From where do people think they get a right to know candidates or presidents health issues?

Just wondering why people think they have a right to be told this stuff about others?

They have a right to know if the guy they are considering has a history of emotional instability or is going to drop dead next week.

That can make what happens this week a little less ... problematic. Look at all the suicide bombers and murder-suicides. They will face no consequences for their actions because they are dead -- so in their minds, why not take as many as possible out with them?

might be dead the next week. OK

If it is possible for others, it is possible for him.

But to answer your rather strange question, it puts somebody else's finger on the button.

And it puts somebody non-elected next in line to that button.

John McCain is in his 70s. I would think that Republicans considering voting for him would want to know if he's likely to live through 4-8 years of extreme stress presidential style.

I don't think we need to know every health issue a candidate might have, but some ailments seem to be important to the ability of the candidate to perform the job.


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/2023649

president is seriously ill. If Bush had a stomach flu that put him on his rear for a few days, no big deal, but if he developed stomach cancer or Alzheimers disease? The American public deserves to know and have a voice in whether or not their leader is able to rule. We weren't given the choice with Reagan (and I'll never get over him looking at the beautiful Princess Diana and calling her Prince David) even though we knew something was up/wrong.

Same with a candidate, we should have the opportunity to decide whether we think a chronic health problem would interfere with their leadership as president.

I'm less convinced that reps and congress critters have to be as up-front. But our figurehead, THE leader? Yep, I think at that point, you need to cough the big info up.

Paul Tsongas was honest - I would have been weary about voting for someone with cancer. Had he won the election he would have died during his 2nd term. He is missed. :-(

that might be of concern.

We don't have a right about strangers. It's none of our business. But candidates who want to work for us, sure.

to work.

The KING doesn't have to tell his subjects how he's feeling. But then, he's the frigging King.

The President, OTOH, is the SERVANT of the people.

We want to know if our servants have any illnesses that impact on their ability to serve us.

That truly is disgusting.

Something's a bit disgusting, all right....

Not too good at context, are ya?

food service workers, because they will cough all over the food and spread disease, and we sure as shit shouldn't hire unstable muthafuckas to be President of the United States, because they'll try to kill us all if they go back on the sauce, back on the coke, or off the page--that's one block we will be sure to check in future. We also don't hire them if we figure they're gonna die or get all infirm during their term, because it's too damned big a job, it takes too much effort to put someone in it, and it's not like we can just hire another guy if the first asshole doesn't work out--we're stuck with the (sometimes lame) number two choice.

We also get to know how much money they made--we go over their taxes with a fine tooth comb. We pick over every aspect of their lives, like it or not.

Tell ya what--you want to avoid this "disgusting" aspect? Don't run for president, then.

What's your problem? You're taking this awfully personally. And you really have no compelling argument in rebuttal. "Because of employment" you say? Big deal. Happens all the time. You don't join the police force, the fire department or the military without passing a physical--this clown wants to be commander in chief.

He'll take his physical, and we, his employers, have the right to know if he passed it, even if you don't like it--too bad.

show me where it legally comes from. No one else has, because there is no such right.

a health status report (or the gal for that matter) that says they're healthy ain't gonna win, especially if there's ANY suspicion that they aren't healthy. No matter how "disgusting" you think it is. The voting public, that's us, the employers, will regard the person as having something to hide. Consequently, they won't get the votes. Capisce? There doesn't NEED to be any written rule. There's the rule of survival in the political arena at work in this instance.

And the one that wins, once they're in office, they go every year to Bethesda, and the Navy physician will tell us, each and every year, how they're doing. There will be a bunch of reporters given direct access to the report, and they'll give us the run-down on it--in excruciating detail, down to their height and weight, and their cholesterol level...even if you don't like it.

And guess what? Those reporters, and the rest of the country, and I, and most others here, really don't care if you don't like it. Your opinion is in the distinct minority, the fringe, as it were. It's a matter of great interest to us, the health status of the person we select to occupy the highest office in the land, and we insist upon access to it.

You aren't gonna change the status quo just by insisting that it's disgusting, or getting mad because you can't dig up a formal rule, because you're the only one who feels that way.

He claimed he was cured from his Lymphoma. He died before he would have been inaugurated had he gotten the nomination. We should have known the extent of Reagan's alzheimers. You can't make good decisions without full information.

