Wot is wrong with her????

[vt]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

Body Double

I thought these conservative publications' health scares were campaign tricks, but no more; they were correct.

But now this?

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/hillar...-23104197.html

[shiny!]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

She does look much younger and slimmer coming out of Chelsea's apartment than she did a couple hours earlier at the memorial service. But a body-double? I guess it could be so, but I'm reluctant to "believe" in it. I just don't want to go there. Not because it can't be true, but because I don't want it to be true.

Back on post #50 I cut and pasted something Scott Adams posted on April 29th. Here it is again. Maybe jk will chime in and tell us if a medical condition and medical treatment can cause dramatic changes in appearance so rapidly:

What I see in Clinton’s health is an unusual level of variability. Sometimes her eyes bug out, sometimes they are tired and baggy. Sometimes she looks puffy, sometimes not. It would be easy to assume fatigue is the important variable. And that is clearly a big factor. But notice that the other candidates have little variability in their physicality. Trump always looks like Trump. Cruz always looks like Cruz, and so on. Sometimes we think we can detect fatigue in their answers, but visually the other candidates appear about the same every day.

Clinton, on the other hand, looks like an entirely different person every few days. That suggests some greater variability in her health. And that’s probably a tell for medications that are waxing and waning but rarely at the ideal levels. Or perhaps the underlying conditions have normal variability. Or both.

[Woodsman]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

Body Double

I thought these conservative publications' health scares were campaign tricks, but no more; they were correct.

But now this?

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/hillar...-23104197.html

VT, we need to be more discerning with these sites. There is an effort to create bogus news sites that troll people on the right for fun, profit and political monkey wrenching. I'd ask that you and everyone else be far more discerning; maybe not go with the first instinct to post something that seems over the top but appeals to one's personal biases or interests or whatever term you care to use here. If it sounds over the top, it probably is.

I can't account for this site in detail but three minutes on Google and I find this on the Wikipedia back pages:

Is Morning News USA reliable?
Is Morning News USA a reliable? It seems to be under editorial control. 173.67.106.134 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to have editors (http://www.morningnewsusa.com/about-us). The parent company is Tune Media (https://www.linkedin.com/company/tune-media). Servers are under the URL http://www.thebitbag.com/. No instant red flags, but no track record that I'm aware of either. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for anything contentious, but for simple claims, it should be alright. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit strange to me that a website called "Morning News USA" is registered in Australia [16], owned by a company itself registered in Australia [17]. Looking through their articles, it seems that this site doesn't do any independent reporting. Everything is just rehashed from other websites (though they helpfully link to them, at least). For some of their articles, especially on US politics, they are citing some rather ridiculous sources. So my recommendation would be to never cite them, ever. If something this site carries seems worth reporting, simply link to wherever they got it from instead. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What if I cite other sources with it as well, including the links? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would you cite the morningnews at all then? Cite the publication that actually did the research - Morningnews doesn't add anything of value. So lets say you find an interesting article on Morningnews that itself cites CBSnews. Just cite CBSnews. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seconded; if a better source exists, use it. Also, the next time you post here, please include the text and the specific citation you wish to use. If, for example, you want to cite that website to say that the score of a particular football (soccer) game was 4-2, that's the sort of non-contentious thing I referred to above. But if you want to cite it to claim that Donald Trump has been caught taking campaign contributions from Russia, I think we're gonna need a bigger boat. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It's about a lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. It appears Morning News USA got its article from this original source, which lists legal notices. Would it be reliable if I include both sources which are: the Morning News USA article, and the site of the original legal document that Morning News USA copied? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy. They may come to something or not. There is BLP here as well per WP:BLPCRIME. Those sources are not even close to strong enough to add content. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We will only report on lawsuits that make a notable impact on the parties and have significant coverage in third party sources. I don't think this site or the 'original' source qualify as significant coverage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think these sort of websites are not reliable sources. Like probably hundreds of similar sites (many of which do seem to be registered in Australia and most of which use names that imply they are based in other countries), it just reproduces content derived from (or directly taken from) real media sources, or takes feeds delivered from other media outlets, or reproduces verbatim the press releases from state media outlets, in order to drive its page count up to gain revenue from the advertising placed on its pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield
(talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Remember, we are the "territory" being vied for in an information war of unprecedented proportions. It's put us in a sort of cognitive vise where we are between hoax and phony "news" sites putting out material such as what you posted, and traditional mainstream sites once considered to be reasonably reliable sources of information but now knowingly spiking or spinning or running stories to help one candidate and hurt another.

