everything is not okay on a basic human level.
There's another political undercurrent. Sander's age was an issue, and during the 2008 campaign so was McCain's. Well neither one has had any public health mishaps, unlike Hillary Clinton. So after using hypothetical health issues to attack her opponents, suddenly Hillary has an actual health issue and there's nothing to see here? Sorry, Clinton's health is an issue, esepcially since, like everything else, she has been less than forthcoming on this topic. Clinton is trying to have it both ways.
Can you tell us more about this "collapse"?
She didn't fucking collapse. Honest to fucking gawd.
She wasn't feeling well, got overheated and was a little woozy. An hour or so later, she was out in front of cameras, albeit briefly, smiling, having her photo taken and talked (again briefly) with reporters.
That does not constitute a "collapse".
Would really appreciate you not continuing to spread the Trumpist lie, A24.
She didn't fucking collapse. Honest to fucking gawd.
She wasn't feeling well, got overheated and was a little woozy. An hour or so later, she was out in front of cameras, albeit briefly, smiling, having her photo taken and talked (again briefly) with reporters.
That does not constitute a "collapse".
Would really appreciate you not continuing to spread the Trumpist lie, A24.
She would have hit the fucking pavement if people hadn't been there to catch her. So, yeah, I think it's fair to say she collapsed.
People should call it as they see it, and I see something going on with Clinton's health, and people falling all over themselves to brand any discussion of it as conspiratorial.
I miss the days when everyone on the progressive left (including the anti-war left, MIA since 2008) knew exactly what the Clintons are and why they are so loathsome.
I miss the days when everyone on the progressive left (including the anti-war left, MIA since 2008) knew exactly what the Clintons are and why they are so loathsome.
If we can be honest for just a moment, this "loathsome" is why people are glomming onto her health. Not because they give a rat's ass, and not because feeling woozy on a hot day means you can't be President.
Can you join me in admitting that that's why we're talking about her health?
Before Dick Cheney ever became next in line for the Presidency, he'd already had FOUR separate heart attacks. Funny how he was "good to go", eh?
Whatever you think of her politics, there are angles of criticism that have sweet fuck all to do with them. This would be one of them. Here's an informative blog post by Dr. Jen Gunter:
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/nothing-in-hillary-clintons...
Why must Mrs. Clinton tell the world when she has pneumonia, a short-lived illness from which she is expected to make a full recovery, when that diagnosis in no way affects her ability to be President? It’s not as if pneumonia is going to cause her to accidentally fall on a red button and launch a nuclear war. Pneumonia is also not a precursor to dementia or psychosis. Answering irrelevant questions about her health justifies their asking and perpetuates the continued inappropriate focus on her health. Mr. Trump didn’t answer much about his health and the Press stopped asking. As there is no “healthy enough” test and no “health standard” for the Presidency exactly how will releasing more records help? And who gets to interpret these records? Apparently it’s Dr. Oz who gets to interpret Mr. Trump’s.
She would have hit the fucking pavement if people hadn't been there to catch her.
Can you tell us more about people having to "catch her"?
Mrs. Clinton's campaign acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton had/has pneumonia. Mrs. Clinton's campaign acknowledged that not only did/does Mrs. Clinton have pneumonia, but that several other staffers in her campaign did as well. And, Mrs. Clinton's campaign also claimed that Mrs. Clinton's campaign was non-contagious.
Who do we trust, Mrs. Clinton's campaign or Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
She would have hit the fucking pavement if people hadn't been there to catch her.Can you tell us more about people having to "catch her"?
That won't work anymore Magoo. No matter how bad Mrs. Clinton's previous scandals were, people never saw the evidence for themselves. It was always someone's word vs. Mrs. Clinton. Whether it was Bill's rape victims, Assange and his wikileaks, or Comey and the emails, voters never saw her lie with their own eyes. It was always hearsay.
Now you are asking people to trust you and Mrs. Clinton over their own eyes. What happened on the 11th is not such a big deal on it's own, it's a big deal because now people have seen visual proof of Mrs. Clinton lying for themselves.
And your poor attempts to gaslight people in the face of the obvious will backfire, and make them more distrustful of you and those whose narrative you push in the future.
Who do we trust, Mrs. Clinton's campaign or Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
What if they just strapped her down to a gurney and let any interested voters examine her for themselves?
And your poor attempts to gaslight people in the face of the obvious will backfire, and make them more distrustful of you and those whose narrative you push in the future.
I'll take my chances.
Aside: does she choose to go by "Mrs." Clinton these days, or is Cody87 just aiming for "one bullet, two kills"?
Whatever you think of her politics, there are angles of criticism that have sweet fuck all to do with them. This would be one of them. Here's an informative blog post by Dr. Jen Gunter:
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/nothing-in-hillary-clintons...
Why must Mrs. Clinton tell the world when she has pneumonia, a short-lived illness from which she is expected to make a full recovery, when that diagnosis in no way affects her ability to be President? It’s not as if pneumonia is going to cause her to accidentally fall on a red button and launch a nuclear war. Pneumonia is also not a precursor to dementia or psychosis. Answering irrelevant questions about her health justifies their asking and perpetuates the continued inappropriate focus on her health. Mr. Trump didn’t answer much about his health and the Press stopped asking. As there is no “healthy enough” test and no “health standard” for the Presidency exactly how will releasing more records help? And who gets to interpret these records? Apparently it’s Dr. Oz who gets to interpret Mr. Trump’s.
I don't think she has to tell the world when she has pneumonia (although my grandfather recently suffered a bout of pneumonia for which he was hospitalized and it was treated as very serious, as in, he could well die), I just get suspicious when a media industry that we all know serves the establishment and seeks to shape public opinion (Manufacturing Consent anybody??) is unanimous in telling us that we're insane to even suggest that maybe she's got health problems. I call it like I see it, and maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me a conspiracy nut.
Pneumonia can vary widely in its severity. It also depends on the overall condition of the afflicted. In an elderly person who is mostly sedentary it is always cause for alarm. I had an atypical bacterial pneumonia when I was in my 20s and was pretty darned sick (foolishly went for quite a long stretch just roughing it out), but not enough to warrant hospitalization, just antibiotics and rest. I've known others for whom a mild bout of it is just some chest congestion, back in the swing of things in a couple of days on antibiotics.
The reality of the situation is neither one of you have any idea about the state of Hillary's health.
Empirically? No, that's true. However, the doctor's note that she is in acceptably good health is a pretty decent clue.
Anyone who is over 60 should get the pneumonia vaccine. See your doctor, if you are lucky enough to have one...
