2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[BVS]

Trump winning with 40% of the vote is much better than trump winning with 60%-75% of the vote. A blowout and the whole Democratic ticket goes down the tubes. Bloomberg saves the Democratic Party from a blowout

You honestly think these numbers are possible, or just playing the role of devil's advocate?

The "establishment" hates him and the far right talking heads are turning on him. It's as if real honest discussion about him is impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

Trump easily beats Sanders, that's the only reason Bloomberg is mobilizing.
Well main reason, he'd go on a Cruz - Sanders race too.



I now believe Hillary is in more trouble than just the wishful thinking of the right. I still think she gets the nomination. But she will be weakened.

 

[BVS]

The point I am trying to make is that is one looks at the behaviors and practices of some of these groups of people without the label of religion they would be condemned, but with the label of religion they have a shield.

Ah, I see what you're doing here. Brilliant. The double edged sword of 'freedom of religion'.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Trump easily beats Sanders, that's the only reason Bloomberg is mobilizing.
Well main reason, he'd go on a Cruz - Sanders race too.

But why Bloomberg? If anyone is truly concerned about a Sanders ticket wouldn't the Dems be mobilizing someone else?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

And you base this on what, exactly? We've had multiple polling companies recently poll Sanders and Clinton against various people running for the Republican nomination...Sanders has basically no problem wiping the floor with all of them, particularly Trump, and he performs much better against all of them than Hillary.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls

Nobody is going to care about the Socialist label. Hell, the stuff Sanders is arguing for is the same stuff Obama gave lip service to eight years ago...only difference this time is that people know Sanders actually will stick to his guns and will go after what he wants in a truly progressive fashion for the goals that he's already stated. Rather than fix the health care system, it's Medicare for All. Rather than fix college tuition issues, it's universal free tuition at public schools, etc.

I also don't get why people and (some) of the media act like it's a big deal that Sanders won't be able to get his policies into practice because of a Republican blockade on Congress. Of course he won't when it comes to any actual legislation that he needs. But how will Hillary accomplish that? Barack Obama has been nothing but stonewalled since after the ACA and had to put up with a ton of petty tactics before that bill was passed...if Hillary actually passes any legislation beyond the budgetary compromises that are currently keeping the government afloat, it will have meant she has capitulated to the right in some fashion. Because, again, there's no way in hell you can pass liberal or even most common sense legislation with the GOP tyrants that currently control the House.

It really is an annoying nit-pick of Sanders because Clinton won't get anything she currently campaigns strongly for through the Republican House either. Republicans will control the House through 2020 at least. Districts will be redrawn for 2022's midterms after the 2020 census, but 2022 will be a lower turnout election than a Presidential year. After 2022's results, Clinton would be a lame-duck for her last two years. Eight years of full Republican control of the house. Sanders faces the exact same scenario and there's no amount of mobilizing that can change that with the way the districts are currently drawn and the abysmal turnout rates during the midterms currently. But at least Sanders will pass executive branch legislation that will go a lot farther than Clinton's and not waffle between saying one thing and doing another. Clinton is going to get attacked as a Socialist by the Republicans no matter what, so why not actually take a far leftist stance if you're going to get attacked for it anyway and not pass any legislation? Of course, that's been the single biggest failure of the Obama administration, watering down legislation throughout his first five years to appease Republicans and then to see them walk away from the table vowing not to vote for the bill no matter what...at least Clinton's administration won't be dumb enough to get the rug pulled out after everything they've seen. But, she's a Clinton. And after Bill's continuing of the war on drugs, his misguided welfare reform and NAFTA, I have no doubt that she'll sell out the American people in order to just say she got something "major" passed...case in point, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that she wrote and now says she doesn't support...it's NAFTA all over again.

 

[Oregoropa]

Bloomberg probably wouldn't have much pull on Liberal-Moderate GOP outside of the BOS-WASH corridor. He's relatively unknown outside the major media-DC axis. He ran as a Republican after Giuliani as easier pathway the office, instead of getting bogged down in the gears of the NYC Democratic machine.

What they do know of Bloomberg would qualify him as left of center, and not an attractive candidate to Republicans. In fact he is the model of what we righties call the "Nanny-State"

- Carbon Control Proponent
- Gun Control Proponent
- Salt Control Proponent
- Soda Control Proponent

I will give him some credit for Stop and Frisk

 

[BigMacPhisto]

But why Bloomberg? If anyone is truly concerned about a Sanders ticket wouldn't the Dems be mobilizing someone else?