Occam's Razor, common sense and a large dose of skepticism is warranted at all times, lest we pollute iTulip in the manner the SOBs running this op would like to happen. Better a story stews for a while and gets more independent confirmation than one of us jump on it and post immediately. I think this body double story is a hoax intended to pull folks away from the real story of Clinton's health.

It has a black propaganda feel to it and as one who was once paid to develop white propaganda, I think I have a small edge here. Snopes has a list of spurious news sites and while this "morning news usa" site is not listed, maybe it should be.

[DSpencer]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

Got a call from someone at work....rummor from an american contact (who would know).......she had a Blood transfusion & is on oxygen

Well Geez Louise! There we have it. If that isn't a credible source, I don't know what is!

[DSpencer]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

Body Double

I thought these conservative publications' health scares were campaign tricks, but no more; they were correct.

But now this?

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/hillar...-23104197.html

itulip is just a train wreck and I can't look away.

Are you seriously this f-ing gullible? The proof that Hillary is using a body double is a tweet where someone points out that she is wearing her handbag on a different shoulder?

Here's the best economic forecast on itulip in a long time: aluminum prices set to rise as demand for foil hats skyrockets.

[jk]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

She does look much younger and slimmer coming out of Chelsea's apartment than she did a couple hours earlier at the memorial service. But a body-double? I guess it could be so, but I'm reluctant to "believe" in it. I just don't want to go there. Not because it can't be true, but because I don't want it to be true.

Back on post #50 I cut and pasted something Scott Adams posted on April 29th. Here it is again. Maybe jk will chime in and tell us if a medical condition and medical treatment can cause dramatic changes in appearance so rapidly:

the most likely and most benign explanation for hillary's collapse and "rejuvenation" is that she was dehydrated. another attendee at the ceremony mentioned the heat and humidity and that he'd sweated completely through his suit. hillary has pneumonia [we are assuming], perhaps was running a low fever, and got dehydrated. this causes orthostatic hypotension - postural low blood pressure. i.e. she was fainting or near-fainting. instead of standing while waiting for her ride, she should have sat down, even on a railing- it likely would have helped. get her to chelsea's, lying flat, with air conditioning, give her fluids and electrolytes and she's going to feel and look a whole lot better pretty quickly.

those videos still look terrible, however.

[vt]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

The health question was called conspiracy until it was proven correct. Yes the body double is likely a false event. But this is what happens when a candidate lies consistently and hides everything.

The public deserves to know about possible health issues and energy of any potential commander in chief.

[Woodsman]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

The health question was called conspiracy until it was proven correct. Yes the body double is likely a false event. But this is what happens when a candidate lies consistently and hides everything.

The public deserves to know about possible health issues and energy of any potential commander in chief.

All true and don't think I was trying to slam you for it, please. Because we know there is a multidimensional attack against the electorate - what I've been calling information war - we have to be especially vigilant.

I think the events of late should make us particularly attuned to the pejorative "conspiracy theory" particularly when it is deployed against reasonable ideas that in any other context could be at least possible, if not probable. When the media and partisan chorus sings with one voice as they did regarding their attacks on anyone who questioned HRC's health, that should cause us - knowing what we know about the conspiracy between media, the DNC, and Clinton partisans as shown in the Wikileaks disclosure - to dig deeper and ask tougher questions.

I want to recommend a good book on the matter of conspiracy theories from a perspective of an academic. Look for "Conspiracy Theory in America" by Prof. Lance deHaven Smith out of FSU. I just started it but it comes well recommended and seems to me as objective a monograph on the subject as I've ever encountered.

Keep posting.

[vt]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

No problem, and thanks for the background. I am familiar with conspiracy theories and the damage they can do as I have a close family member who is deep into wildly nutty theories about the government.

