Is Hillary Cheating Again?

I mean really, at this point, would anyone be surprised if Hillary cheated in some fashion? So many scandals surround that woman that nothing would shock me at this point.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Wrong on the static. All manner of performers use wireless mics who run and jump all over the place with no static. I wear wireless units for both my mic and my guitar. No static.

It depends on the clothing, the mic and the location. Static build-up is always a factor that must be considered.

Wrong again. Gaffers tape should not be applied directly to the skin. Surgical tape is made for that exact purpose.

I did not say it should be applied to the skin. I said tape, in general, should not be placed on the skin, unless absolutely necessary.

Again, provide some evidence to your theory. I'm not going to run in circles arguing about this.

You don't know what you are talking about. As a person who wears them often, static mitigation is a non issue.

Yes, you did say it was applied to the skin. You suggested that the large lump running up the middle of her back was the mic wire secured with gaffers tape. You also voiced concerns over the potential damage tape could do to her garment. So what exactly was that long strip of alleged gaffers tape visible on her back taped to? It was either taped to her, which you said should not happen. Or, it was taped to her garment, which said should not happen. (no one tapes a mic to the garment. Period.) So what EXACTLY are you trying to say? Was it taped up her back or was it taped to her garment? And why was it run straight up the middle of her back then over her shoulder when it should have been run around her waist?

I did provide evidence, which you conveniently continue to ignore.

Why don't you respond to the question about the Snopes article? Snopes showed pictures of the Lavalier mics the candidates used. The wire diameter is 1.5mm. Either the wire on her back somehow got much larger for no adequately explained reason, or, there was a wire for something else on her back. It might have been an ear piece. More than one person noted that she seemed to pause before answering on some of her questions.

I am not asking you to prove it was or wasn't an ear piece or a mic. Just answer the questions directly.

I know. With her history, its more mind boggling that someone would suggest that she didn't cheat...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I know. With her history, its more mind boggling that someone would suggest that she didn't cheat...

LOL, yup, exactly. Only Liberals and Snowflakes would say she didn't cheat.

m.imgur.com...

The battery pack on her is a red herring. Who's the sneaky dude and what's he up too?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You don't know what you are talking about. As a person who wears them often, static mitigation is a non issue.

It's not as much of an issue for musical applications. Are you using it for that purpose?

Yes, you did say it was applied to the skin.

No I did not. You did. This is what you said:

without the wires becoming unplugged or at least painfully pulling the skin as they would using your gaffer tape scenario.

I said tape should rarely, if ever be applied to the skin.

So what exactly was that long strip of alleged gaffers tape visible on her back taped to? It was either taped to her, which you said should not happen. Or, it was taped to her garment, which said should not happen. (no one tapes a mic to the garment. Period.) So what EXACTLY are you trying to say? Was it taped up her back or was it taped to her garment? And why was it run straight up the middle of her back then over her shoulder when it should have been run around her waist?

I did not say they should not tape it to her clothing. That's exactly what they should have done and most likely did. Here is a nice link for you to peruse:

Don't forget to ask for clothing that will allow you to hang a microphone in the first place. The business suit is your safest bet, since the gentleman's tie gives you a central location for the capsule. Run the cable under the label on the back, which holds the cord firmly in place and out of sight. If the look is casual and there is no tie, remember to figure out which way the talent will be looking towards camera. Place the mike on that lapel and dress the cable under the jacket with a quality gaffer tape like Permacel, which leaves no sticky residue on someone's expensive wardrobe.

If female talent is wearing some kind of bow-shaped neckwear, be on the lookout for clothing noise or static discharge, since this neckwear is usually made of Rayon or silk. Open shirts and sweaters present a different problem. Dangling cables look ugly and make noise, but you have to be something of a diplomat to get your talent to run a capsule and cable up their clothing so you can anchor it to the top of the sweater or the area around the second button of the shirt. If the sweater has a high neck, you'll need to audition the sound, since the mike will be under the chin. Moving it an inch either way on the neckline can make a big change in the tone quality of the voice. Use the microphone clip to route the cable behind the mike and under the clothing. It gives you a cleaner look and extra strain relief on the cable.

www.videomaker.com...

