It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

71 Percent of Doctors - Clinton’s Health Serious, May be Disqualifying for Position as President

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wiki shouldn't be taken too serious.

Did you look at the conotations of the wiki references? There are only 3, one referencing a Time article from 1967. The other written by the New York Times....in 1966. And the last being a 2002 USA Today article that merely states that it is "conservative" without any reasoning.


Neither should PR Newswire which isn't a news source but rather a place where marketers pay to "publish" press releases. It's literally in the name if you missed it or you can just go to their about section to contact them for quotes.

Notice that the top of the article is:

"News provided by
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) "

Do you think a group of doctors without a very serious political agenda would conduct a poll and then pay to have it published on a website that specializes in publishing marketing materials thinly "disguised" as news?

You've always seemed like a reasonable enough person. Do you really want to stake your own credibility on defending the validity of this garbage?

Do yourself a favor before you answer that and do some research into AAPS. If you don't trust Wikipedia (why you'd distrust wikipedia but you WOULD trust a pay-to-publish fake news service is beyond me), do some independent research into AAPS. See what they publish about and judge for yourself. I think you'll find yourself feeling a bit duped.




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Speaking about defending the truth, you're abusing the genetic fallacy, disputing an argument based on where it comes from and not on its merits. Though it could be true that the doctors are politically motivated in their choices, it is fallacious to make that presumption, and worse, foolish to continue doing so.


Are you sure that really applies in this particular case? There's no argument to dispute per se, just the opinions of 250 unnamed physicians who are part of an organization primarily concerned with promoting a political agenda.

There's no attempt to even explain how these opinions were reached. There's no details of the qualifications of these physicisans. There are no supporting facts presented at all.

What you're saying is that even though the only thing in support of the argument that Clinton likely has serious health concerns that would "disqualify her from being President" (which is meaningless rhetoric by the way) is the credibility of these doctors opinions, it's somehow illogical to question the credibility of their opinions.

In other words, it's a wash — both the initial argument and the counter argument are fallacious.

Agreed?
edit on 2016-9-8 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Neither should PR Newswire which isn't a news source but rather a place where marketers pay to "publish" press releases. It's literally in the name if you missed it or you can just go to their about section to contact them for quotes.

Notice that the top of the article is:

"News provided by
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) "

Do you think a group of doctors without a very serious political agenda would conduct a poll and then pay to have it published on a website that specializes in publishing marketing materials thinly "disguised" as news?

You've always seemed like a reasonable enough person. Do you really want to stake your own credibility on defending the validity of this garbage?

Do yourself a favor before you answer that and do some research into AAPS. If you don't trust Wikipedia (why you'd distrust wikipedia but you WOULD trust a pay-to-publish fake news service is beyond me), do some independent research into AAPS. See what they publish about and judge for yourself. I think you'll find yourself feeling a bit duped.


You beat me to the point.

PR Newswire will publish anything that anyone pays to have promoted. It's not really a news outlet, but a PR outlet that does no fact-checking. Heck, they don't even have to have 250 doctors... and the doctors don't have to be real MD's.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Really? They asked real doctors? Because it would be very unprofessional of them to declare her unfit if they never even met her.

Sounds like more conservative conspiracy garbage to attack Clinton. Sad, this is what they have resorted too. I guess they're all out of dead horses. Time for a new one!
edit on 8-9-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The argument was, at least as far as I can tell:

"71% of 250 doctors surveyed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are saying that Hillary's health concerns are serious enough that they could be disqualifying for the position of President."

That appears to be the case.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The argument was, at least as far as I can tell:

"71% of 250 doctors surveyed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are saying that Hillary's health concerns are serious enough that they could be disqualifying for the position of President."

That appears to be the case.


And I keep asking who these 250 doctors are? No one has come up with that yet. I'd like to know.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
As the Commander in Chief your readiness must be of equal or better that the officers you will be in charge of.

With that said, every presidential candidate should undergo a full DoDMERB (Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board) examination where the tests are kept anonymous to the review board approving authority so politics cannot leak in. The DoDMERB eval should be intermingled with many others that are applying for a military academy or appointment so there is no bias.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Im about as anti-hillary as they come but the source here is garbage.

No need for it really, she gives enough credible evidence against herself as it is.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
that Hillary's health concerns are serious enough that they could be disqualifying for the position of President.


Exactly where in the Constitution does it state one's health disqualifies one for the position of President?

Or is this just some crap Hilary haters made up?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian

The argument was, at least as far as I can tell:

"71% of 250 doctors surveyed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are saying that Hillary's health concerns are serious enough that they could be disqualifying for the position of President."

That appears to be the case.


And I keep asking who these 250 doctors are? No one has come up with that yet. I'd like to know.


Ron Paul is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons , ask him. Seriously, shoot him a letter.

His response will probably be random members, all of which are physicians or surgeons.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Disability Trivia: Presidents with Disabilities | The ...

www.abilitycenter.org/blog/disability-trivia-presidents-with...

List of US presidents who lived with disability during office. William Jefferson Clinton, 1946- (hearing impairment) 42nd President of the United States wears hearing ...



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Many doctors have taken a pay-cut due to ObamaCare. Hillary wants to convert ObamaCare into Government-Run and Government-Owned medical care. If that occurs, all physicians who have been practicing for more than 2 or 3 years will take a 20% to 40% pay cut, unless most of their patients are wealthy. The moral? ALL AMERICAN PHYSICIANS should be against Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

I believe when the implications of Hillary's "Single Payer" healthcare system, and her $1.3 Trillion dollars in tax increases on the wealthy, finally sink in to the brains of these 2 groups, all physicians, and wealthy people will abandon her. I just hope they're astute enough to figure it out BEFORE November 8th.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
We watched her walk around the stage the other day taking questions. She looked fine.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

She wore coke bottle glasses in college. Wow she's got bad eyesight. How many people wear glasses?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

This is not "things coming out about Hillary"
It's nonsense.
Watch trumps numbers dive again next week after last nights debacle.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup


Have you all seen this video of Hillary clearly having a serious medical issue??? Its clear to me that Hillary is about to die in the vid.
sorry, but as somebody that suffers from real seizures due to a brain tumor, that was not a seizure. You cant have a sezure and immediately continue as though nothing has happened.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: jonsoup

They never examined her. Don't be ridiculous.

It links back to Breitbart that's all anyone needs to know. What a joke.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Evidence of what?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Too bad they never examined her. Too bad this is an outright lie put out by alt right Breitbart. Trumps campaign CEO owner of Breitbart.

This is stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join