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.
I don't think its that easy to dismiss. Two different people, 4 years apart. I don't know what the truth really is, but this logic doesn't exonerate her by any means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
You seem pretty convinced. I'm not convinced either way. I watched the video on CNNs site, from some angles you can see something from others you cant. Optical illusion, physical feature showing up funny on TV? Who knows, but it certainly isn't able to be 100% ruled out.
The point is, that this and countless other examples are nothing more than efforts to undermine a candidate and none of them hold water. The goal is to create noise and doubt to distract from real issues. They throw something out there that is pure innuendo and let it spread. They pick things that are within the realm of plausibility, but are difficult to definitively prove one way or the other.
Your lack of being convinced "one way or the other" is exactly what they are going for. Build up enough of those cases and suddenly you begin to believe the noise just based on volume.
The point is, that this and countless other examples are nothing more than efforts to undermine a candidate and none of them hold water. The goal is to create noise and doubt to distract from real issues. They throw something out there that is pure innuendo and let it spread. They pick things that are within the realm of plausibility, but are difficult to definitively prove one way or the other.
Your lack of being convinced "one way or the other" is exactly what they are going for. Build up enough of those cases and suddenly you begin to believe the noise just based on volume.
I guess I look at it differently. I don't need anyone to undermine her for me. She isn't a realistic candidate for me to ever vote for due to so many other aspects, nor is Trump. I don't take the approach of "oh, secret earpiece now I'm voting for Trump" I take the approach of "Hmm, untrustworthy politician, I don't trust anything, on either side"
They should just cut to the chase and have full body pat downs before debates for both candidates like they do in boxing/UFC matches.
Not as laughable as this whole conspiracy theory that Clinton had an earpiece and had someone offstage coaching her. She was far too articulate and smooth in her answers for this to be true. It's all quite ridiculous. It's a sideshow meant to distract from the fact that Trump was poorly prepared and didn't do very well.
I don't think its that easy to dismiss. Two different people, 4 years apart. I don't know what the truth really is, but this logic doesn't exonerate her by any means.
Of course, we always need a new conspiracy to get excited about.
....SuperStation95 in New York City has confirmed with our sources in the NYPD, that Clinton was using a very expensive earpiece receiver to receive stealth communications from her campaign handlers during Wednesday’s Presidential Forum carried live on NBC....
While Clinton was fielding questions from NBC’s Matt Lauer and the public Wednesday night on live television, a quiet buzz started circulating in New York law enforcement circles about Hillary’s left ear....
...NYPD sources confirm Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,” the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off-stage cues from directors....
Of course, we always need a new conspiracy to get excited about.
Nah, very simple logic says you can't use a story from 4 years ago about one person in order to prove that something that happened today with a completely different person didn't happen.
If that were the case I'd drag out the pictures of GWB from his debates with the mystery lump on his back under his jacket and proclaim that it must be true. Cant work both ways now, can it?
Bottom line is I have zero reason to trust any of the candidates and nothing, especially this simple would surprise me.
Its in one ear. And I am not going to do the work you supposedly know how to do. Machine is gone, years ago my butt. You just cant see the Forrest through the trees buddy.
So you KNOW what machines and software I've got and used to have?
My goodness, you must be telepathetic.
LOL
So you KNOW what machines and software I've got and used to have?
My goodness, you must be telepathetic.
LOL
Ken
Phonak Unveils World's Smallest Digital Covert Earpiece
“Phonito has long been established as the covert industry’s earpiece brand of choice and with the launch of Nano, we are once again raising the bar,”.
optimized to ensure users hear enough ‘Switched On’ buzz to feel confident their equipment is working, but not so much that communication is compromised.
we can offer covert professionals further improved in-ear comfort, and by boosting the receiver’s audio performance we are confident Nano will make missed commands a thing of the past.”
Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-08-2016 at 01:35 PM..
Reason: hotlinking
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.
Exactly!
