Is Full Medical and Sexual Disclosure of Presidents and Candidates Helping Us? (Reagan, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The recent collapse of Hillary Clinton at the 911 memorial this past Sunday throws into sharp relief whether we as a nation receive a benefit by full disclosure of presidential and candidate illnesses. Similarly, her husband, Bill Clinton’s sexual bad behavior brought to front and center the question of full public disclosure of sexual gambits of presidents and candidates. Previous presidents FDR and JFK show the other side of both coins.
Sexual peccadilloes - then
FDR and JFK, among other presidents, were well-known for sleeping around with women other than their wives. The media kept this conduct out of the spotlight. FDR in fact was with his paramour when he died. JFK has, after his death, become famous for affairs with Marilyn Monroe and some East German embassy personnel.
Health Issues - then
According to a recent book I read, FDR began to sicken around 1940, when running for his third term, and was “out of action” for good chunks of 1943 and 1944. This was a well-guarded secret, to the extent that even FDR did not know the gravity of his congestive heart failure, hypertension and other serious health problems. To be fair, it wasn’t until the mid-1970’s that disclosure of these issues to the patient became the order of the day. My own father was never told his cancer had spread, and my mother, his wife, wasn’t told until six weeks before his January 1973 death. I was told three weeks before he died.
It has become known in recent years that JFK struggled with Addison’s Disease and other ailments. The illness and constant treatments were hushed up.
Sexual peccadilloes – now
The trend towards media exposure of sexual episodes may have gotten its start with the 1963 British scandal involving Christie Keeler and others. Ted Kennedy’s tragic romp on a hot, humid July night in 1969 was well-publicized. Fanny Fox’s watery tryst with Wilbur Mills in 1974 became known. By the time of Bill Clinton’s presidency and the Monica Lewinsky affair, such news was much less shocking. The fact that it caused him any problems was probably the result of the fact that Monica was a subordinate employee and much younger than Bill.
Health Issues - now
Betty Ford’s openness about her bouts with breast cancer and alcoholism, with Gerald Ford’s public support probably helped turn the corner on the suppression of health problems from the public. Bill Safire made jokes about the “Polyp-bureau” when writing of Reagan’s treatments for colon cancer.
Frame for Debate –
There is no doubt that health issues are out there, for all to see in the current presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is being excoriated for not following in Ford’s and Reagan’s footsteps. Bill Clinton’s otherwise productive term was dogged by impeachment battles over the sexual misconduct.
The question is whether the country was well-served by possibly hamstringing Bill Clinton on retaliating against the terror which, in retrospect, was manifested on September 11, 2001. Is the public’s ability to choose a new president being hampered by the focus on possibly collateral issues?
While I favor the overall move towards disclosure and sunshine, sunshine scorches as well as illuminates. I believe that the media is as responsible as anyone for perseverating on these issues. Maybe some limited discussion in a more respectful manner is the order of the day.
I do not believe that Donald Trump should be ushered into the White House by virtue of the handling of an immediate medical crisis. There may be other abundant grounds for him to become president; but not Hillary’s health. Perhaps there should be focus, all around, on the VP candidates. They are both assuming more important day-to-day roles than ever, and they are one heartbeat or gunshot away from the Oval Office.
I do not believe that Donald Trump should be ushered into the White House by virtue of the handling of an immediate medical crisis. There may be other abundant grounds for him to become president; but not Hillary’s health.
Agreed. I am amazed this story continued to survive beyond Sunday afternoon.
Is the public’s ability to choose a new president being hampered by the focus on possibly collateral issues?
I think that the voting public has a right to know relevant health information of presidential candidates. I'm talking about things that could affect their ability to perform the duties of the office. Issues a typical physical would show are a good place to start. In addition any chronic health problems should also be public information. I think this is especially important when both major candidates are around 70 years old.
Other things, like sexual history and past diseases that may have been treated are private and should remain so unless the candidates feels compelled to make them public.
I think it is important to know if we are voting for a healthy candidate. The rigors of being the President is a daily grind of pressure and appearances jetting about the world.
More and more I am thinking that a vote for Hillary is actually a vote for Tim Kaine for Prez. If she can't make it through the campaign how is she going to handle the oval office?
As for sex I say who cares. When the whole Bill Monica disgrace happened we were the laughing stock of the world with the stained dress etc... but the worse part of all was that Bill lied to the American people.
If he had just come out and said that he acted inappropriately and it is between him his wife and the staffer (pun intended) most of us would have been OK with that and moved on.
It was the lies and cover ups that made it such a scandal. What is it with the Clintons and lying?
We have the right to know about the health of a candidate but the sex needs to stay in the bedroom and if you are caught out then don't lie about it. The lie is worse than the deeds.
The recent collapse of Hillary Clinton at the 911 memorial this past Sunday throws into sharp relief whether we as a nation receive a benefit by full disclosure of presidential and candidate illnesses. Similarly, her husband, Bill Clinton’s sexual bad behavior brought to front and center the question of full public disclosure of sexual gambits of presidents and candidates. Previous presidents FDR and JFK show the other side of both coins.
