Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And, of course, he simply posted the contents of the books on his campaign website as was for everyone to know precisely what his policy proposals are.....
LMAO.. Was he supposed to post something different???
You said that he hasn't been specific... he wrote two freaking books.
You said he started talking about running for prez in 2014... both books were published well before 2014.
Now you're saying... Well, but he just posted what was in his books on his website! Really? How fucking DARE him do that! The NERVE! lol
Hillary is well known to be a booze hound alcohol addict. She prefers hard liquor. Martinis, vodka, whisky, not just an occasional beer or glass of wine with a meal. She likes to get smashed.It is the 6th leading cause of death in the USA, therefore it is obviously very "permanent" in many cases.Pneumonia is not a permanent condition.Don't you think needing help to get into a van after a near collapse is a warning sign????
Red:
Minor point/questions...The CDC cites pneumonia and the flue as the eighth leading causes of death in 2014. Pneumonia and flu were together the sixth leading cause in 1980. Do you have more current figures? Do you by any chance have a breakdown of the two ailments' respective share of the overall figure cited?
I didn't check further to find out what share of the figure cited (55,227) is flu and what share is pneumonia. I did notice that the tenth leading cause -- suicide -- is a stand-alone cause of death. At ~42K+, suicides are 77% of the ~55K+ flu/pneumonia deaths in 2014, so it's not highly likely, though not impossible either, that flu or pneumonia, by themselves in 2014, caused ~42K+ deaths.
That said, I repeat, I didn't check to find out what the breakdown is. It's clearly possible for flu or pneumonia to comprise more than 77% of the 55,227 combined figure, and given the related nature of the two, if one causes overwhelmingly more fatalities than the other (i.e., more than ~42K deaths), it's reasonable to lump the very "minor" one with the other, all the more so if the lumping doesn't alter the overall ranking of the top ten causes of death, even though the lumping unavoidably introduces the risk that readers will inaccurately assume either flu or pneumonia is more deadly than it really is.
Obviously, I take no exception with your remark about pneumonia being terminal for folks who die of it. There again, however, ~1M or so folks are diagnosed annually with pneumonia** and of them some quantity fewer than 55,227 die of it. Accordingly, I'm not in agreement that for "many" people pneumonia is fatal, other than in an absolute sense whereby one may consider some tens of thousands of deaths constitutes a lot of deaths. Given a population of pneumonia sufferers numbering about a million, however, I don't see pneumonia as a thing to be too concerned about in a general sense. If my 97 year old father contracted it, on the other hand, I'd be very concerned because for folks in his age cohort, it's pretty deadly.
Just trying to make sense of the numbers.....
**Note:
In seeking info about the pneumonia death rate, the document I found (linked in the last paragraph) notes that ~50K people annually die of pneumonia. I stumbled across that figure and it sheds light on the proportionality question I asked and discussed above. It seems that pneumonia comprises the bulk (~50K) of the ~55K deaths lumped as "influenza and pneumonia."
I must say....I am a wee bit disappointed that there are no replies to my initial post in this thread. I thought for certain it would have been seen as highly objectionable to the usual crowd. Meh.
??? What was there to say? You shared several conjectures about what might happen if Mrs. Clinton's observed health doesn't return to what it appeared to be prior to last Sunday. Odds are you are correct. I don't think whether you are or are not has a thing to do with one's preferences about Clinton, Trump or politics in general.
Hillary is well known to be a booze hound alcohol addict. She prefers hard liquor. Martinis, vodka, whisky, not just an occasional beer or glass of wine with a meal. She likes to get smashed.It is the 6th leading cause of death in the USA, therefore it is obviously very "permanent" in many cases.Pneumonia is not a permanent condition.Don't you think needing help to get into a van after a near collapse is a warning sign????
Red:
Minor point/questions...The CDC cites pneumonia and the flue as the eighth leading causes of death in 2014. Pneumonia and flu were together the sixth leading cause in 1980. Do you have more current figures? Do you by any chance have a breakdown of the two ailments' respective share of the overall figure cited?