They aren't because of demographics and the current polling that shows Sanders performing far better and essentially winning in a landslide over some of these loons. The key lies in independents which is where Sanders outperforms Clinton by a severe margin. They trust him and not her.

There's also no doubt in my mind that Sanders would drive up turnout on the left moreso than Clinton. There's basically no young women out there even all that excited about electing the first female President and they already support Sanders by a very lopsided margin. It's really a marginal group of older white women and establishment voters that are really gung-ho about that...Sanders will actually excite people and get them to turnout.

Either way though, it doesn't matter. Both will stomp the GOP nominee and neither will be able to take back the House.

For the record, I saw on FiveThirtyEight the other day that Sanders is actually the only candidate with a positive score from the American people. It's a whopping +3 favorability rating, but it towers above the rest of the field. The guy is considered extremely genuine, regardless of whether or not you're into his politics. That sort of likability would work like gangbusters in the general election and it's why he's doing so incredible in these matchups (+23 over Trump, +23 over Cruz, +18 over Rubio in CNN's recent polling).

 

[deep]

The guy is a ga-billionaire.
the Dems have enough problems raising money for their whole slate and running national elections. Of course Bloomberg believes he would have a shot at winning and worse case he saves the Country from a GOP takeover with Trump or Cruz in charge. If Sanders pulls an Obama and somehow gets the delegates, they can't take it from him.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Bloomberg's candidacy is helped a lot by Trump being the nominee. Trump would be winning the support of as low as like three million primary voters in order to win the nomination...that's a paltry amount compared to the sixty million or whatever that voted for Romney. If Trump is the nominee, you could have most of the GOP base defect to someone like Bloomberg and hold their nose...throw in a bunch of independents and Bloomberg becomes president.

Not inconceivable at all when you throw one billion Bloomberg bucks into the mix and have two very polarizing candidates in Clinton and Trump.

 

[deep]

They aren't because of demographics and the current polling that shows Sanders performing far better and essentially winning in a landslide over some of these loons.

the early polling on the GOP primaries had Trump a non-factor too. Losing to Bush, Rubio, and all the rest. I have learned not to count him out. Hillary is now (on Town Hall )blasting him and praising Muslims. In any vote in America Trump vs Muslims he wins, unless it is a Democratic circus event.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

What do you mean early polling about the primaries? Trump rocketed to the top right away and stayed there...but he has consistently polled worse against Clinton and Sanders than all the other guys.

Bloomberg also doesn't have to just spend his own money. I imagine most of Wall Street and the like would get behind him rather than to spend money on a confirmed loser like Trump who also doesn't want a Super PAC to begin with. It's an even easier decision to dump the cash on Bloomberg with Hillary continuing to veer to the left and make anti-Wall Street pledges part of her platform.

I always thought Bloomberg would have a fair shot at President with the right timing. I think now is the right time. I don't think he can get anywhere if Sanders and/or Cruz are the nominees though. Cruz will eventually shore up too much support with the base and that would be way too detrimental to Bloomberg while Sanders is just too well liked by independents (and what better for Sanders than to face off against an actual New York billionaire like Trump or Bloomberg in the general election?)

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Hillary is now (on Town Hall )blasting him and praising Muslims. In any vote in America Trump vs Muslims he wins, unless it is a Democratic circus event.

So, you're saying that because Trump will hate on Muslims he will win the Presidency handily? Come on...

I do think the likelihood of a GOP candidate becoming President under regular circumstances is basically impossible in our lifetimes given the makeup of the country and it doesn't help that they've been consistently shedding Latino and Asian voters throughout this century as those groups continue to have a larger share of the electorate...BUT, I think Trump really is the best hail mary pass for them despite all his obvious faults. Celebrity candidacy that draws out a lot of apathetic voters could be enough to barely get him across the finish line in some key swing states like Ohio or Colorado if he were to get lucky.

