Hillary Clinton healthy, ready to serve as US President -Doctor
In-depth medical records of U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton were released on Wednesday, showing her physical conditions are good.
“She continues to remain healthy and fit to serve as President of the U.S.,” said Dr Lisa Bardarck, Clinton’s personal doctor.
The former U.S. secretary of state fainted at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday and has since stayed home.
Bardarck said the former secretary of state suffered from a “mild, non-contagious bacterial pneumonia.”
The rest of the physical exam “was normal and she is in excellent mental condition,” Bardarck said in a letter to the media, saying that she examined Clinton several times this week.
“My overall impression is that Clinton has remained healthy and has not developed new medical conditions this year other than a sinus and ear infection and her recently diagnosed pneumonia,” she wrote.
The Democratic nominee is expected to return to the campaign trail on Thursday and due in several battleground states next week, said her campaign team on Wednesday.
Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump will also reveal the results of his own recent medical exam during a TV show set to be aired on Thursday, said a daily report by The Hill, a top U.S. political website.
A video of Clinton’s faint at Ground Zero on Sunday has returned the issue of health transparency to the central stage in the two candidates’ White Housebids.
Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia two days before she fainted on Sunday but her campaign team had kept it quiet until the video was put online.
The September race is unexpectedly rough for Clinton. A series of national poll results showed that her lead over Trump has been narrowed since Labour Day.
Donald Trump vows to create 25 million jobs over next decade
In remarks that may stir new consternation abroad, Mr. Trump told the Economic Club of New York that he would pay for his economic agenda in part by requiring allies to shoulder the full cost of American military resources deployed in their defense.
Mr. Trump has long criticized the country’s defense arrangements, but on Thursday, he drew an uncommonly straight line between his job-creation promises and the “billions and billions of dollars” currently spent on “defending other people.” He specifically mentioned Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea as “economic behemoths” that the United States should not pay to protect.
“You could ask yourself, how long would Saudi Arabia even be there if we weren’t defending them?” Mr. Trump said in his speech. “And I think we should defend them, but we have to be compensated properly.”
He added, “I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to hear that.”
Speaking at the Waldorf Astoria, Mr. Trump largely reiterated a broad economic vision he outlined in Detroit last month, vowing to slash taxes on business and scale back federal regulations, and to redraft or void trade agreements he views as disadvantageous to the United States.
But Mr. Trump’s remarks also underscored the opaque and improvisational nature of his policy agenda, which has been defined by a few grand promises but few concrete details. By putting a hard number on his job-creation promises – even if far-fetched – Mr. Trump may be aiming to strengthen a campaign message that has been light on policy outside the issues of immigration and trade.
And Mr. Trump has now twice revised his tax proposals during the campaign, first sharply scaling back plans for a $10 trillion tax cut and then, on Thursday, backing away from several ideas that drew criticism and mockery in the past.
He partly rolled back his earlier proposals to reduce corporate taxation: Mr. Trump still proposes a 15 percent tax rate on corporate income, but it would no longer apply to business income reported on personal taxes, generally limiting the lower rate to the largest corporations. He also reduced a tax break that generated backlash because it would particularly benefit real estate developers.
Mr. Trump also now proposes to cut federal taxes by $4.4 trillion, not $10 trillion; he insists the plan would ultimately cost the government only $2.6 trillion in revenue, with the difference made up in economic growth.