We can't trust the press or politicians on either side.

I will be more circumspect. However I will not be surprised when some things turn out to be true such as the recent health issue.

[DSpencer]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

the most likely and most benign explanation for hillary's collapse and "rejuvenation" is that she was dehydrated. another attendee at the ceremony mentioned the heat and humidity and that he'd sweated completely through his suit. hillary has pneumonia [we are assuming], perhaps was running a low fever, and got dehydrated. this causes orthostatic hypotension - postural low blood pressure. i.e. she was fainting or near-fainting. instead of standing while waiting for her ride, she should have sat down, even on a railing- it likely would have helped. get her to chelsea's, lying flat, with air conditioning, give her fluids and electrolytes and she's going to feel and look a whole lot better pretty quickly.

those videos still look terrible, however.

But her purse was on the opposite shoulder when she reappeared. How can modern medicine explain THAT?!

[shiny!]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

the most likely and most benign explanation for hillary's collapse and "rejuvenation" is that she was dehydrated. another attendee at the ceremony mentioned the heat and humidity and that he'd sweated completely through his suit. hillary has pneumonia [we are assuming], perhaps was running a low fever, and got dehydrated. this causes orthostatic hypotension - postural low blood pressure. i.e. she was fainting or near-fainting. instead of standing while waiting for her ride, she should have sat down, even on a railing- it likely would have helped. get her to chelsea's, lying flat, with air conditioning, give her fluids and electrolytes and she's going to feel and look a whole lot better pretty quickly.

those videos still look terrible, however.

Thanks, Doctor!

[jk]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

“Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What’s the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?” david axelrod

[lektrode]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

and the 64 trillion dollar question (since mere thousands, or hey! even millions are sooo 1999...)
none of which is 'inflationary'

What Happens If Hillary Clinton Has To Drop Out?

What happens if the candidate’s health issues get more serious? Certainly, the Democrats always have the option of propping her up, Weekend at Bernie’s style, until after November 8th, but what if matters get progressively worse? Here’s a quick primer on where the Dems could end up..

• Sep 12, 2016 8:10 PM

and chuck weighs in with (...maybe...):
It's Time To Bring Back Bernie ?

Sep 12, 2016 9:30 PM


Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
This tells you everything you need to know about how Hillary will operate as President: there will be no honesty, transparency or truth, ever.
Hillary's bid for the presidency is no longer defensible; it's time to bring back Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee.
The issue isn't Hillary Clinton's health per se; what is indefensible is her response to legitimate questions of the American public regarding her health.
Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself to be President of the United States because she is incapable of telling the truth about anything. There is no such thing as truth or transparency in the Clinton persona and campaign; everything is an ongoing experiment in perception management.
First one narrative is floated; if the narrative shifts the public perception positively, it is defended to the death, and anyone questioning it is instantly accused of being a conspiracy theorist from the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that has been Hillary's favorite defense for 30 years.
If this tried-and-true attack fails, then the questioners are accused of being sexist, partisan, etc.
If the first trial balloon narrative doesn't gain public perception traction, it's quickly dropped and another explanation is unleashed on a willing-to-accept-anything-as-"fact"-from-Hillary mainstream media.
So when the "overheated" explanation in 79-degree weather doesn't get traction, then it is dropped in favor of pneumonia, which mysteriously puts most sufferers in bed but Hillary declares that she feels great.
This process of replacing explanations and narratives, interspersed with attacks on anyone who questioned the previous narrative, is repeated until the perception management result is satisfactory. Hillary is clearly incapable of honesty--the word has no meaning, because all communication is aimed at concealing or obscuring the facts of the matter and defending what is visibly indefensible as if perception management is the same as the truth. It is not the same, but Hillary is incapable of discerning the difference.
This reliance on attacking the questioner to delegitimatize what is a legitmate inquiry also disqualifies Hillary. The American public has a legitimate interest in how Hillary Clinton benefited from the Clinton Foundation's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from overseas donors during her stint as secretary of state.
The American public also has a legitimate interest in the health of presidential candidates. John F. Kennedy's poor health was masked by a compliant media in the early 1960s, but that sort of duplicity is no longer condoned. The American public wants an accurate accounting of the candidate's health.

