Hillary Clinton

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

Manocean wrote:

Hillary does have health issues, that is a fact.

Facts and assertions/speculations are not the same. Right wing folks care more about conspiracy theories than facts, it seems now. Most of the time it´s not even worth commenting on all this crap.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/hillary-clinton-health-rumors-doctor-column

While the author of that (insert talking point 1 here) speech might be a doctor, she didn't give a single piece of evidence to support her points (insert talking point 2 here), nor any analysis, nor any diagnosis(insert talking point 3 here).

And why should anyone ? People who make assertions would have to prove them and not expect someone else to prove the opposite. No one needs to do that.

I prefer shit posting to actual posting. I'm getting tired (Like Hillary) and we have to go until November.

But, yea, Hillary is stressed out and it's causing her health to tank and obvious spurts of mental issues. She can't keep up with Donnie Drumpf who, probably has as much health problems as any old sack, but seems to go non-stop like a machine (probably powered on the fumes of misogyny amirite!)

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Re: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/hillary-clinton-health-rumors-doctor-column

While the author of that (insert talking point 1 here) speech might be a doctor, she didn't give a single piece of evidence to support her points (insert talking point 2 here), nor any analysis, nor any diagnosis(insert talking point 3 here).

And why should anyone ? People who make assertions would have to prove them and not expect someone else to prove the opposite. No one needs to do that.

Group A makes Claim X and gives reasoning and "proof"

Group B thinks Group A's logic is bad and proof is bad.

If Group B wishes to refute Group's A's claim, then Group B is making an assertion and must give their own reasoning why logic is bad and provide proof that the proof is bad, or their claim is nothing than saying "I don't like Group A's claim".

This is standard practice.

Example - One of Haku's spirits claims it saw an Albino Rhoa in one of his missions, and reasons that since there were other rhoa's in the mission it was possible. He also provides a grainy screenshot.

Haku says - There is no need to claim to see an Albino Rhoa, and then talks about the history of Albino Rhoa sightings.

Haku has failed to refute the spirit's claim with either logic or proof.

What Haku should have done is:

Refute the reasoning: "Albino Rhoa isn't possible in my missions, because of GGG coding rules." and/or Refute the proof (counter proof or dispute the validity of the proof) "Your screenshot is fuzzy looking and I can see the border where you cut and pasted it in MS paint."

The physician could have said: "The 'proof' is weak or , speculative, or has no medical basis, or is not a clinical manifestation of...."

The physician could have refuted the reasoning: "A couple of jerky movements are not a good basis for an assessment of ..." etc.

The physician did nothing, but made a counterclaim.

Her counterclaim is moot.

Whether you or I or anyone chooses to see the Hillary Health critics "proof" as weak, does not mean they haven't provided something for us as "proof".

Their "proof" is falsifiable (it can be tested or examined to see whether it is true or not) It fits with their hypothesis. They have a working theory. It might be a weak as wet paper bad logic theory, but it meets the criteria.

Falsifying their "proof" or refuting the logic (removing cause and effect and turning it into a weak correlation) are the way to put their theory into the dust bin.

.........

I can say "I am posting on the OFF Topic Forum" and provide a screenshot of my post.

If you wish to say "That's not true, you are on the General Discussion forum." Then you need to provide proof. If you wish to say "That's not true." You still need to provide proof.

However ... someone making an outrageous claim, will need to provide some convincing evidence, just like someone claiming the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

The fact that Hillary hit her head/fell, and had some medical issues in the past, puts any related medical question into the semi-plausible genre, not the outrageous.

It's not different than when Reagan's mental health was questioned because of his age.

The only difference is that Hillary is one of the liberal and left wing media's darlings.

From that Right-Wing rag, ABC:

Hillary Clinton's Glasses Are For Concussion, Not Fashion (Jan. 25, 2013)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-glasses-concussion-fashion/story?id=18313426

"

The thick glasses Hillary Clinton has been wearing in public since returning from a concussion and blood clot last month are the result of lingering effects of her health problems, a Clinton aide confirms.

"She'll be wearing these glasses instead of her contacts for a period of time because of lingering issues stemming from her concussion," said spokesman Philippe Reines. "With them on she sees just fine."

Of course, Hillary's spokesman was just a biased observer with a political agenda... =^[.]^=

Thick glasses 2013, hmm, ok....

"[...]It is possible that blurred or double vision can last up to weeks and even months," he said. "This really depends on the severity of the head injury. In cases of concussions, these symptoms are usually temporary and eventually resolve with time.[...]"

(from the linked article)


No big deal for any spokesman.

Brain Injury: Long term outcome after traumatic brain injury

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/338/

Silly doctors. Whatta they know, anyway? =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Brain Injury: Long term outcome after traumatic brain injury

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/338/

Silly doctors. Whatta they know, anyway? =^[.]^=

What´s that supposed to tell me here ? Different mechanisms, pathogenesis, possible different outcomes, so ?

They know something about a single person after individual examination (e.g. inspection, palpation, percussion)and technical supported diagnostics. After that it´s not difficult to make a statement on one´s individual health.

Without that, it is.

Such a stupid "issue". As if there's a viable alternative; a 70 year old man who eats fast food, doesn't exercise, sleeps 4 hours a night while engaging in the most stressful endeavor of all time is your paragon of health?

...with a shittily written """""""doctor's""""""" note, which it was admitted was written in 5 minutes.

Fucks sake, you guys really have nothing.

"

Antnee wrote:

Such a stupid "issue". As if there's a viable alternative; a 70 year old man who eats fast food, doesn't exercise, sleeps 4 hours a night while engaging in the most stressful endeavor of all time is your paragon of health?

...with a shittily written """""""doctor's""""""" note, which it was admitted was written in 5 minutes.

Fucks sake, you guys really have nothing.

Warren buffet is 86 and lived that way. But Hillary is mentally ill which is worse. remeber the glee when she killed kadaffi with " we came we saw he died LOL" and she'd pinning for war with Russia which u will not survive. The elite will, they have multi generational underground compounds. Anyway vote for that crazed women at your own risk.