I didn't check further to find out what share of the figure cited (55,227) is flu and what share is pneumonia. I did notice that the tenth leading cause -- suicide -- is a stand-alone cause of death. At ~42K+, suicides are 77% of the ~55K+ flu/pneumonia deaths in 2014, so it's not highly likely, though not impossible either, that flu or pneumonia, by themselves in 2014, caused ~42K+ deaths.
That said, I repeat, I didn't check to find out what the breakdown is. It's clearly possible for flu or pneumonia to comprise more than 77% of the 55,227 combined figure, and given the related nature of the two, if one causes overwhelmingly more fatalities than the other (i.e., more than ~42K deaths), it's reasonable to lump the very "minor" one with the other, all the more so if the lumping doesn't alter the overall ranking of the top ten causes of death, even though the lumping unavoidably introduces the risk that readers will inaccurately assume either flu or pneumonia is more deadly than it really is.
Obviously, I take no exception with your remark about pneumonia being terminal for folks who die of it. There again, however, ~1M or so folks are diagnosed annually with pneumonia** and of them some quantity fewer than 55,227 die of it. Accordingly, I'm not in agreement that for "many" people pneumonia is fatal, other than in an absolute sense whereby one may consider some tens of thousands of deaths constitutes a lot of deaths. Given a population of pneumonia sufferers numbering about a million, however, I don't see pneumonia as a thing to be too concerned about in a general sense. If my 97 year old father contracted it, on the other hand, I'd be very concerned because for folks in his age cohort, it's pretty deadly.
Just trying to make sense of the numbers.....
**Note:
In seeking info about the pneumonia death rate, the document I found (linked in the last paragraph) notes that ~50K people annually die of pneumonia. I stumbled across that figure and it sheds light on the proportionality question I asked and discussed above. It seems that pneumonia comprises the bulk (~50K) of the ~55K deaths lumped as "influenza and pneumonia."
Epidemiology of Alcohol Abuse and Pneumonia
As of 2001, pneumonia was the sixth most common cause of death in the United States, with over 1 million people requiring hospitalization for pneumonia per year (Niederman et al. 1998). In an otherwise healthy person, pneumonia usually has a low mortality and often can be treated without hospitalization with oral antibiotics. However, if hospitalization is required the mortality rises significantly (American Thoracic Society 2001). Further, if patients develop respiratory failure and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU), mortality may exceed 50 percent (American Thoracic Society 2001). Therefore, early identification of patients that may be at higher risk for severe community-acquired pneumonia is important so that clinicians can tailor treatment strategies, such as early ICU admission, to individual patients.
For over a century, alcohol abuse has been well recognized as a significant risk factor for serious pulmonary infections. For example, alcoholic patients are at increased risk for infection with tissue-damaging gram-negative1 pathogens, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae (Jong et al. 1995), or for the spread of bacteria in the blood (i.e., bacteremia) and shock from typical pathogens, most notably Streptococcus pneumoniae (Perlino and Rimland 1985). (1Gram-negative bacteria are a common class of bacteria normally found in the gastrointestinal tract that can be responsible for disease. Bacteria are considered to be gram-negative because of their characteristic staining properties under the microscope.) Importantly, alcoholics also are at increased risk for infections with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Cook 1998).
The impact of alcohol abuse on morbidity and mortality among patients with community-acquired pneumonia is substantial. For example, a study examining the outcomes of alcoholic patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia over a 3-year period (Jong et al. 1995) found that the mortality in this group of patients was 64.3 percent, which was much higher than the predicted death rate for hospitalized patients (approximately 20 percent). An even more alarming result was found in the subset of patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia. All 11 of these patients died following ICU admission and ventilatory support. A rapidly fatal outcome was noted in this subset, with time from admission to death being 24.6 ± 7.9 hours. Another fatal association between alcohol abuse and pneumonia was identified in a retrospective review of patients admitted with pneumococcal bacteremia that examined a subset with alcoholism and low white blood cell count (i.e., leukopenia) (Perlino and Rimland 1985). Ninety-three patients with pneumococcal bacteremia were identified, 12 of whom had a history of alcohol abuse and a white blood cell count of less than 4,000 cells per cubic millimeter (mm3) of blood. Ten of these 12 (83.3 percent) patients died, whereas the mortality in the rest of the cohort was only 22 percent. Overall, these and other studies demonstrate the association between alcohol abuse and community-acquired pneumonia, an association that results in more severe infections and higher mortality.