Sexual peccadilloes - then
FDR and JFK, among other presidents, were well-known for sleeping around with women other than their wives. The media kept this conduct out of the spotlight. FDR in fact was with his paramour when he died. JFK has, after his death, become famous for affairs with Marilyn Monroe and some East German embassy personnel.
Health Issues - then
According to a recent book I read, FDR began to sicken around 1940, when running for his third term, and was “out of action” for good chunks of 1943 and 1944. This was a well-guarded secret, to the extent that even FDR did not know the gravity of his congestive heart failure, hypertension and other serious health problems. To be fair, it wasn’t until the mid-1970’s that disclosure of these issues to the patient became the order of the day. My own father was never told his cancer had spread, and my mother, his wife, wasn’t told until six weeks before his January 1973 death. I was told three weeks before he died.
It has become known in recent years that JFK struggled with Addison’s Disease and other ailments. The illness and constant treatments were hushed up.
Sexual peccadilloes – now
The trend towards media exposure of sexual episodes may have gotten its start with the 1963 British scandal involving Christie Keeler and others. Ted Kennedy’s tragic romp on a hot, humid July night in 1969 was well-publicized. Fanny Fox’s watery tryst with Wilbur Mills in 1974 became known. By the time of Bill Clinton’s presidency and the Monica Lewinsky affair, such news was much less shocking. The fact that it caused him any problems was probably the result of the fact that Monica was a subordinate employee and much younger than Bill.
Health Issues - now
Betty Ford’s openness about her bouts with breast cancer and alcoholism, with Gerald Ford’s public support probably helped turn the corner on the suppression of health problems from the public. Bill Safire made jokes about the “Polyp-bureau” when writing of Reagan’s treatments for colon cancer.
Frame for Debate –
There is no doubt that health issues are out there, for all to see in the current presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is being excoriated for not following in Ford’s and Reagan’s footsteps. Bill Clinton’s otherwise productive term was dogged by impeachment battles over the sexual misconduct.
The question is whether the country was well-served by possibly hamstringing Bill Clinton on retaliating against the terror which, in retrospect, was manifested on September 11, 2001. Is the public’s ability to choose a new president being hampered by the focus on possibly collateral issues?
While I favor the overall move towards disclosure and sunshine, sunshine scorches as well as illuminates. I believe that the media is as responsible as anyone for perseverating on these issues. Maybe some limited discussion in a more respectful manner is the order of the day.
I do not believe that Donald Trump should be ushered into the White House by virtue of the handling of an immediate medical crisis. There may be other abundant grounds for him to become president; but not Hillary’s health. Perhaps there should be focus, all around, on the VP candidates. They are both assuming more important day-to-day roles than ever, and they are one heartbeat or gunshot away from the Oval Office.
The Constitution says nothing about any of these requirements or prerequisites to obtaining election as President of the United States. A President must simply be a naturally born citizen and must meet an age threshold and that is it.
So, any disclosure requirements placed upon a presidential candidate cannot be binding.
That being said, there is much I would like to know about candidates for the presidency. At a minimum, I would like to see the following:
1. Ten years of tax returns with all schedules attached.
2. The release of all medical records for the last five years. These should be released though to a neutral panel of three physicians who could read the records and issue a summary for the general public. The panel should include a democrat, a republican, and a perhaps a physician who has some renown as a medical correspondent for one of the t.v. networks. Mental health should receive particular attention. I am not particularly interested in treatable infectious diseases or minor conditions such as acid reflux or treatable high blood pressure.
3. An FBI background investigation telling us something about the candidate and their dealings in both private and public life. This should be public information. However, perhaps the names of some witnesses could be redacted for purposes of confidentiality.
Since the Constitution does not require release of these documents, I think it should be handled in this way. A large variety of public officials should issue a statement indicating that the public should regard any candidate who fully fails to comply with these requirements as "unqualified and unfit to be President". Newspapers and media outlets should excoriate any candidate who fails to fully comply. In other words, there should be great consequences for a candidate who refuses to provide all the requested information.
Ultimately, this kind of information would help the voters do a better job of choosing a candidate for President. That is why I support this process.
I much care less about the actual health status and sexual adventures of any candidate than I will ever care about them lying about it/these things.
LIES are the problem, in all their forms. The meaning of 'is' is much more of a problem for me than the fact that these people were stupid enough to cheat or lie to themselves. Just don't lie to me.
I don't see politicians as any more 'important' than the next guy. But, they do and that irks me. And most of them see us as pawns. Many of us are not stupid however and we don't like being treated as though we are. I believe we have the basic right to make up our minds based on complete and accurate information.
If the question is asked, it should be answered truthfully. If you lie and I find out, I cannot trust you. And if I cannot trust you, I will not want to elect you. If I (and others like me, many others) don't want to elect you, then I also expect you will do anything, no matter how illegal or immoral, to ensure your election - and ... then we come back to lies and trust. I will also be very suspicious about those who you surround yourself with and those who support you .. and then we have divisiveness and that will be one major reason for the downfall of the country.
Little things .. can lead .. over time .. to big things. That is why many of our parents tried to instill in us as small children not to steal and lie, etc. I expect no less of a presidential candidate than I expect of myself.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,182 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19501
Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that he has never had sex with a peccadillo, armadillo or an armourdildo .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
