Fine line between autism and genius

[6andcounting]

New conspiracy links Clinton hand signals to Lester Holt giving her opportunities to use memorized zingers against Trump during debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSGuugyE6tc&feature=youtu.be

Redditors trying to determine if there was a true 1:1 ratio between her potential signals and leading her into easy setups. They're also trying to determine how frequently she has made similar gestures in past debates and at rallies to see if this is all just a coincidence or if the conspiracy is true.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/54zqok/6_times_hillary_signalled_lester_holt_and_6_times/?st=itocxhtx&sh=a37f4a60

The 2020 election will be incredibly boring - unless if Trump is up for re-election.

[Belsnickel]

/u/joblessthehutt pointed out that Holt went to Clinton for a response in a similar manner several times without the signal, and I would say he's right based just on the analyses I have read because it happened more than 6 times. That said, nothing will hold the centipedes back from their claims, that is one thing that is certain.

[6andcounting]

(09-29-2016, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: /u/joblessthehutt pointed out that Holt went to Clinton for a response in a similar manner several times without the signal, and I would say he's right based just on the analyses I have read because it happened more than 6 times. That said, nothing will hold the centipedes back from their claims, that is one thing that is certain.

This centipede is a predator

[Benton]

She scratches her nose and something happens? It must have been a signal!

She scratches her nose and nothing happens? He must have missed the signal!



Some other tin foil hatter was telling me the nose scratches were to whoever was feeding her lines inside her earbud. A scratch signaled she needed an answer because she was too medicated to answer correctly.

I just smiled, nodded, and hoped the guy's bad breath prevented him from peeing in the gene pool of life.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Not saying I 100% believe it, and I am not a big conspiracy person. That said... if it weren't for the DNC Leaks already showing the media collaborating with Hillary during the primaries, I would immediately write this off as crazy fiction.

Now? Meh, I would keep my mind open, at least.

[Rotobeast]

I will say this......
At the very least, she had her stack of note cards (probably numbered responses) and someone giving her cues.
I'm pretty sure that falls within the rules, but she was definitely keeping visual contact with someone.

My biggest thing would be the Debate Commission chairman letting it slip that the candidates knew the questions ahead of time.
Did anyone else catch that ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(09-30-2016, 09:16 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I will say this......
At the very least, she had her stack of note cards  (probably numbered responses) and someone giving her cues.
I'm pretty sure that falls within the rules, but she was definitely keeping visual contact with  someone.

My biggest thing would be the Debate Commission chairman letting it slip that the candidates knew the questions ahead of time.
Did anyone else catch that ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I didn't see that but doesn't that make Trump's performance even worse?  

Secondly why do you think she was getting visual cues rather than just making good eye contact with either the crowd or the moderator or the camera vs Trump trying to wing it and flailing about helplessly?

[Belsnickel]

(09-30-2016, 09:16 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: My biggest thing would be the Debate Commission chairman letting it slip that the candidates knew the questions ahead of time.
Did anyone else catch that ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

It's my understanding that the candidates usually know the questions ahead of time. It's often how the debates work. The candidates are provided the primary questions so that they can prepare an initial response and have notes for what they anticipate their opponent saying. It's what the debate prep is all about.

Edit: I was actually completely wrong about that. http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates

Quote:All debates will be moderated by a single individual and will run from 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time without commercial breaks. As always, the moderators alone will select the questions to be asked, which are not known to the CPD or to the candidates. The moderators will have the ability both to extend the segments and to ensure that the candidates have equal speaking time. While the focus will properly be on the candidates, the moderator will regulate the conversation so that thoughtful and substantive exchanges occur. The CPD is in discussion with technology and civic groups that will provide data to the moderators to assist them in identifying the subjects that are most important to the public.

Which is very interesting because once those topics are announced they need to essentially have as many notes as possible in front of them to make sure they have the necessary information on the topics because anything could be asked in those segments.

[Rotobeast]

(09-30-2016, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's my understanding that the candidates usually know the questions ahead of time. It's often how the debates work. The candidates are provided the primary questions so that they can prepare an initial response and have notes for what they anticipate their opponent saying. It's what the debate prep is all about.