Potential Mechanisms by Which Alcohol Abuse Increases Risk for Pneumonia
The mechanisms by which alcohol abuse increases the risk of pneumonia likely are multiple and include increased risk of aspiration of gastric acid and/or microbes from the upper part of the throat (i.e., oropharyngeal flora), decreased mucous-facilitated clearance of bacterial pathogens from the upper airway, and impaired pulmonary host defenses.
Aspiration events are compounded by pathologic changes in the oropharyngeal flora caused by alcohol abuse. For example, the prevalence of oropharyngeal colonization with K. pneumoniae may be as much as four times higher in alcoholic compared with nonalcoholic patients (Fuxench-Lopez and Ramierz-Ronda 1978). This increased colonization by pathogenic organisms, combined with the acute intoxicating effects of alcohol and the subsequent depression of the normally protective gag and cough reflexes, leads to more frequent and severe pneumonias from gram-negative organisms. In parallel, defects in the function of the upper airway’s clearance mechanisms in alcoholic patients also play a role. In experimental animal models, alcohol ingestion impairs the function of hair-like projections from cells (i.e., cilia) that sweep mucus out of the lungs, in part by disrupting the normal coordinated ciliary beating that clears pathogens from the airway (Wyatt et al. 2004)."NIAAA Publications
Bottom line, if she doesn't quit drinking it is probably going to kill her one way or another. I've seen it happen more times than I'd like to. And to people much younger than Hillary. One thing for certain is that we do not need a president whose judgement and health is severely impaired by alcohol all of the time.
I must say....I am a wee bit disappointed that there are no replies to my initial post in this thread. I thought for certain it would have been seen as highly objectionable to the usual crowd. Meh.
??? What was there to say? You shared several conjectures about what might happen if Mrs. Clinton's observed health doesn't return to what it appeared to be prior to last Sunday. Odds are you are correct. I don't think whether you are or are not has a thing to do with one's preferences about Clinton, Trump or politics in general.
You are a good guy...smart. But..you can't recognize sarcasm to save your life.
Perhaps in the CDZ you could include <sarc>?I must say....I am a wee bit disappointed that there are no replies to my initial post in this thread. I thought for certain it would have been seen as highly objectionable to the usual crowd. Meh.
??? What was there to say? You shared several conjectures about what might happen if Mrs. Clinton's observed health doesn't return to what it appeared to be prior to last Sunday. Odds are you are correct. I don't think whether you are or are not has a thing to do with one's preferences about Clinton, Trump or politics in general.
You are a good guy...smart. But..you can't recognize sarcasm to save your life.
TY
No doubt about it. Sarcasm is hard to recognize in writings from folks whom one does not know. It's even harder when one thinks one is partaking in a serious discussion with others who take the topic seriously.
I must say....I am a wee bit disappointed that there are no replies to my initial post in this thread. I thought for certain it would have been seen as highly objectionable to the usual crowd. Meh.
??? What was there to say? You shared several conjectures about what might happen if Mrs. Clinton's observed health doesn't return to what it appeared to be prior to last Sunday. Odds are you are correct. I don't think whether you are or are not has a thing to do with one's preferences about Clinton, Trump or politics in general.
You are a good guy...smart. But..you can't recognize sarcasm to save your life.
TY
No doubt about it. Sarcasm is hard to recognize in writings from folks whom one does not know. It's even harder when one thinks one is partaking in a serious discussion with others who take the topic seriously.
Perhaps in the CDZ you could include <sarc>?I must say....I am a wee bit disappointed that there are no replies to my initial post in this thread. I thought for certain it would have been seen as highly objectionable to the usual crowd. Meh.