As you view the clip of Hillary collapsing, study the body language of her multiple handlers. I'm not referring to the Secret Sevice agents; I'm referring to her private handlers and aides. Note their extreme defensiveness about anyone seeing what was happening to Hillary. Their way of propping her up doesn't look like it was the first time they had to prop her up; their actions were practiced, automatic.
They are accustomed to propping her up and masking her true condition from the public. Study the clip; it's all there, in plain view.
Their hyper-wary posture was not just an attempt to shield the candidate from anyone seeing a moment of weakness; their over-protective watchfulness for "eyes on the candidate" is 24/7. Their only job is to mask the truth of Hillary's condition, whatever it may be.
This tells you everything you need to know about how Hillary will operate as President: there will be no honesty, transparency or truth, ever. Life for Hillary boils down to managing perceptions and hiding facts--inconvenient or otherwise. This is not a campaign strategy--it is her default mode of existence, the only way she knows how to operate.
Hillary's health may or may not be decisive, but what is decisive is how she has banished honesty, truthfulness, candor and transparency. The issue for Hillary and her handlers is not the facts of her health; it's how to manage public perceptions of her health in a satisfactory manner.
We don't just need to know whether Hillary suffers from conditions beyond allergies and pneumonia. What counts most is whether she is capable of being honest, forthright and truthful about legitimate, important issues. She has clearly proven that she is incapable of being honest and truthful about anything, very likely because she cannot distinguish between plain, simple truth and perception management.
Let's be honest for a moment, and confess that this is a character flaw that disqualifies the candidate from holding office. The last two presidents who saw their job as hiding the truth and managing perceptions were Richard Nixon during the Watergate era, and Lyndon Johnson during the War on Vietnam.

Attacking every legitimate inquiry as a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is not governance; it's a paranoia and distrust of the American public that leads inexorably to catastrophes like Watergate and wars of choice that drag on as the bodies and lies pile up.
It's time to bring back Bernie Sanders, a candidate who can tell the difference between the truth and perception management, someone who isn't an embarrassment to the nation. I understand that Hillary's coronation as Head of the Deep State has already been scheduled by the Powers That Be, but that doesn't mean we too must lose the ability to differentiate between the truth and perception management.
* * *

[lektrode]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

“Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What’s the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?” david axelrod

well... when one needs a concocted 'explaination' for ones every move, decision or statement?
(as one twists oneself into pretzel-shapes and spins her head 360degrees around on her shoulders, as she does every day of the week - depending on who she's lying to today...)

[DSpencer]

Re: Wot is wrong with her????

The health question was called conspiracy until it was proven correct. Yes the body double is likely a false event. But this is what happens when a candidate lies consistently and hides everything.

The public deserves to know about possible health issues and energy of any potential commander in chief.

Exactly which health conspiracy was proven correct? That she has Parkinson's? That she has epilepsy? That she has AIDS? That she has traumatic brain injury? That even her opening a jar of pickles as a joke was staged because the lid didn't properly "pop" when turned? There's a difference between asking for answers to legitimate questions and concocting/distributing half-baked theories.

Yes, Hillary is dishonest. She lied again, at least by omission, about her health. She may indeed have a serious health condition she is covering up. How much of her private health information we have a right to know is debatable, but we don't deserve purposeful deception.

What you don't seem to get is that you are part of the problem. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. When the right wing nutjobs throw out every health condition imaginable with only the tiniest sliver of evidence, they make it easy for Hillary to get the mainstream public to write off the whole issue as manufactured propaganda. When you pass on these stories and act like they may be credible, even if somewhat far-fetched, you are furthering the distribution of this nonsense. You are muddying the waters so that it's harder for anyone to determine fact from fiction or credible concerns from insanity. You are helping Hillary Clinton, whether you know it or not.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to say that Hillary is fooling everyone around her with a body double including a team of Secret Service agents, or that they are all in on it, you better have something more than saying she looks better after resting than she did before collapsing, plus her purse is on the other shoulder.