Meanwhile, he'll get creamed in any sensible states, but what does that matter? Obama's approval rating throughout most of his Presidency has been excellent in three of the four quadrants of our nation. But it was horrid in the South and that alone has led him to hover around 50% for most of his Presidency. But what does the South matter when those states were never going to decide the election for him in the first place? All that matters at the end of the day are a handful of states as everybody comes to the table with over 200 in electoral vote playing chips at their disposal. John Kerry really should have just dumped all of his time and money into Ohio and hoped for the best...basically every other state he won was a given.

 

[deep]

What do you mean early polling about the primaries? Trump rocketed to the top right away and stayed there...but he has consistently polled worse against Clinton and Sanders than all the other guys.

Bloomberg also doesn't have to just spend his own money. I imagine most of Wall Street and the like would get behind him rather than to spend money on a confirmed loser like Trump who also doesn't want a Super PAC to begin with. It's an even easier decision to dump the cash on Bloomberg with Hillary continuing to veer to the left and make anti-Wall Street pledges part of her platform.

I always thought Bloomberg would have a fair shot at President with the right timing. I think now is the right time. I don't think he can get anywhere if Sanders and/or Cruz are the nominees though. Cruz will eventually shore up too much support with the base and that would be way too detrimental to Bloomberg while Sanders is just too well liked by independents (and what better for Sanders than to face off against an actual New York billionaire like Trump or Bloomberg in the general election?)

you have an interesting take on these things
to say Hillary is too left and socialist Bernie Sanders is more acceptable is, an interesting take on these things, I have no dog in this fight, I only try and call these things as I see them from years of observations

 

[deep]

Hillary was just asked to name her favorite president,
they kept empathizing she could only choose one.

Who did she pick???


wrong, she picked

Spoiler

a Republican

 

[BigMacPhisto]

It also should be noted that Sanders is away ahead of Obama at this point in 2008 both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's something the media has often noted and I don't think his candidacy is really going to be as in trouble in a far less white state like South Carolina as they think...in fact, he managed to cut Hillary's lead there in half in just a single month from December to January. He has another month until South Carolina and the potential of an Iowa-New Hamphshire-and maybe-Nevada steamroll to help prop him up. Plus, he can afford to lose in Southern states if he continues to beat Clinton in liberal ones by a much bigger margin than Obama did (hell, Sanders leads Clinton in NH by about twenty points and it's a state that Obama lost).

Big problem for Sanders in Iowa? I read today that he is at a big disadvantage in getting delegates there as his support is heavily concentrated in university areas. In other words, he will trounce Clinton by insane margins in those districts, but then will continually lose the delegates handed out in the more rural ones. That's really going to hurt and it leads me to believe that Sanders will get more votes in Iowa but it will come out that Clinton has more delegates. After all, if it's neck and neck in the state, it's going to be very bad for Sanders if he's winning these college districts with 80% or more of the vote as it means he will absolutely get creamed in the rest of the state.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Hillary moving to the left would suggest she's becoming a centrist.

 

[deep]

It also should be noted that Sanders is away ahead of Obama at this point in 2008

as I said you have an interesting take

the good news for you is that your man Sanders will not be a one and done guy


the good news for the rest of us is that he will most likely be a two and done.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

you have an interesting take on these things
to say Hillary is too left and socialist Bernie Sanders is more acceptable is, an interesting take on these things, I have no dog in this fight, I only try and call these things as I see them from years of observations

I said Hillary will get called a far leftist by Republicans. The same fate that happened to Obama.

Sanders is more acceptable to people because they trust him more and he also brings out extra voters. I think Sanders proposals are unquestionably more popular among the base than Clinton's. If it were just based on that, he'd already have won the primaries. Clinton's supporters mostly come down to those that think she's a safer bet in the general and/or want to elect the first female President. There's almost no reason why anybody on the left would actually think her platform is better than what Sanders is espousing, especially if they've come to the rational conclusion that neither will be successful at moving bills through the House.

There is something to be said for Sanders hope of having millions march in the street. I mean, it certainly could make a difference. As intransigent as the Republicans are and how they seem to fear their pay masters and a primary challenge more than the actual voters, I think if you have thousands of people calling them up and millions supporting a big minimum wage increase (something even supported by a strong majority of Republican voters), they would eventually have to budge. I mean, are you not going to listen to the many constituents in your middle of nowhere district that would like to make $15 an hour instead of $8, especially when not doing so will clearly show where you stand?


