I do not get why people keep saying this. It’s not as if fainting is a predictable response to walk-in pneumonia. If that hadn’t happened, then what she did would be precisely the correct move. Hiding the sickness is better than feeding the conspiracy theories–but only if it works.
I’m next to certain that other presidents have gotten sick like this but just ignored it. They’re around people a lot. It would be convention plague all the time (where people get sick in large gatherings of people.)
In hindsight, it would have been better if she was transparent about it. But the chances of this happening were pretty low. If the choice was tell people or get better on the sly and no one notice, the latter is the best choice.
From a political perspective, of course. From a moral perspective some could argue that hiding it was bad.
Can you clarify what this means in the context of this thread?
In theory, the OP is about the general subject of whether the health of a president is an issue. But the backdrop is clearly the health of HRC, and this was specifically raised in the penultimate sentence of the OP.
Now you can ban all discussion of HRC’s health episode in this thread and insist that the discussion be more general. But there has been considerable discussion of what specifically ailed HRC in this thread, and this has not attracted moderator comment.
Doorhinge’s comment was in response to just such an assertion, and his point was it’s difficult to know what her real condition is because her team has not been forthright, making any assertions about her specific condition - such as the one he was responding to - highly tentative.
It seems like you’re trying to allow people to make assertions about HRC’s condition, but disallowing challenges - or at least certain types of challenges - to these assertions. So I think some clarity might be necessary.
[Note: this is not in ATMB because I’m not specifically disputing a moderator action but merely pointing out where it leaves room for confusion in this particular thread.]
While I certainly cannot speak for the moderator, I took from it that the statements of Hillary’s campaign team was “lying” and calling her “sick old Hillary” were deemed out of bounds in this forum.
The general question was about the health of the President and of course refers to Hillary, and those discussions seem to be fine, it is when someone specifically maligns either candidate or makes statements that are negative and unverifiable, that has garnered the moderator’s attention.
To get the thread back on track, I’ve just read this BBC article which indicates that Clinton was at least in part behaving as a normal American would.
I’ve already provided my answer to the question - Why would a candidate’s health change anyone’s vote. Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to discuss current candidates in this thread, so please don’t ask me to. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think you are right that a candidate’s health is not likely to change anyone’s vote. At least not at the current phase.
As the two top candidates are polar opposites, one is not likely to say, well since candidate A is not healthy I will vote for the opposite view in candidate B.
At the primary level, good chance, but not at this stage.
But if voters felt the health was an issue, there might be a push for a candidate to step aside and a new candidate to be selected.
Trump seems to be misremembering his camoaign stop in Flint, MI. In a nutshell: Trump started bashing Clinton. The pastor of the church where he was speaking said, ‘Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done for Flint, not to give a political speech.’ Trump said OK, he’d ‘go back onto Flint’. Later, Trump told Fox And Friends ‘The audience was saying, “Let him speak, let him speak.”’
Actually it is very relevant to the thread. Hillary suffered head trauma and made all sorts of claims regarding her inability to recall events directly associated with her job as Secretary of State.
From Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Blamed Concussion for Memory Failure: FBI Report
The op’s opening sentence: This thread is for a general debate about the health of the POTUS and how it relates to how good a job they do.
Of course it’s not. Why should it be a problem? Mr. Donald J. Drumpf is “the fittest presidential candidate ever” and his mirror reflects back a body of a “35-year-old”.
Aside from the clear violatiomn of the Mod instruction to refrain from partisan shots, this post has been answered in the ATMB thread discussing the issue of mental health.
Mental health is not off topic on the SDMB. Partisan sniping and mental health are two issues that are off topic for this thread. Mental health may be discussed in the eponymous thread in the Elections forum.
The health of a candidate is perfectly relevant. You need to know if your POTUS is going to make it through all 4 or 8 years of the term you’re voting him or her into. You need to know if the person charged with making some of the most important decisions in the world is going to be in proper state of mind for it.
Even if there was a full release of all their primary and specialty care medical records folders (would run to hundreds, maybe thousands of pages) for Clinton, Trump, Stein, and Johnson, you still would not be able to make a good prediction of their life expectancy. As for the proper state of mind, you don’t know that either. Any of them could get a big new neurological problem tomorrow, and there is no way to know which one.
If the President has poor health are they going to be thinking straight when they get the 2 am call? If the President can’t remember security briefings because of a blood clot to her brain, as Hillary claimedto the FBI as to why she didn’t know what classification markings were, is that an issue.
If as secretary of state her doctor told her she could only work a few hours a day does that really sound like someone who should be holding the most stressful job in the world?
Maybe. But from an actuarial standpoint, Clinton is considerably more likely to remain healthy throughout a term of office. So, if it’s an issue, it is at the very least, a wash across candidates, thus making it not an issue.