Hillary is "often confused" says Huma

Dragging this back from the humorous derail...

Hillary Clinton is confused over what it means to go 'viral'

And

Hillary Clinton confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution

Two more examples to add.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

Cool. You want any old female Alzheimer's patient to run the country. As long as she's female, doesn't matter about her health and mental capabilities.

Personally, I want someone who doesn't lie about being shot at. Someone who doesn't feint on stage. Someone who won't have coughing fits during questioning. But that's just me.

don't forget crooked.

She's getting old. When you get older you will be crooked too. Or perhaps you already are.

that i AM, old and crooked,

a reply to: Domo1
I can see that often in TV appearances, a moment of "deer in the headlights" look. At 60 I know that feeling, it is confusion.

Go Bernie.

a reply to: rollanotherone

Let's not get carried away here.

Alzheimer's? I think that's somewhat unlikely.

Doesn't mean I'm not concerned about it, but let's not get too carried away here.

Modern tech confuses the hell out of me many times, too. To the point that I'm not a big fan.

a reply to: seagull

Alzheimer's? I think that's somewhat unlikely. 

She could have it.
Alzheimers progresses through 7 stages, iirc.
She might just be in the stage between confusion and whoops I pushed the red button that says 'Launch ICBMs'.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

That's very telling, isn't it?

This is why you always write the lies down...easy to get "confused" over which one to keep telling.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Neither one of them are exactly shining examples of the healthy look, are they?

I think diagnosing crooked Hillary with Alzheimer's may be premature. Her 'confusion' could just as easily stem from something as mundane as alcoholism.

Since this issue is being raised, can I ask;
Does the American constitution make provision for a sitting President being incapacitated by dementia?
How would it work?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I would guess Impeachment:

In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

about.com

Dementia woukd certainly lead to behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Ranger351

I don't think being convicted is the determining factor in being a criminal or not, I think conviction as law is concerned would seal it as a label for someone who is a criminal, but I don't think it's a requirement for one to be considered a criminal...criminal can mean morally wrong or even disgraceful.

Yes, it is the defining factor. Otherwise you advocate for oppression under the mob's definition of morality or disgrace.

if I interpret this correct, one could be a criminal in the eyes of one group of people, yet be normal or not considered criminal in the eyes of another group, especially if the second group has differing morals or value set than the first group? I guess that is correct...I still don't think a legal conviction is a requirement for someone to be or become a criminal though.

Jews were considered disgraceful and their actions morally bankrupt. Does that make the actions of the Nazis acceptable?

in the eyes of the Nazi's (group2) I assume the jews would have been "criminals", now does it mean the Nazi's that were never convicted of a crime yet performed criminal acts weren't criminals???

(Hate to pull the Jew card and do not believe that is what you advocate for, but it is the perfect example to illustrate the logical flaws in that line of thinking)

it's not what I advocate for, however I don't think you understand the argument, one can be considered a criminal, regardless of legal conviction, now can someone be considered a felon without a legal conviction???

Overall I am fairly certain that doing criminal things, acting like a criminal, having criminal dealings with other criminals, lying cheating stealing killing etc, make a person a criminal, it does no matter whether or not one is caught and convicted in the eyes of the law, now let's get really "slick" willy here...her criminality could very well depend on what the meaning of 'is' is...as in 'is' Hillary a criminal, very likely possibly not, as in at the very moment that you are reading this question she may in fact not be doing, saying or performing any act that would be considered criminal, now if 'is' means something closer to the generally accepted and less slick meaning that 'is' would encompass a far more general frame of reference as in 'is' or has ever been, has Hillary ever been a criminal or said, done or performed anything that may be considered criminal, regardless of conviction or arrest for those acts? Then very likely the answer would be yes, Hillary is a criminal, with criminal actions, background and criminal intent to back that up, I don't think she could be any worse of a criminal even if she were a Nazi, she would just have been able to operate and show her criminality in a more open manner with like minded criminals....Oh and I think she's a jerk too

I'm over dealing with who the next POTUS is. I will still cast my vote... however whoever wins... at the end of the day, I will still go to work, take care of my family and enjoy my hobbies. Its rather sad but I am not suprised to see the choices we have. People are just not educated enough to vote for the right person, instead everyone seems to vote based on what will get them brownie points among their peers. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation imo.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
about.com
Dementia woukd certainly lead to behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

It would be a very tricky question legally (as was the problem of George III).
Dementia might be more likely to show itself in bad judgement than in outright criminal activity, and trying to remove a President on the grounds of bad judgement would be very murky territory and would be seen as a dangerous precedent.
Unless a real emergency prompted those around him/her to jolt Congress into more summary action, it would be a long process (which would help to create the emergency).

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

A sad, little analogy? Wow, & I thought religious apologists were bad.
I found it a perfectly reasonable analogy.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
Sorry to interrupt the Two Minutes of Hate, but what was she confused about, exactly?

She thinks she's a dog.

Lol, you had me crackin' up man. Good one.

Hillary was apparently very confused during the time after her concussion:

Clinton suffered a severe fall in early December 2012, which gave her a concussion and put her in the hospital for several weeks, postponing her planned congressional testimony on her response to the Benghazi attacks. She returned to work on January 7, 2013, when State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said she was “fully recovered.” But an e-mail released by Judicial Watch earlier this week showed top aide Huma Abedin admitting on January 26 that Clinton was “often confused.”

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

National Review

It was the second time in as many days that Kennedy had to explain State Department policies to Clinton. In a January 25, 2013 e-mail titled “Benghazi,” she appeared unaware that the department was warning Americans not to travel to the embattled Libyan city. “Since the Brits, Germans and Dutch have told their citizens to leave Benghazi, why aren’t we doing the same?” she asked her top staff, citing a report from NPR. Kennedy explained that the department had already told American citizens not to travel to Benghazi on January 2 — a warning they had reiterated on January 24, just one day before her e-mail.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: Domo1>>> I think both sides forget that now the POTUS has lost most power beyond being a figurehead meant to inspire or sell or reassure to the American people. Obama is just told what to say and when to say it , where to go, what to sign. He doesn't make policy, he just tries to get support for it. Or just ignores the people when that doesn't work. Hillary would be no different. She's a horrible sales person so don't expect her to do anything but pass whatever executive legislation they put in front of her. Her handlers will run the show as do Obama's. Trump is a different story. They might have to get him on board and he's a question mark if he can be controlled. If they have dirt on him like they did Obama and the Clintons, he'll go along. The Bushes were higher up in the pecking order so they willingly aided and abetted the puppet masters. But Trump is an odd duck, as is Sanders. They might NOT get on board and that would be a problem for the puppet masters. Loose canons make everybody nervous but them especially. If Reagan was " out of it" the last few years and they faked it, they can do the same with Hillary.

hillarys skeleton closet is so full its bursting at the seams. she cant be trusted with her own email, never mind to run a country.

Once again just more proof that Crooked Hillary Rotten Clinton is unfit to be POTUS. ~$heopleNation