Tsongas ran in '92 and died in '97. He would've served out a full term.

on the board at ULOWELL...

and only the ticket, I'd like to know that my candidate is physically and mentally healthy before voting.
I don't want to assume that...oh say in 2000...that I voted for Gore and found out he was unhealthy and got stuck after a year with Lieberman.
Of course it is ALWAYS a possibility that something unforeseen can happen, but I'd rather the known variables be out of the equation.

We have the RIGHT to demand WEEKLY drug and alcohol testing from both the POTUS, VPOTUS, and the DOJ leadership.

This maniac has had us teetering on the verge of nuclear war for monnths. If he is NOT on anything, then WHY do they take a presidential porta-potty on foreign trips?

Hell -- drug test the entire CONGRESS as well. We have the right to know if our reps are three sheets to the wind, or tweaked out on something else.

:grr:

to not know. Just imagine McCain gets nominated and Jeb is his vp - we would have another bush takeover in no time.

OK for airline pilots and train engineers, they are more than all right for the great ones who step up to rule over us.

specifically, are you referring? do you think we don't have a right to know if there is a mental problem? a serious, debilitating physical one? a drug problem? an alcohol problem? where do YOU draw the line, and why?

people definitely have a right to know. I's very common and sometimes necessary for employers to ask potential employees if they might have a health problem that may interfere with them performing their jobs.

We need to know immediately if they aren't fit to lead. And precedent has been set for it being our business whose dick gets sucked by whom, which is infinitely less important and at least as intimate, so what's your beef?

Anyway, the Presidency's being a unique job, comparisons don't work.

Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and basically wasn't doing anything for months--his wife ran the country.

And now, the President has the "football"--it is important that we know he is in charge of things and knows if something happens the Vice President takes over--so it is important that any candidate show that he/she is fit for office.

and his wife wouldn't let anyone in to see him. She'd disappear with the papers and return with them signed. Congress was very suspicious. Even so, his handlers and wife wanted to run him for a third term, but the Democratic Party wouldn't give him the nomination.

by repeated absences due to illness.

To assure that the President's thought processes will not be addled because of the side effects of necessary drugs.

To assure, as far as is possible, that we won't have to administer the oath of office to the Veep in the middle of the term.

We have the right to know.

I don't know, nor do I care, where you stand on the impeachment issue, but the impeachment option is the people's tool (that's why it falls under the House, also known as the People's House) rules of order, not the Senate's).

We're the bosses. That's where this "right" comes from. We have every right to be concerned if there are visible medical or emotional concerns.

In a democracy, the people are in charge and as bad as things are right now, we still have a democratically elected government, especially in the House and Senate.

I think Uncle Dick has been in charge all along (along with rove, of course).
:scared:

I know I don't want to put someone into office who is mentally unbalanced or even seriously physically ill. Someone who is fighting a terminal illness would be distracted and should be looking after their health not trying to do the job of governing too.

mentally unbalanced.

We have the right to know both their mental and physical health because once they are in it's next to impossible to remove them. Just look at the murdering psycho we have now that we can't seem to get rid of.

Frankly I don't understand how you can think we don't have the right to know.

Look at pictures of presidents at the beginning & end of their terms.

If someone isn't physically able to deal with the job, we have every right to know about it.

Seriously, I'd like an answer.

Not gonna EXPECT one though....I am familiar with your works.

They are free human beings.

If you are correct, then no one should be forced to provide
a resume when applying for a job.....or even fill out any sort
of "job application" whatsoever, right?

Hey, I'm a pretty goddamn "free" human being...how DARE any
prospective employer ask me to provide evidence that I am
capable of doing a job they hire me for!!!???!!!

The "business" of VOTING involves a certain knowledge of the candidates.
If it's "none of your business", then you have no business voting
for anyone, anywhere, ever.

OK

I'm talking about someone's health information.

No shame in that- it happens even in the best of families.
STFU, go away, and never vote again... and we'll call it even.

If not, maybe you could sell that "I'm talking about someone's health information"
talking point BS to the shitheads who compose the "Limbaugh Letter".
You'd find a much more receptive audience with them, I have no doubt.

They pay the frickin MORTGAGE with that sort of nonsense.

I was talking about people's health, and you started talking about job applications. How do you put those together?