Perhaps my view that her health is nosediving might be incorrect, but I've been seeing a lot of reports around here lately showing her being held up by assistants, her missing various public speaking engagements that she should have made, her being recorded shaking and moving erratically, etc. There seems to be a lot of evidence that at least indicates that something seems quite a bit awry w/her physically speaking. The top most popular OP in this sub at the moment even is about how long she's gone w/out showing up publicly.

I'm certainly not saying there's any sort of "definitive proof" that she's at death's door or anything, but there do seem to be some murmurings that something's not right.

Which I do with my mother who doesn't need assistance and is a little younger than her.

Your mother, however, is not (I presume, though I may be wrong, of course) any sort of global public figure who's constantly trying to appear to "have it together" and look "strong" and "confident" in front of the viewing public. If your mother had a multimillion dollar PR department making sure she appears "awesome" at all times in everyone's eyes, I will absolutely guarantee you that they'll make sure that she is NEVER ever helped up any steps, or held under her arms by body guards like she's a handicapped child as she attempt to walk here or there. An adept PR department would NOT have that happen. They'd know how it would appear and come across.

You helping your mother doesn't apply to H. Clinton being helped because it's a very different context and the circumstance. Clinton being publicly helped like she has been is in fact a noteworthy thing because, again, I know her PR department would never want to even hint that she needs some serious assistance or can't do basic, menial things on her own without assistance like walk up steps, open doors, or stand in front of a podium to give a speech or answer questions. The only circumstance under which a knowledgeable PR department would allow her to be helped like that is if they knew she was reeeaaallly fucked up and her guards absolutely had to help her or she might simply fall over and lose all semblance of propriety since she can't do these basic things on her own at this point.

All this is just basic two plus two critical thinking, and you don't really need some sort of "official MSM news source" to tell you this before you understand what it's pointing to. You should be able to figure this out on your own.

I don't mean this last statement in any antagonistic manner toward you, by the way. I'm just saying that one shouldn't necessarily need any type of "trusted source" to tell them what to think before they begin to understand the signs in front of them and see things for themselves is all.

unless you actually have evidence I don't make those assumptions about people in general based upon a picture of a gentleman conducting himself in a manner that his mother probably taught him, and would be proud of.

The validity of everything that I stated above isn’t evidence? Seems like common sense evidence to me. Is it “The MSM told me so, therefore I must believe it” evidence? No, but if that's the only kind of evidence one depends upon, then you're doing it wrong. Often time, that can be some of the weakest evidence around since the MSM is an agenda-driven propaganda department for the state. Anyone who doesn’t know that at this point isn’t paying attention.

In short I don't go oh my God Hillary Clinton's health is nose-diving because I see a picture or two of chivalrous Behavior.

And neither am I doing that. This seems like a pretty bad straw man fallacy actually. Thinking everything I’ve stated is based on “a picture” and that’s it seems willingly obtuse.

I just need a little bit more than that, maybe some medical documents signed by a doctor some health records...........

Do you think that some sort of medical documents signed by a doctor or H. Clinton’s health records would actually be released to the public? Is that what you’re waiting for? Is that what would qualify as “valid evidence” to you?

That seems like quite a steep and unnecessary qualifier to put on this topic before giving the idea that Clinton might be in failing health any validity. It ultimately ignores the other instances of valid evidence toward this that exist.

Evidence like what, you might ask? Well, I stated some of them in my previous post. If you don't buy that as evidence, then okay. As I said initially, these were just some thoughts I was having. I'm not stating anything here as "what is". I'm just stating them as what they seem to be is all.

The cognitive dissonance is going strong as fuck in this one, ladies and gentlemen.

Exactly this. Gave the benefit of the doubt, but they're seeming more and more like a hardcore Clinton shill. Oh well. Moving on.

Damn. Came back here to post an edit on my OP, and realized dude deleted ALL of his replies in this thread. lol. Yowza. Cowards gonna coward I guess.

Interesting...

Or she's dying.

I mean we're all "dying", of course, but I mean she might be a lot closer to it than others is what I'm saying.

Perhaps others do this, but that's not what's happening in the OP as far as my posting it goes. I literally was just wondering how the possibility of her being really incapacitated would effect things if (God forbid) she actually were to become president.

I'm not trying to distract from anything else, and wasn't even thinking about any other issues but the one I stated when I posted the OP.

fear of idea contamination

I…don’t even know what that is. ELI5?

The question itself is absurd and based on a false concept but it facilitates maximum distraction.

I guess I see what you’re saying…but it seems to me you’re mistaken in your interpretation because there very much does indeed seem to be a viable reason to think that H. Clinton is possibly in quite ill health. It is no type of “distraction” to wonder if her health is in such bad shape that she may not even make it to the presidency - let alone be able to hold it if she (again, God forbid) actually gets it - since there do seem to be quite a few indications that she is in fact not well physically, etc.

Are you saying that bringing up this issue of her possible ill health can distract people from focusing on her rampant unscrupulousness and criminality? I don't know if you are or aren't saying that, but if you are, I would say that I in no way was ever attempting to do anything of the like, and I don't think bringing up such an issue should to any extent take any attention away from said rampant unscrupulousness on her part.

I was just wondering if her getting in office might all be a moot point if she's in such ill health that she croaks not long after getting in.

There's weren't as obviously imminent as Clinton's seems to be.

I also addressed this very issue elsewhere in this thread as well. There's zero attempt on my part to distract from Clinton's criminality. If I had anything to say about it, they wouldn't be president. My point was that if she does become president, it seems that she may die on or before she gets in office. That's all.

Of course. They don't gaf. They just want whatever puppet they chose in there.

Yeah. You're right about that actually. Thanks for the correction. Noted.

Yep. Whoever the VP would be would be a shoe in at that point.

Don't know why this comment got downvoted. Not saying anything like this will happen, but who knows at this point.