??? What was there to say? You shared several conjectures about what might happen if Mrs. Clinton's observed health doesn't return to what it appeared to be prior to last Sunday. Odds are you are correct. I don't think whether you are or are not has a thing to do with one's preferences about Clinton, Trump or politics in general.
You are a good guy...smart. But..you can't recognize sarcasm to save your life.
TY
No doubt about it. Sarcasm is hard to recognize in writings from folks whom one does not know. It's even harder when one thinks one is partaking in a serious discussion with others who take the topic seriously.
Hillary is well known to be a booze hound alcohol addict. She prefers hard liquor. Martinis, vodka, whisky, not just an occasional beer or glass of wine with a meal. She likes to get smashed.It is the 6th leading cause of death in the USA, therefore it is obviously very "permanent" in many cases.Pneumonia is not a permanent condition.Don't you think needing help to get into a van after a near collapse is a warning sign????
Red:
Minor point/questions...The CDC cites pneumonia and the flue as the eighth leading causes of death in 2014. Pneumonia and flu were together the sixth leading cause in 1980. Do you have more current figures? Do you by any chance have a breakdown of the two ailments' respective share of the overall figure cited?
I didn't check further to find out what share of the figure cited (55,227) is flu and what share is pneumonia. I did notice that the tenth leading cause -- suicide -- is a stand-alone cause of death. At ~42K+, suicides are 77% of the ~55K+ flu/pneumonia deaths in 2014, so it's not highly likely, though not impossible either, that flu or pneumonia, by themselves in 2014, caused ~42K+ deaths.
That said, I repeat, I didn't check to find out what the breakdown is. It's clearly possible for flu or pneumonia to comprise more than 77% of the 55,227 combined figure, and given the related nature of the two, if one causes overwhelmingly more fatalities than the other (i.e., more than ~42K deaths), it's reasonable to lump the very "minor" one with the other, all the more so if the lumping doesn't alter the overall ranking of the top ten causes of death, even though the lumping unavoidably introduces the risk that readers will inaccurately assume either flu or pneumonia is more deadly than it really is.
Obviously, I take no exception with your remark about pneumonia being terminal for folks who die of it. There again, however, ~1M or so folks are diagnosed annually with pneumonia** and of them some quantity fewer than 55,227 die of it. Accordingly, I'm not in agreement that for "many" people pneumonia is fatal, other than in an absolute sense whereby one may consider some tens of thousands of deaths constitutes a lot of deaths. Given a population of pneumonia sufferers numbering about a million, however, I don't see pneumonia as a thing to be too concerned about in a general sense. If my 97 year old father contracted it, on the other hand, I'd be very concerned because for folks in his age cohort, it's pretty deadly.
Just trying to make sense of the numbers.....
**Note:
In seeking info about the pneumonia death rate, the document I found (linked in the last paragraph) notes that ~50K people annually die of pneumonia. I stumbled across that figure and it sheds light on the proportionality question I asked and discussed above. It seems that pneumonia comprises the bulk (~50K) of the ~55K deaths lumped as "influenza and pneumonia."
Epidemiology of Alcohol Abuse and Pneumonia
As of 2001, pneumonia was the sixth most common cause of death in the United States, with over 1 million people requiring hospitalization for pneumonia per year (Niederman et al. 1998). In an otherwise healthy person, pneumonia usually has a low mortality and often can be treated without hospitalization with oral antibiotics. However, if hospitalization is required the mortality rises significantly (American Thoracic Society 2001). Further, if patients develop respiratory failure and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU), mortality may exceed 50 percent (American Thoracic Society 2001). Therefore, early identification of patients that may be at higher risk for severe community-acquired pneumonia is important so that clinicians can tailor treatment strategies, such as early ICU admission, to individual patients.
