In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 13 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote: Except they part where he claims they lied? What was the lie? Not telling everyone she was sick after the doctors visit Friday?
What is this bizarre world that we live in where half of the world has been stricken illiterate? He lays out exactly what the lie is in the article. Do I really need to highlight it?
I have a higher standard of lying than you two apparently. I need full blown attempts at deception, rather than omissions of facts. They need to say she left due to a family emergency and then later we find out she left due to overheating for it to be a lie.
Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
Even the german media which is like 99% swinging for Clinton (and 1% hating Amercia overall) is putting out news articles like crazy about this topic like it is the biggest thing in the overall race ever happened. Even the caughing one week prior no is a topic (which has nowhere to be seen anywhere before this weekend), articles about her health as minister for foreign affairs (you call it secretary of the state?) and finally articles about rosevelt or kennedy and their health issues.
Its literally the biggest topic of the american election race so far we got here. And this in a press landscape that is totally swinging for Hillary and anti-Trump.
On September 13 2016 01:26 Clonester wrote: Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
Even the german media which is like 99% swinging for Clinton (and 1% hating Amercia overall) is putting out news articles like crazy about this topic like it is the biggest thing in the overall race ever happened. Even the caughing one week prior no is a topic (which has nowhere to be seen anywhere before this weekend), articles about her health as minister for foreign affairs (you call it secretary of the state?) and finally articles about rosevelt or kennedy and their health issues.
Its literally the biggest topic of the american election race so far we got here. And this in a press landscape that is totally swinging for Hillary and anti-Trump.
On September 13 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote: Except they part where he claims they lied? What was the lie? Not telling everyone she was sick after the doctors visit Friday?
What is this bizarre world that we live in where half of the world has been stricken illiterate? He lays out exactly what the lie is in the article. Do I really need to highlight it?
Facts: -Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday -There was a decision to try and work through it and not announce it -Clinton attended a memorial for 9/11 and whatever factors caused her to faint/ feel faint -She left and felt better later -There was a delay before the campaign explained the situation
On September 13 2016 01:26 Clonester wrote: Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
So every time Clinton or Trump is asked how they are feeling, we need them to respond with a live update that must hold up to rigorous fact checking? What if they are hungry, can that factor in? If Trump is to way to hot at an event, but is saying it’s great, what level of lying is that? If some of the food gave him really bad gas, is he a liar if he says it was really good?
On September 13 2016 01:32 Velr wrote: Does it matter? People that actually listen to trump and don't like him for what he said would vote for a dead parrot over him.
One person I know said "I would vote for the corpse of Hilary Clinton on a pyre of burning emails before i considered voting for Trump. Do with that what you will" It pretty much summed up my views on the choices at this point.
On September 13 2016 01:26 Clonester wrote: Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
So every time Clinton or Trump is asked how they are feeling, we need them to respond with a live update that must hold up to rigorous fact checking? What if they are hungry, can that factor in? If Trump is to way to hot at an event, but is saying it’s great, what level of lying is that? If some of the food gave him really bad gas, is he a liar if he says it was really good?
Really, saying fine with a desease that normal, young and healthy people have to cure out up to 2 weeks in bed (and you just collapsed from it), is just the same as saying "well, we got 30°C in this hall but I am totally fine!" is the same?
On September 13 2016 01:32 Velr wrote: Does it matter? People that actually listen to trump and don't like him for what he said would vote for a dead parrot over him.
It doesn't really matter to me. But it will matter to a lot of people.
I think when she returned from her daughter's apartment she should have just explained that she had pneumonia. However, It is entirely unreasonable to claim that not disclosing a recoverable illness or working while you have that illness is in any way dishonest.
My dad got pneumonia about a year ago. He tried to continue working through it but ended up having to rest at home for a while. He wasn't changed to his bed he just had to stop teaching his classes for about a week and hang around the house.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just made a massive error. We'll know within the next few weeks if the error will prove to be catastrophic.
On Sunday, Clinton abruptly left a Manhattan ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A video shows her shakily stumbling while trying to get into a van to leave. The candidate's physician later offered this explanation: Clinton has had an allergy-related cough for some time, and during an examination on Friday, the Democratic nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia, put on antibiotics, and told to take time out to rest. She became overheated and dehydrated during Sunday morning's event, which led her to collapse. She's now home in Chappaqua and on the road to recovery.
Compare this timeline to details from Hillary Clinton's public schedule and behavior over these same two days.
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics, she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest. Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand. Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration, became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
The most charitable reading of this timeline is that her campaign — presumably with the blessing and perhaps insistence of the candidate — fully intended to keep her illness a secret from the public. Let's be clear about what this means: Her campaign intended to lie. Even though doing so would require her to keep up a public schedule that might well make her condition worse and require ever-more elaborate forms of concealment. Because, of course, to curtail her schedule would raise questions that might reveal the truth.