And good lord. Latest Fox News poll has Sanders trailing Clinton nationally only by 12 points. CNN poll from the same day has him down by only 14.

Hard part for Hillary is that Sanders is basically a steam roller. People find out about him, they like him and they stick with him. It's just a constant upward momentum both nationally and state by state with, at worst, a few stalls rather than drops in support. So the question is really will her padding and time be enough to narrowly beat that momentum. Because as it stands, nothing her campaign has done yet has been effective in actually giving Sanders a downtick in polls. If the surge continues at its current rate, that would obviously mean she'd be getting annihilated by the time Super Tuesday rolled around...

...so how much gas is actually in this steamroller? That's the question. Sanders may very well eventually get to a point where he has nailed every conceivable primary voter he can get.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Hillary moving to the left would suggest she's becoming a centrist.

Truth. I mean, she'd be considered a relatively progressive candidate if you just based things off her platform and flip-flopping from the last couple months. But I don't even think most of her supporters really believe she's into that stuff...I can't imagine how well Sanders would be doing if Clinton hadn't budged on the Tar Sands pipeline or TPP.

She collected millions from Wall Street bankers to do their bidding. In return, she talked for an hour in a lecture hall to make it a legitimate transaction. Nobody in their right mind thinks she'll go a step beyond what Obama currently has in place (a few rules and a minor bill passed during the recession that's not enough in a world without Glass-Steagall). Never forget how cozy her husband was with the Street.

 

[Oregoropa]

From the "Hillary to Drop Out" Conspiracy Files. Another sign of Hillary's health concerns on the campaign trail.

Now before you call me crazier than I already am. She suffered a concussion in 2012. Was wearing corrective frames at the Benghazi hearings, probably due to double vision in post concussive syndrome. Multiple blood clots. One in her Nasal Cavity. Takes blood thinners and has thyroid issues that affect her energy level. Remember when she was late coming back to debate stage? Probably wasn't a bathroom issue. As a fellow human being I hope she takes care of herself and all is well. If the Comey investigation continues to put heat on her, I could see her dropping out under the guise of health concerns.




Here's an article quoting Dr. Drew Pinsky and his grave concerns for HRC.

What The Doctor Just Told Hillary Could Take Her Out Of The Race, Huge Risk Of "Sudden Death"

 

[BigMacPhisto]

There's an actual FBI investigation going on into the e-mails and it's basically a proven fact that top secret data was included in them as Clinton's lawyers tried to appeal when two of the e-mails were given that consideration. The bigger issue here is that the FBI is delving into Clinton's work as Secretary and how it coincidentally lined up timing wise with the Clinton Fund receiving major contributions from the same foreign individuals she was having meetings with...basically a brazen quid pro quo if there ever was one. And no, this isn't mere crackpot conspiracy as it's already been brought up by major media outlets over the past few years as something that could be considered questionable.

Three FBI agents admitted to Fox that there's fifty people investigating this and that the FBI feels they have more evidence related to this than a lot of their prior convictions. Clinton denies being probed, but the FBI does not have to inform anyone of an ongoing investigation against them.

A polling firm took this to heart the other day and asked Democrats if someone running in the primaries should continue their campaign even if they were indicted. Sadly, over half said "yes" which shows how a lot of Clinton supporters kind of have blinders on. Some partisan investigation like the Benghazi nonsense? Nah, stay in the race. But the FBI saying you did something illegal that would be above and beyond the worst think any American President would ever have been convicted of? Yeah, drop out of the race.

Clinton won't, however. She'll stay in this thing even if it kills her. Last time, she ran the DNC into debt in order to stay in the race until June for no real reason. This time, she'll surely do the same as she has hundreds of would-be Super Delegates that would support her at the convention if Sanders were to be murdered or died or found to be severely lacking in a general election, etc. So, I expect her to be "running" all the way until the convention this time, even if Sanders were to make much quicker work of her than Obama in reaching the magic number of delates. This would be her last hurrah, so what is there to lose anymore?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

This eloquent and thoughtful article I'm reading right now reflects all of my opinions on the Hillary vs. Bernie debate, particularly:

"But at the same time, it’s unclear how much work the pragmatism critique does for the anti-Sanders cause. It’s true that single-payer health insurance and free public college aren’t likely to become federal law even if Sanders wins the presidency. But by the same token, neither are Clinton’s plans to improve Obamacare, and provide debt-free college and paid family leave. It’s true that Clinton’s agenda would become politically viable—if Democrats were to somehow reclaim the House and Senate. Her proposals are designed to reflect party consensus, while Sanders’s platform reflects the consensus of just one of the party’s wings.

