CDZ Should Presidential Health be a Major Consideration?

[oldsoul]

The very fact that laws were enacted to ensure a continuity in the presidency in case the president is debilitated show that the occupant's health is considered important. We no longer want an unaccounted for and unanswerable individual running things as we had during the Wilson and FDR terms.

Are you Clinton supporters voting for her - or for Huma?

The first part is very well said. I believe that is important insomuch as it is difficult to predict how the office, and it's inherent stresses, will affect the health of any given person. So, to me at least, having a POTUS who is in reasonably good health, and one can reasonably expect to be able to withstand the rigors, and toll on their health, of the office is important. Otherwise, why wouldn't you vote for the person most likely to "step-in" in the case of presidential debilitation, whether temporary or permanent?

 

[jwoodie]

why wouldn't you vote for the person most likely to "step-in" in the case of presidential debilitation, whether temporary or permanent?

Isn't that supposed to be the Vice President?

 

[oldsoul]

why wouldn't you vote for the person most likely to "step-in" in the case of presidential debilitation, whether temporary or permanent?

Isn't that supposed to be the Vice President?

Yes, it is supposed to be. Unfortunately we, informed people, know that is not always the case. Take Wilson and FDR for example....

 

[Jackson]

With two of the oldest Presidential candidates in our history, should their health be a major consideration in deciding how to vote? History suggests it should be:

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) had a history of debilitating strokes which led to his incapacity in 1919. This may have contributed to his mishandling of the Paris Peace Conference after WW1 and subsequent failure of the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations, guaranteeing the resumption of hostilities in WW2.

Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945) was in poor health from 1939 onward and virtually incapacitated in 1944, dying less than six months after the election. This may have contributed to his complete misunderstanding of Stalin's post-war intentions and his agreement at Yalta to hand over Eastern Europe to the Soviet dictator.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) showed a serious physical and mental decline during his second term, which may have given his wife (like Wilson's) undue influence and deprived his administration of a strong moral compass.

At this point, Hillary's health should be of major concern to her supporters. If she became incapacitated, who would actually run the government? Would Tim Kane become another Harry Truman, or would her condition be kept secret while nameless insiders issued edicts in her name?

As for Trump, he appears to be in superb physical condition but, like Reagan, could suffer a serious decline. His supporters should also want to know if he has any major health issues which could affect his ability to govern.

What say you?

I wholeheartedly agree. When a president becomes incapacitated due to health factors, anyone within his realm of advisors or family could be acting on his behalf. That is not how it should work. Every president should have a thorough medical check up each year n office. It should include all types of tests without regard to the party or president.

 

[Jackson]

why wouldn't you vote for the person most likely to "step-in" in the case of presidential debilitation, whether temporary or permanent?

Isn't that supposed to be the Vice President?

But secrecy makes that unplausible as shown in the past.