For over a century, alcohol abuse has been well recognized as a significant risk factor for serious pulmonary infections. For example, alcoholic patients are at increased risk for infection with tissue-damaging gram-negative1 pathogens, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae (Jong et al. 1995), or for the spread of bacteria in the blood (i.e., bacteremia) and shock from typical pathogens, most notably Streptococcus pneumoniae (Perlino and Rimland 1985). (1Gram-negative bacteria are a common class of bacteria normally found in the gastrointestinal tract that can be responsible for disease. Bacteria are considered to be gram-negative because of their characteristic staining properties under the microscope.) Importantly, alcoholics also are at increased risk for infections with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Cook 1998).
The impact of alcohol abuse on morbidity and mortality among patients with community-acquired pneumonia is substantial. For example, a study examining the outcomes of alcoholic patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia over a 3-year period (Jong et al. 1995) found that the mortality in this group of patients was 64.3 percent, which was much higher than the predicted death rate for hospitalized patients (approximately 20 percent). An even more alarming result was found in the subset of patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia. All 11 of these patients died following ICU admission and ventilatory support. A rapidly fatal outcome was noted in this subset, with time from admission to death being 24.6 ± 7.9 hours. Another fatal association between alcohol abuse and pneumonia was identified in a retrospective review of patients admitted with pneumococcal bacteremia that examined a subset with alcoholism and low white blood cell count (i.e., leukopenia) (Perlino and Rimland 1985). Ninety-three patients with pneumococcal bacteremia were identified, 12 of whom had a history of alcohol abuse and a white blood cell count of less than 4,000 cells per cubic millimeter (mm3) of blood. Ten of these 12 (83.3 percent) patients died, whereas the mortality in the rest of the cohort was only 22 percent. Overall, these and other studies demonstrate the association between alcohol abuse and community-acquired pneumonia, an association that results in more severe infections and higher mortality.
Potential Mechanisms by Which Alcohol Abuse Increases Risk for Pneumonia
The mechanisms by which alcohol abuse increases the risk of pneumonia likely are multiple and include increased risk of aspiration of gastric acid and/or microbes from the upper part of the throat (i.e., oropharyngeal flora), decreased mucous-facilitated clearance of bacterial pathogens from the upper airway, and impaired pulmonary host defenses.
Aspiration events are compounded by pathologic changes in the oropharyngeal flora caused by alcohol abuse. For example, the prevalence of oropharyngeal colonization with K. pneumoniae may be as much as four times higher in alcoholic compared with nonalcoholic patients (Fuxench-Lopez and Ramierz-Ronda 1978). This increased colonization by pathogenic organisms, combined with the acute intoxicating effects of alcohol and the subsequent depression of the normally protective gag and cough reflexes, leads to more frequent and severe pneumonias from gram-negative organisms. In parallel, defects in the function of the upper airway’s clearance mechanisms in alcoholic patients also play a role. In experimental animal models, alcohol ingestion impairs the function of hair-like projections from cells (i.e., cilia) that sweep mucus out of the lungs, in part by disrupting the normal coordinated ciliary beating that clears pathogens from the airway (Wyatt et al. 2004)."NIAAA Publications
Bottom line, if she doesn't quit drinking it is probably going to kill her one way or another. I've seen it happen more times than I'd like to. And to people much younger than Hillary. One thing for certain is that we do not need a president whose judgement and health is severely impaired by alcohol all of the time.
Pink:
You posted all that "stuff" that details the risks and complications of alcohol abuse/addiction. That's wonderful and I'm it was informative to some folks.
The thing you needed to post, however, the thing that would give merit to your opening assertion, is what you didn't provide one shred of credible information about. What was that thing? The demonstrable proof that Mrs. Clinton is in fact addicted to alcohol. What might prove that assertion?
- Records of her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous
- Her doctor's affirmation of her alcohol addiction
- Records of a treatment regimen she followed as a patient at a substance abuse facility like the Betty Ford Clinic or some similar institution
- Mrs. Clinton's own admission of having such an addiction
- Bill Clinton's assertion that his wife has such an addiction
With her history of health issues, this may be the what breaks the camels back. She can't keep hiding it forever. Even the DNC is questioning her health
What history?
With her history of health issues, this may be the what breaks the camels back. She can't keep hiding it forever. Even the DNC is questioning her health
What history?