So even after she collapsed, the campaign decided the ruse would continue. It arranged for the candidate to make her curbside declaration of wellness, even bringing on the girl to give her a "spontaneous" hug. (Clinton's protection detail would never have permitted a genuinely spontaneous embrace on the street, even by a child.)
It's easy to understand why the Clinton campaign would want to keep this kind of news a secret. The candidate doesn't trust the media. The right has been hitting her over supposed health issues for months (and even years), and the assault has picked up in intensity over the past week or so — since Clinton found herself in the midst of an extended coughing fit at a campaign event in Cleveland. Then there's the gender dynamic. Donald Trump presents himself as a hyper-masculine tough guy, while Clinton is the first female presidential nominee. The Clinton camp is probably twice as terrified of their candidate looking frail as a less path-breaking campaign would be.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable: namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's medical condition. But the risk was enormous — and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy — and this time about her own health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Not long after this charade, someone on the campaign staff made the call to come clean. But it may well have been too late.
The best the campaign can hope for now is that Clinton recovers quickly and soon looks healthy in her public appearances. Then maybe the topic will recede into the background of the campaign. The candidate got sick, but then she got better. End of story.
But if she doesn't recover quickly? If she appears weak and frail for more than a few days? Then, yes, she'll face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's physically up to serving as president. But worse, she'll confront lingering doubts about what, precisely, is ailing her. "It's pneumonia," the campaign will proclaim over and over again. To which a skeptical America will justifiably reply, "Yes, we can tell that you'd like us to think so. But we have no reason to trust that's true."
Political trust is a fragile thing. Once it's gone, it's exceedingly difficult to get back — and without it, there's no basis on which to dismiss conspiracy theories that even normally level-headed observers will begin, for perfectly understandable reasons, to entertain.
Like so many of the scandals and pseudo-scandals that have dogged Hillary Clinton and her husband through the years, this one needs to be recognized as entirely self-inflicted. The campaign now has to live with the consequences of having chosen to lie to get out of a problem.
You Hillary supporters need to shake yourselves out of your delusions. Her campaign clearly messed up, and I'm not sure why it's so hard for y'all to see it and concede that point (edit: Actually, I do know why, but I'm going to be nice).
It's not that she lies, she just needs to hire on better liars. This issue comes on the heels of a related topic: it's not that she's corrupt, she's incompetent at hiding her corruption.
On September 13 2016 01:26 Clonester wrote: Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
So every time Clinton or Trump is asked how they are feeling, we need them to respond with a live update that must hold up to rigorous fact checking? What if they are hungry, can that factor in? If Trump is to way to hot at an event, but is saying it’s great, what level of lying is that? If some of the food gave him really bad gas, is he a liar if he says it was really good?
Really, saying fine with a desease that normal, young and healthy people have to cure out up to 2 weeks in bed (and you just collapsed from it), is just the same as saying "well, we got 30°C in this hall but I am totally fine!" is the same?
At this point we get into the language police. Does them saying “She is fine” not automatically imply the standard “given the circumstances,” when they say it? Or do we need that after every statement to be honest. Do we need them to preface every statement with that to not call it a lie?
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just made a massive error. We'll know within the next few weeks if the error will prove to be catastrophic.
On Sunday, Clinton abruptly left a Manhattan ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A video shows her shakily stumbling while trying to get into a van to leave. The candidate's physician later offered this explanation: Clinton has had an allergy-related cough for some time, and during an examination on Friday, the Democratic nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia, put on antibiotics, and told to take time out to rest. She became overheated and dehydrated during Sunday morning's event, which led her to collapse. She's now home in Chappaqua and on the road to recovery.
Compare this timeline to details from Hillary Clinton's public schedule and behavior over these same two days.
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics, she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest. Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand. Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration, became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
The most charitable reading of this timeline is that her campaign — presumably with the blessing and perhaps insistence of the candidate — fully intended to keep her illness a secret from the public. Let's be clear about what this means: Her campaign intended to lie. Even though doing so would require her to keep up a public schedule that might well make her condition worse and require ever-more elaborate forms of concealment. Because, of course, to curtail her schedule would raise questions that might reveal the truth.
So even after she collapsed, the campaign decided the ruse would continue. It arranged for the candidate to make her curbside declaration of wellness, even bringing on the girl to give her a "spontaneous" hug. (Clinton's protection detail would never have permitted a genuinely spontaneous embrace on the street, even by a child.)
It's easy to understand why the Clinton campaign would want to keep this kind of news a secret. The candidate doesn't trust the media. The right has been hitting her over supposed health issues for months (and even years), and the assault has picked up in intensity over the past week or so — since Clinton found herself in the midst of an extended coughing fit at a campaign event in Cleveland. Then there's the gender dynamic. Donald Trump presents himself as a hyper-masculine tough guy, while Clinton is the first female presidential nominee. The Clinton camp is probably twice as terrified of their candidate looking frail as a less path-breaking campaign would be.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable: namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's medical condition. But the risk was enormous — and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy — and this time about her own health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Not long after this charade, someone on the campaign staff made the call to come clean. But it may well have been too late.