Edit: I was actually completely wrong about that. http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates


Which is very interesting because once those topics are announced they need to essentially have as many notes as possible in front of them to make sure they have the necessary information on the topics because anything could be asked in those segments.

Oh...it does make Trump look worse.


I thought that the moderator was the only one to know.
The chairman even said that.

I'll have to see if I can find the intro, to watch again.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-29-2016, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: /u/joblessthehutt pointed out that Holt went to Clinton for a response in a similar manner several times without the signal, and I would say he's right based just on the analyses I have read because it happened more than 6 times. That said, nothing will hold the centipedes back from their claims, that is one thing that is certain.

Speaking of centipedes, what was that thing on her back?

[GMDino]

(09-30-2016, 11:57 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speaking of centipedes, what was that thing on her back?

An actual centipede.  

[Rotobeast]

(09-30-2016, 11:57 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speaking of centipedes, what was that thing on her back?

It was the harness that the wires attached to, to keep her upright.
The leg braces helped, too.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[McC]

What about the lunatic grin she wore through so much of the debate? Anyone who can't see through this nutjob fabrication is just refusing to look. She has just gotten so crazy that the hundreds of assistants it takes to continue the charade are having trouble keeping up. The curtain is being lifted and what's behind it is hideous indeed. She will lose. And when she does, she needs to tuck her tail 'tween her legs and slither off into oblivion in shame. Meanwhile, Americans should rejoice and breath a deep sigh of relief that the monster is kept out of the White House.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2016, 09:28 AM)McC Wrote: What about the lunatic grin she wore through so much of the debate?  Anyone who can't see through this nutjob fabrication is just refusing to look.  She has just gotten so crazy that the hundreds of assistants it takes to continue the charade are having trouble keeping up.  The curtain is being lifted and what's behind it is hideous indeed.  She will lose.  And when she does, she needs to tuck her tail 'tween her legs and slither off into oblivion in shame.   Meanwhile, Americans should rejoice and breath a deep sigh of relief that the monster is kept out of the White House.

You mean when she smiled?

Smiling is something people do when they are happy or sometimes to covey happiness or a relaxed state to the person they are talking too.

Not something it sounds like you do often. 

However that is a great talking point!  You should go on the local news and tell them exactly what you typed!

[xxlt]

(09-29-2016, 04:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not saying I 100% believe it, and I am not a big conspiracy person. That said... if it weren't for the DNC Leaks already showing the media collaborating with Hillary during the primaries, I would immediately write this off as crazy fiction.

Now? Meh, I would keep my mind open, at least.

Yeah, she's been the media's darling for 30 years. That's why, if you haven't noticed, people reflexively say they trust her, think she is highly competent as well as personally likeable, and they can't think of any reason anyone would harbor any negative sentiments about her whatsoever. For those who haven't noticed, TheLeonardLeap will be happy to beam you down to the planet surface to witness it for yourself.

[Millhouse]

(10-01-2016, 09:28 AM)McC Wrote: What about the lunatic grin she wore through so much of the debate?  Anyone who can't see through this nutjob fabrication is just refusing to look.  She has just gotten so crazy that the hundreds of assistants it takes to continue the charade are having trouble keeping up.  The curtain is being lifted and what's behind it is hideous indeed.  She will lose.  And when she does, she needs to tuck her tail 'tween her legs and slither off into oblivion in shame.   Meanwhile, Americans should rejoice and breath a deep sigh of relief that the monster is kept out of the White House.

That box thing or whatever she had on under her outfit actually sent volts of fabricated emotion into her soulless body so she didn't come off completely robotic.

That said, better be ready for 4 years of her . The Republican party had a supremely golden opportunity to take the White House back. Yet their nominee is one of the worst ones in the history of the party. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-01-2016, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: You mean when she smiled?

Smiling is something people do when they are happy or sometimes to covey happiness or a relaxed state to the person they are talking too.

Not something it sounds like you do often. 

However that is a great talking point!  You should go on the local news and tell them exactly what you typed!

i only watched the first half hour, but her non-stop smile was akin to when she tries to be funny.  She's not good at it.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2016, 10:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: i only watched the first half hour, but her non-stop smile was akin to when she tries to be funny.  She's not good at it.

Well I think all decisions should be based on whether everyone likes someone's smile then.