I was talking about her overall health history that would include her blood clot, fainting spells, coughing fits, etc. I think that puts it back to atleast 2012
With her history of health issues, this may be the what breaks the camels back. She can't keep hiding it forever. Even the DNC is questioning her health
What history?
I was talking about her overall health history that would include her blood clot, fainting spells, coughing fits, etc. I think that puts it back to atleast 2012
Yeah...coughing fits. What's the diagnosis? Lung cancer?
Why not try to win on the merits?
Isn't that evasion rather than lying?Anyone see Robbie Mook interview on MSNBC? It's just all nonsense coming from the campaign. No matter what side you're on one cannot listen to this interview and not say "WTH?". He won't answer the simple question if everyone knew. He dodges and dodges and dodges. The deception continues and they wonder why people don't trust anything coming out of the campaign.
If anyone wants to watch it its linked below:
BUSTED: Hillary's Campaign Manager Caught Lying About Her Health!
Yes I would agree its not lying (the title of the article is a lie actually lol)Isn't that evasion rather than lying?Anyone see Robbie Mook interview on MSNBC? It's just all nonsense coming from the campaign. No matter what side you're on one cannot listen to this interview and not say "WTH?". He won't answer the simple question if everyone knew. He dodges and dodges and dodges. The deception continues and they wonder why people don't trust anything coming out of the campaign.
If anyone wants to watch it its linked below:
BUSTED: Hillary's Campaign Manager Caught Lying About Her Health!
I agree it's stupid and only making things worse, but it's not deception. Even in a political season, we should be careful with our words.
Her health is clearly a campaign issue.
She took a severe optics hit yesterday. She then took a trustworthiness hit when it was revealed that she had been diagnosed on Friday but didn't tell anyone.
It is a good thing for the Trump campaign.
However, if she recovers quickly and resumes her regular type of schedule, it will be a fleeting good thing for the Trump campaign.
If she doesn't recover quickly or has another bout with dizziness, she will have to consider stepping aside.
How's that for an answer?
Isn't that evasion rather than lying?Anyone see Robbie Mook interview on MSNBC? It's just all nonsense coming from the campaign. No matter what side you're on one cannot listen to this interview and not say "WTH?". He won't answer the simple question if everyone knew. He dodges and dodges and dodges. The deception continues and they wonder why people don't trust anything coming out of the campaign.
If anyone wants to watch it its linked below:
BUSTED: Hillary's Campaign Manager Caught Lying About Her Health!
I agree it's stupid and only making things worse, but it's not deception. Even in a political season, we should be careful with our words.
Isn't that evasion rather than lying?Anyone see Robbie Mook interview on MSNBC? It's just all nonsense coming from the campaign. No matter what side you're on one cannot listen to this interview and not say "WTH?". He won't answer the simple question if everyone knew. He dodges and dodges and dodges. The deception continues and they wonder why people don't trust anything coming out of the campaign.
If anyone wants to watch it its linked below:
BUSTED: Hillary's Campaign Manager Caught Lying About Her Health!
I agree it's stupid and only making things worse, but it's not deception. Even in a political season, we should be careful with our words.
I was always taught that if you don't tell the truth you are flat out lying. You omit any truth you are a liar.
It's not pneumonia and the public will get really pissed off that her handlers are trying to run a game down on them. I can't believe they are trying to say she has pneumonia.
Lying is really bad. The label is being overused and becoming almost as meaningless as "racist."Isn't that evasion rather than lying?Anyone see Robbie Mook interview on MSNBC? It's just all nonsense coming from the campaign. No matter what side you're on one cannot listen to this interview and not say "WTH?". He won't answer the simple question if everyone knew. He dodges and dodges and dodges. The deception continues and they wonder why people don't trust anything coming out of the campaign.
If anyone wants to watch it its linked below:
BUSTED: Hillary's Campaign Manager Caught Lying About Her Health!
I agree it's stupid and only making things worse, but it's not deception. Even in a political season, we should be careful with our words.
I was always taught that if you don't tell the truth you are flat out lying. You omit any truth you are a liar.
