Clinton

This is a perfect opportunity to discredit Snopes as the heavily biased Democrat propaganda site that it is. While Snopes can be a reasonably good resource for non-political things, it is a terrible resource for anything involving politics. Perfect example is it's blanket FALSE attribution to the evidence that Hillary has Parkinson's. One way or another, the public will find out whether she does or doesn't. All indication makes it pretty obvious that she does. Camp Hillary, including the Liberal Media, spin keeps changing and doesn't make any sense. The simple fact they keep getting caught in lie after lie regarding her health points to an obvious coverup. Hell, even Hillary's friends are going on record that she has Parkinson's.

Friends of Hillary say she has Parkinson's

Hillary Clinton has stage-three Parkinson’s disease and suffers from seizures, according to three sources who have had a personal relationship with the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

Camp Hillary just want to coverup long enough to get her elected. Some time after she's elected and hey can no longer hide the fact, they'll claim it is a new diagnosis since she would already be in power. Of course, then you get into the conspiracy theories that this is all planned. Hillary dies right before election day, so Obama can suspend elections and put the country under Marshall Law. That conspiracy theory is starting to get teeth, but is still just theory.
 
redrumloa said:
This is a perfect opportunity to discredit Snopes as the heavily biased Democrat propaganda site that it is. While Snopes can be a reasonably good resource for non-political things, it is a terrible resource for anything involving politics. Perfect example is it's blanket FALSE attribution to the evidence that Hillary has Parkinson's.
Click to expand...
I saw this article before you posted it here. Unlike you, I actually bothered to read it (though it was a disappointing read). Here is a key part:

"In closing, we wish to make it clear what our aim has been in this analysis. We have not tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson's disease"

It is also quite informative that you present this article as definite proof that Snopes are evil Clinton mouth pieces and then proceed to post a link to WND, a website that ends their "articles" with advertisements for anti-Clinton literature that they are selling themselves via their own online store.
 
JoBBo said:
present this article as definite proof that Snopes are evil Clinton mouth pieces and then proceed to post a link to WND
Click to expand...

Bible criticises Euclid's Elements for being too religious. :banana:
 
JoBBo said:
I saw this article before you posted it here. Unlike you, I actually bothered to read it (though it was a disappointing read). Here is a key part:

"In closing, we wish to make it clear what our aim has been in this analysis. We have not tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson's disease"
Click to expand...

Umm, I did read it and laughed when I saw the part at the end. The article doesn't say "unproven" or "mixture", it says "false" and then goes on to great length to claim why she does not have Parkinson's, before ending with the short line as a laughable disclaimer.
 
JoBBo said:
It is also quite informative that you present this article as definite proof that Snopes are evil Clinton mouth pieces and then proceed to post a link to WND, a website that ends their "articles" with advertisements for anti-Clinton literature that they are selling themselves via their own online store.
Click to expand...

I can't exactly reference CNN (Clinton News Network), whom openly support her. All of the mainstream (liberal) media support her. If the alternative media didn't first post video of her collapsing, we wouldn't know.


Besides the doctor suggesting Parkinson's in Youtube videos that I posted earlier in this thread, here's a pharmaceutical executive who supports the claim (video).

So you believe the official statements on her health? Which statement do you believe? She's just fine? She was overheated? She was dehydrated? She has pneumonia? She has the flu?

-Edit-
Republican state representative claims that Clinton has Parkinson's disease
 
Last edited:
The body double theory is gaining ground.

Hillary’s body double: Am I nuts, or what?

Hillary-body-double.jpg
 
redrumloa said:
So you believe the official statements on her health? Which statement do you believe? She's just fine? She was overheated? She was dehydrated? She has pneumonia? She has the flu?
Click to expand...

Hillary is in great physical condition, but her personal doctor WILL continue to travel with her because Hillary has been diagnosed with Schrödinger's Disease , which exhibits many confusing symptoms such as heat stroke, dehydration & pneumonia but should NOT be confused with any serious medical condition. Hillary will "power through" this minor ailment on her quest for the White House.
 
redrumloa said:
Umm, I did read it and laughed when I saw the part at the end. The article doesn't say "unproven" or "mixture", it says "false" and then goes on to great length to claim why she does not have Parkinson's, before ending with the short line as a laughable disclaimer.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you did not read it nearly carefully enough. It says...

"Claim: Photos and video clips narrated by a medical doctor demonstrate that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton likely has Parkinson's disease."

This is directly followed by "False."

If you are not blinded by hate, the context is difficult to misunderstand. This is about specific supposed "proof" supplied by a certain individual, not a definite diagnosis of anybody.

