Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Orbitus]

If you can't argue the facts, censor them.

You have provided no facts, so no harm in censoring you.

[Crissi]

Correction: Dr. Drew also seems to be an internist. This is more generalized, but unless he has looked at Hillary himself and listened to her complaints, he is way out of line, and likely wrong, on her health.

[Orbitus]

It's truly a sad day when science has to take a back seat in favor of agendas and feelings.

Now isn't that a fucking load of hot bullshit. Considering the right has NEVER cared about science and have continued to push their feelings and agendas when it comes to real science like climate change and evolution.

Nothing Dr. Drew said was true. He was basing it off the same 50 second video that everyone else has been using in their conspiracy theories. Like you have.

[May90]

Since you are struggling, let me help you: Burden of proof requires the person who makes the claim to provide the proof. Nothing to do if its a positive statement or not. If I claim X, the burden of proof is on me, not on the person questioning my claim.

No, it's not how it works. Feel free to believe whatever you like though. Burden of proof is on the one who makes a statement contradicting the null hypothesis, hence a positive statement.

[Deleted]

An addiction specialist is about as likely to know about Hillary's health as a neurologist is about my reproductive system. Might know some basics, but wont have the specialized training to know exactly whats wrong and make a diagnoses.

SO yeah, citing Dr. Drew for anything thats not addiction related is stupid

In the video he also gave an analysis on the drugs she used and their side effects.

[Crissi]

In the video he also gave an analysis on the drugs she used and their side effects.

2 people can take the same drugs and have completely different side effects (or one may not have any).

So again, pretty worthless.

[Daerio]

Quite ironic considering the position you are taking.

We say Hillary is fine, put forward actual real evidence in the form of statements by her actual doctor, who has actually examined her thoroughly, who is actually practicing medicine... You dismiss it.

Then turn around and argue Hillary is not fine... And put forward nothing other than speculation from a TV doctor who literally makes his living drawing attention to himself (aka ad revenue), not actually practicing medicine...

See the problem with facts sometimes is that they conflict with reality. That makes them bullshit.

Video evidence has been put forth about Clinton's health being bad, and "evidence" from her "personal doctor" has been presented that her health is good. The evidence conflicts, and in an effort to make things simple for the sheep, any evidence of her being in bad health has to be censored and labelled conspiracy. Cameras are colluding against Clinton.

2 people can take the same drugs and have completely different side effects (or one may not have any).

So again, pretty worthless.

This isn't how modern medicine works.

[Crissi]

See the problem with facts sometimes is that they conflict with reality. That makes them bullshit.

Video evidence has been put forth about Clinton's health being bad, and "evidence" from her "personal doctor" has been presented that her health is good. The evidence conflicts, and in an effort to make things simple for the sheep, any evidence of her being in bad health has to be censored and labelled conspiracy. Cameras are colluding against Clinton.



This isn't how modern medicine works.

well, next time I manage to have every side effect listed on my medication, I'll let you know.

and you know what I meant. The drug companies list ALL possible side effects, but 2 people can have completely different side effects within that list. or none at all.

[Daerio]

well, next time I manage to have every side effect listed on my medication, I'll let you know.

I wonder why or how they bother listing side effects when they have no idea how anyone will react!

[Deleted]

2 people can take the same drugs and have completely different side effects (or one may not have any).

So again, pretty worthless.

Your statement is full of armchair expertise.

[Crissi]

I wonder why or how they bother listing side effects when they have no idea how anyone will react!

read my edit

[Daerio]

read my edit

Your edit is nonsense.

Your point was that Doctor Drew can't know what the possible side effects on Clinton are because "everyone is different."

Yet there seems to be side effects listed on your medication, do you think that's because your doctor personally wrote the list?

[I Push Buttons]

I wonder why or how they bother listing side effects when they have no idea how anyone will react!

Your statement is full of armchair expertise.

So everyone who takes a drug like Abilify, with listed side effects like "sudden cardiac death" "seizures that cause death", dies?