But if we’re imagining both of their agendas as opening bids in negotiations with Congress, why fault Sanders for not negotiating with himself? Ask a future Democratic Congress for single payer and a $15 minimum wage and you might get laughed at… but you also might get the public option and a bump to $12. Ask it for the public option and a $12 minimum wage, as Clinton might do, and you’ll get a fair hearing from the outset, but you might end up with advancements barely worth fighting for. President Obama, as Sanders is fond of noting, negotiated with himself, and progressives paid an unknowable price as a result.

Center-left liberals will remind us that Obama’s biggest legislative accomplishments were products of hard-nosed dealmaking, rather than mass action. And they’re right. When Clinton makes LBJ-like arguments about the importance of pairing social activism with political leverage, she is telling unlovely truths. But here it’s worth noting that for all the hyperventilating over Sanders’s self-identification as a socialist, he’s been a relatively effective and pragmatic legislator."




Again, Clinton will be just as useless as Sanders in terms of major bills because there's no chance she can actually get that sort of progressive legislation passed. Republicans are not going to go along with, nor have they ever, really.

https://newrepublic.com/article/128239/nominating-bernie-sanders-worthwhile-gamble

 

[BigMacPhisto]

About that Fox News poll with the 12 point gap between Sanders and Clinton nationally:

"Clinton’s sagging support is due, at least in part, to erosion among black voters. While 67 percent support her, that’s down from 78 percent two weeks ago and 84 percent in December.

About one-quarter (27 percent) of Sanders voters will be pleased if Clinton gets the nomination, while one-fifth (19 percent) would be so dissatisfied they’d stay home in November instead of voting for her.

Honesty (30 percent) is the top quality Democratic primary voters want in their nominee. Among those who say honesty is most important, Sanders leads Clinton by 27 points."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...percent-as-her-lead-over-sanders-shrinks.html

If black voters continue to jump ship, this thing will effectively be over by Super Tuesday. Meanwhile, the poll result of a fifth of Sanders supporters staying home instead of voting for Clinton helps in explain in part why he does so much better than her in these heads-up polling matches against the GOP candidates (along with the aforementioned likability with independents).

 

[PhilsFan]

Read my post. I'm not saying everyone should be homeschooled. I'm saying that parents should have more control of where they send their kids to learn. If they want to send their children to a school where they pray to Mecca 5 times a day and learns Arabic, etc. That's fine with me. In fact, it should be encouraged.
If a school specializes in history and language that's great too. They'll still learn the basics of math, english, grammer, vocab, etc. But schools can put a bigger focus on certain aspects of education. It will lead to specialization of schools and a lesser dependence on college. This will drive college tuition down.
We need to progressively encourage the growth of private schools and then we sell off all the assets of the public school system. The good teachers will get good jobs. Teachers will have the leverage because the best can choose where they want to go. If you're a bad teacher, there's a good chance you won't get a good job.
Parents should choose where their kids go to school. I don't want to see a generation of robot thinkers. We need diversity of thought and belief.

This sounds like the Koch model, in which they're "donating" incredible amounts of money for "education" by leveraging veto power over curriculum and teachers.

This country desperately needs education funding to come from the government before private interests turn it into a propaganda campaign for children who won't know any better. We are already seeing the debilitating impact of private funding at the university level, and it's beginning to happen at the younger levels of education as well.

 

[nbelcik]

This sounds like the Koch model, in which they're "donating" incredible amounts of money for "education" by leveraging veto power over curriculum and teachers.

This country desperately needs education funding to come from the government before private interests turn it into a propaganda campaign for children who won't know any better. We are already seeing the debilitating impact of private funding at the university level, and it's beginning to happen at the younger levels of education as well.

And this is what happens when cash-strapped school districts turn to the Kochs for money:



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

From the "Hillary to Drop Out" Conspiracy Files. Another sign of Hillary's health concerns on the campaign trail.