So you believe the official statements on her health? Which statement do you believe? She's just fine? She was overheated? She was dehydrated? She has pneumonia? She has the flu?
Click to expand...
If Trump announced this week that he was suffering from Parkinson but was being treated by the best doctors in the world and receiving the best drugs money can buy to keep any symptoms in check, would you change your plans to vote for him?

No, you would not. Why would you?

In fact, it is entirely possible that she was overheated, she was dehydrated, she has pneuomonia as well as Parkinson or something else that affects motor skills, yet she is healthy enough to be president.

We are talking about candidates that are close to 70 years sold. I know people who were younger than Clinton and Trump and seemingly in great physical shape, lead active lifestyles and had no known health conditions, yet they died very unexpectedly and suddenly. The idea that any voter can correctly predict how a president´s health will develop over the course of the next 4 years and how this may or may not affect his or her decision making process is simply implausible. It is a phantom debate that, once again, distracts from more serious and worthwhile discussions.
 
Last edited:
Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors
http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

by repeatedly charging them for more donations after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website. Donors are charged multiple times, but always for an amount of less than $100, which is a key trigger point for banks’ internal action
The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”

“We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,”

Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,”
 
Last edited:
"Claim: Photos and video clips narrated by a medical doctor demonstrate that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton likely has Parkinson's disease."

This is directly followed by "False."

If you are not blinded by hate, the context is difficult to misunderstand. This is about specific supposed "proof" supplied by a certain individual, not a definite diagnosis of anybody.

I really don't get your point on how they debunked anything. He is a retired doctor and clearly states he is not her personal physician and makes his diagnosis based on public record (video). Did you watch his videos? Apparently not.

Apparently you are allowing personal preference to cloud your opinion here, so you take the opinion of a failed liberal blogger over a retired doctor. He is not the only doctor to make such claims and it seems only liberal bloggers dispute the evidence. Before all this, Dr. Drew got fired for questioning the official medical statements around Hildabeast.

Put it this way. If the liberal blogger behind Snopes simply said "Unproven", I'd not have a problem. The claims are indeed unproven, but Snopes took the extra step to claim a blanket FASLE. Snopes certainly has no problem using "Unproven" when it benefits Hillary. Actually, they use Unproven despite direct evidence to the contrary. Snopes is a fraud when it comes to politics.

If Trump announced this week that he was suffering from Parkinson but was being treated by the best doctors in the world and receiving the best drugs money can buy to keep any symptoms in check, would you change your plans to vote for him?

If Trump announced he had ADVANCED Parkinson's as it is claimed with Hillary, of course I would not vote for him. You do know that Dementia comes before death with Parkinson's, right?

No, you would not. Why would you?

Of course I would change my vote. Trump was not my first choice. If Gary Johnson didn't do a 180 on most of his positions, I'd still be supporting him.

In fact, it is entirely possible that she was overheated, she was dehydrated, she has pneuomonia as well as Parkinson or something else that affects motor skills, yet she is healthy enough to be president.

That is completely false. Someone with advanced stages of Parkinson's is not fit to be president. Parkinson's does not only affect the body, it affects the brain. A person with dementia should not be president.
 
Last edited:
Zerohedge has a great article on the subject.

Late Stage Lying: Pneumonia Theory vs. Parkinson’s Disease Theory; Doctors Chime In

Snopes Weighs In

Snopes says the montage of photos and video clips are nothing more than Shaky Diagnosis.

Snopes concluded the story was “false”. Snopes ends with this paragraph:

In closing, we wish to make it clear what our aim has been in this analysis. We have not tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson’s disease (in point of fact, we don’t think that case even needs making). Rather, we have shown that what Ted Noel did in this video is systematically misrepresent perfectly ordinary and explicable phenomena as “Parkinson’s disease symptoms,” and his motivation for doing so was purely political.

False or Inconclusive?

I am generally highly supportive of Snopes. But How the hell can they possibly make the claim the story is false, when all they did was make a case that Noel’s presentation was politically motivated.

Politically Motivated Snopes?

Since Snopes is not a medical doctor, and since Snopes explicitly stated “We have not tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson’s disease (in point of fact, we don’t think that case even needs making)” one has to wonder if Snopes itself is politically motivated!

Snopes should have labeled the evidence “Inconclusive“, not false.

Then they post a good number of doctors weighing in. The conclusion? The official version of the story being pneumonia is bunk.
 
metalman said:
CskEf-eUEAAGbln.jpg
Click to expand...

Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.

That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.

Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top