The best the campaign can hope for now is that Clinton recovers quickly and soon looks healthy in her public appearances. Then maybe the topic will recede into the background of the campaign. The candidate got sick, but then she got better. End of story.
But if she doesn't recover quickly? If she appears weak and frail for more than a few days? Then, yes, she'll face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's physically up to serving as president. But worse, she'll confront lingering doubts about what, precisely, is ailing her. "It's pneumonia," the campaign will proclaim over and over again. To which a skeptical America will justifiably reply, "Yes, we can tell that you'd like us to think so. But we have no reason to trust that's true."
Political trust is a fragile thing. Once it's gone, it's exceedingly difficult to get back — and without it, there's no basis on which to dismiss conspiracy theories that even normally level-headed observers will begin, for perfectly understandable reasons, to entertain.
Like so many of the scandals and pseudo-scandals that have dogged Hillary Clinton and her husband through the years, this one needs to be recognized as entirely self-inflicted. The campaign now has to live with the consequences of having chosen to lie to get out of a problem.
You Hillary supporters need to shake yourselves out of your delusions. Her campaign clearly messed up, and I'm not sure why it's so hard for y'all to see it and concede that point (edit: Actually, I do know why, but I'm going to be nice).
It's not that she lies, she just needs to hire on better liars. This issue comes on the heels of a related topic: it's not that she's corrupt, she's incompetent at hiding her corruption.
I see Hunts abandoned asking xDaunt to elaborate about Clinton's clear corruption after the nth time of no answer. But if you say that she is incompetent at hiding her corruption, I do hope at least you have some examples.
Alright, here's my tinfoil hat theory on what's going on. Clinton's collapse has nothing to do with her pneumonia (presuming that she even has it). Instead, she's suffering ministrokes as a consequence of her long history of blood clots. She's been taking Coumadin since 2012, which is a "no joke" medicine for treating blood clots and warding off strokes and heart attacks, and she took Lovenox (a lesser medicine) from 1998 to 2012.
On September 13 2016 01:26 Clonester wrote: Friday: perfectly fine Sunday 9am: Collaps Sunday 10.30am: "feeling great" Sunday late afternoon: Pneumonia
Something is somewhere totally wrong and it is no problem to call it a lie.
So every time Clinton or Trump is asked how they are feeling, we need them to respond with a live update that must hold up to rigorous fact checking? What if they are hungry, can that factor in? If Trump is to way to hot at an event, but is saying it’s great, what level of lying is that? If some of the food gave him really bad gas, is he a liar if he says it was really good?
Really, saying fine with a desease that normal, young and healthy people have to cure out up to 2 weeks in bed (and you just collapsed from it), is just the same as saying "well, we got 30°C in this hall but I am totally fine!" is the same?
At this point we get into the language police. Does them saying “She is fine” not automatically imply the standard “given the circumstances,” when they say it? Or do we need that after every statement to be honest. Do we need them to preface every statement with that to not call it a lie?
Instead of "I am feeling great" you could just say "well, I got this pneumonia, but the meds work and I am feeling quite good overall and it will be gone after 2 days of rest" ... but well, I can also hug a child with an spreadable infection and smile in the cam say I am feeling great.
Hint: Nobody ever with a pneumonia will ever say he/she feels great. Its a really shitty desease that makes you feel like you are the weakest fuck on earth. Its not a normal flue and even these can hit you hard, its painful to breath, it is painful to just exist with a pneumonia.
I guess that is the real answer. Clinton collapsing on camera from illness apparently wasn't enough and you guys wanted to get something more out of it.
On September 13 2016 01:52 xDaunt wrote: Alright, here's my tinfoil hat theory on what's going on. Clinton's collapse has nothing to do with her pneumonia (presuming that she even has it). Instead, she's suffering ministrokes as a consequence of her long history of blood clots. She's been taking Coumadin since 2012, which is a "no joke" medicine for treating blood clots and warding off strokes and heart attacks, and she took Lovenox (a lesser medicine) from 1998 to 2012.
She almost definitely has pneumonia, much of her staff is apparently laid up with it.
On September 13 2016 01:52 xDaunt wrote: Alright, here's my tinfoil hat theory on what's going on. Clinton's collapse has nothing to do with her pneumonia (presuming that she even has it). Instead, she's suffering ministrokes as a consequence of her long history of blood clots. She's been taking Coumadin since 2012, which is a "no joke" medicine for treating blood clots and warding off strokes and heart attacks, and she took Lovenox (a lesser medicine) from 1998 to 2012.
She almost definitely has pneumonia, much of her staff is apparently laid up with it.
Really? So there's a contagious form of pneumonia going around, which she may have, and she's out and about in public and doing photo ops with kids thereby exposing them to that nastiness? That's just cold.
EPT