Now before you call me crazier than I already am. She suffered a concussion in 2012. Was wearing corrective frames at the Benghazi hearings, probably due to double vision in post concussive syndrome. Multiple blood clots. One in her Nasal Cavity. Takes blood thinners and has thyroid issues that affect her energy level. Remember when she was late coming back to debate stage? Probably wasn't a bathroom issue. As a fellow human being I hope she takes care of herself and all is well. If the Comey investigation continues to put heat on her, I could see her dropping out under the guise of health concerns.









Here's an article quoting Dr. Drew Pinsky and his grave concerns for HRC.



What The Doctor Just Told Hillary Could Take Her Out Of The Race, Huge Risk Of "Sudden Death"

Breitbart and Drew Pinsky, an excellent combination for a reliable source


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

From the "Hillary to Drop Out" Conspiracy Files. Another sign of Hillary's health concerns on the campaign trail.

Now before you call me crazier than I already am. She suffered a concussion in 2012. Was wearing corrective frames at the Benghazi hearings, probably due to double vision in post concussive syndrome. Multiple blood clots. One in her Nasal Cavity. Takes blood thinners and has thyroid issues that affect her energy level. Remember when she was late coming back to debate stage? Probably wasn't a bathroom issue. As a fellow human being I hope she takes care of herself and all is well. If the Comey investigation continues to put heat on her, I could see her dropping out under the guise of health concerns.




Here's an article quoting Dr. Drew Pinsky and his grave concerns for HRC.

What The Doctor Just Told Hillary Could Take Her Out Of The Race, Huge Risk Of "Sudden Death"

So we've reached the point where we're not going to debate the merits of the candidacy, but rather that she will drop out because the guy from Loveline thinks she might drop dead.

Way to bring the class.

 

[BVS]

And you base this on what, exactly? We've had multiple polling companies recently poll Sanders and Clinton against various people running for the Republican nomination...Sanders has basically no problem wiping the floor with all of them, particularly Trump, and he performs much better against all of them than Hillary.

Where are these magical polls? Is this the same place that had 25% of black voters polling for Trump?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[PhilsFan]

And this is what happens when cash-strapped school districts turn to the Kochs for money:
View attachment 10554


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Right. They've bypassed the need to fund private schools by offering "programs" to public schools that indoctrinate kids with misinformation. They offer it to schools that desperately need financial help because they're in poor areas, and they convince poor kids that the GOP is the party to help them, despite the fact that it's the party that will destroy them.

 

[anitram]

Now before you call me crazier than I already am.

Well...

She suffered a concussion in 2012. Was wearing corrective frames at the Benghazi hearings, probably due to double vision in post concussive syndrome.

Wait, isn't this the theory from back in 2012/2013, that she was wearing Fresnel prisms, as I recall this was pushed by Karl Rove suggesting she had brain damage or some such. Those are worn to correct double vision when reading things up close. She wasn't wearing them a couple of months ago at the hearing that I saw anyway? And even if she was, suddenly corrective eyeglasses are a concern for somebody nearly 70 years old??

Multiple blood clots. One in her Nasal Cavity. Takes blood thinners and has thyroid issues that affect her energy level.

I have only heard of one clot, when were the multiples? I am also not sure why you think this is going to have her drop dead. I actually have a form of thrombophilia, it is inherited and my Dad has it too, which predisposes us to forming clots. It's essentially the opposite of hemophilia. He has had one major clot after a long flight. I had to inject myself with low molecular weight throughout my pregnancy and for some period of time post partum. Most of the time I don't need blood thinners or can take low dose aspirin. Yes it's a medical condition, but not one that affects you in any way whatsoever during daily life. The blood thinners too don't do anything other than cause bruising at the injection site and deplete you of calcium so you end up on supplements. So what's the concern? The thyroid thing I'm not familiar with in her case but again, hypothyroidism is common and this "low energy" stuff is Trumpspeak. Did you not see her testifying for 14+ hours or whatever it was? Did she seem low-energy to you?

Remember when she was late coming back to debate stage? Probably wasn't a bathroom issue.

Seriously? Based on what? Were there not several reports that O'Malley's staffer was in the only nearby women's washroom, thus forcing Hillary to go to the one further away? What do YOU think she was doing during this time? Shooting up with heparin backstage to keep the clots away?

As a fellow human being I hope she takes care of herself and all is well.

I'm sure the sources of these rumors have Hillary's best interest at heart.