Every single one of them dies?

I mean the side effect is listed for it so everyone who takes the drug has that side effect right?

[Daerio]

So everyone who takes a drug like Abilify, with a listed side effects like "sudden cardiac death" "seizures that cause death", dies?

Every single one of them dies?

I mean the side effect is listed for it so everyone who takes the drug has that side effect right?

I listened to the entire Doctor Drew interview and I didn't hear him make any sort of statement like this about Clinton.

[Crissi]

Your edit is nonsense.

Your point was that Doctor Drew can't know what the possible side effects on Clinton are because "everyone is different."

Yet there seems to be side effects listed on your medication, do you think that's because your doctor personally wrote the list?

He doesn't know her, specifically. So he is just guesstimating based on a general response, and could be very well wrong. There are also combinations that have their own wacky side effects. Like how I'm not supposed to have IBproffin and Ocella. Thats somehting my Gyno knows, but my interest doesnt.

Which is why her personal doctor is more credible than an addiction specialist / internist who hasnt interacted with her on a doctor level.

[lockedout]

Want to see an actual fact? here's A factual quote from you defending White Supremacy as not being bad.

What's your point?

[I Push Buttons]

I listened to the entire Doctor Drew interview and I didn't hear him make any sort of statement like this about Clinton.

I am not saying that is a drug Clinton takes and simply used that drug as an example arguing against your absurd notion that a drug side effect is guaranteed. They literally just list them all for legality sake.

"Warning can cause........... Everything that ever happened during clinical trials." So someone can't go "hey your drug did X to me! I am suing..." Because they were warned before they took the drug of the POSSIBLE side effects and chose to take it anyways.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Reminds me of a friend's facebook post recently. (The not voting for him part). She said that the logical thing to do in an election is to vote for who has the most political experience. I said to this person (who is a die-hard democrat, as much as tea-party republicans are republican) Well, then I guess you voted for John McCain over Obama? And then the goal post was changed, she said that was different. I'm like... ok, so either you vote for most political experience or you vote for the better person, you can't be guaranteed that it's the same person with both those traits.

In the end, she's still voting for Hillary, and I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary, so why make blanket arguments that make no sense.

Just thought it was funny.

I had a similar conversation, but it was with one of my Trump supporter friends. I really should get new friends.

"Trump's getting my vote because Hillary has lied so much."

"If your criteria for voting is that you shouldn't vote for the one that lies, then you definitely shouldn't vote for Trump." At which point I started to ramble off a list of some of his bigger lies, then pointed out he lies on a lot of lesser issues as well pretty much non stop.

"Well Hillary has told worse lies!"

At which point I challenged them to tell me what lies were worse than several of Trump's bigger lies, his lying to investors, constantly lying about his wealth, basically Trump's entire existence is about pathological lying. At which point I guess they realized that they didn't have any traction, so they began ranting about Benghazi.

I wish people would just say "I'm voting for Trump because Hillary is a Democrat" rather than trying to justify it with a bunch of nonsense that Trump has managed to be far worse at.

[Orbitus]

Your statement is full of armchair expertise.

Well, her armchair expertise is the same as a doctor's expertise. There is very little chance that someone will have ALL of the side effects of a drug and that it will happen to everyone. Which is why they list it as POSSIBLE side effects, not GUARANTEED side effects. And if they had guaranteed side effects, then they aren't side effects, they are downsides to the medication and will likely cause them to be denied by the FDA.

[Daerio]

Well, her armchair expertise is the same as a doctor's expertise. There is very little chance that someone will have ALL of the side effects of a drug and that it will happen to everyone. Which is why they list it as POSSIBLE side effects, not GUARANTEED side effects. And if they had guaranteed side effects, then they aren't side effects, they are downsides to the medication and will likely cause them to be denied by the FDA.

Again, Doctor Drew did not ever, at any point, say that Clinton was somehow suffering from all of the side effects from her medication.

This is a totally pathetic strawman.