Why don't you respond to the question about the Snopes article? Snopes showed pictures of the Lavalier mics the candidates used. The wire diameter is 1.5mm.

What about it? If that's what they said, I believe them. No reason not to. I also have no reason to believe there was anything else, like an earpiece. An earpiece does not need any wiring. They can be completely wireless.

I am not asking you to prove it was or wasn't an ear piece or a mic. Just answer the questions directly.

I'm asking you to prove any evidence that suggests it was anything other than a mic system.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I know. With her history, its more mind boggling that someone would suggest that she didn't cheat...

LOL, yup, exactly. Only Liberals and Snowflakes would say she didn't cheat.

Why would anyone believe she cheated unless they have evidence?

a reply to: Indigo5

Preparation and intelligent answers will appear to some as cheating when the candidate they support is utterly incapable of the same.

It wasn't the preparation that concerned me—that is to be expected—so I disagree with your strawman, but that they were prepared for the questions is my concern.

I think Holt's assertion "We are going to focus on many of the issues that voters tell us are most important, and we're going to press for specifics" is an example. Which voters would those be? Trump's tax-returns, his support for the Iraq war, his birtherism, Obama's nuclear policies, what Trump thinks of Hillary's looks, the liberal narrative on race relations—none of these are ranked anywhere on any respectable polls given to Americans on which issues matter to them, for instance the gallup polls, yet Clinton had a prepared answer for all of them.

originally posted by: carewemust
OMG... It's the broadcast transmitter for her wireless microphone! Come on... get a grip folks.


That being said, Donald Trump complained that he was given one with weak batteries...or something like that.

Agreed!!

His batteries were just fine. If they were not, his sound would have cut in and out. Seriously, that's what would happen. It would sound like a "short-out," and the sound on his mic would drop out.

rant/ Claiming weak batteries to cover for a weak performance is the weakest excuse I've ever heard. Man-up for God's sake and claim responsibility for your actions. It's like the high school kid who didn't study for the test and then blames the teacher, saying the test was "rigged against him" when everyone else took the same test and did just fine. He was lazy. His microphone was not. /rant

(Sorry. I had to get that off my chest.)

He's also mad because the mic picked up on his "sniff reflex" and people trolled him for it, like his side has trolled Hillary for her supposed immanent physical/mental breakdown that has not and will not happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why don't you explain why someone who wants to cheat would use a wire that is so easily visible? I noticed you skipped that part of my reasoning, but don't worry I won't let you side step it. It's fun making you look silly with your super biased craziness here.

The same people who claim this was a wire feeding her information rather than for her mic, are the same people claiming she had a super small nearly invisible ear piece feeding her information in previous events.

earpiece

i.sli.mg...
i.sli.mg...

crooked hillary strikes again.

- hillary had the debate questions a week in advance to prepare
- hillary had an ear peice
- holt was helping hillary, never challenged her, never gave her tough questions. went after trump 10x

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I know. With her history, its more mind boggling that someone would suggest that she didn't cheat...

LOL, yup, exactly. Only Liberals and Snowflakes would say she didn't cheat.

Why would anyone believe she cheated unless they have evidence?

Because of who she is.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Because of who she is.

That logic makes no sense.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Because of who she is.

That logic makes no sense.

I guess you forget scandal after scandal and the path of destruction that she has done. Selective memory much?

Anyone claiming she doesn't cheat or wouldn't cheat, or at the very least, wouldn't put it past her for cheating, needs their head checked.

I guess you forget about what happened at the DNC and Bernie?

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
I guess you forget scandal after scandal and the path of destruction that she has done. Selective memory much?

Anyone claiming she doesn't cheat or wouldn't cheat, or at the very least, wouldn't put it past her for cheating, needs their head checked.

I haven't forgotten them, but I'm less likely to think there's something to the scandals when literally all of them for the past 20 years of this incessant BS have been dismissed. Having a long list of accusations isn't suspicious, it just means there's a group of people that don't like you. Not one scandal Hillary has been accused of has resulted in a conviction or a guilty verdict.

And, as far as things go... I'm still pretty sure it's a huge leap of logic to say, Hillary was clearly cheating in this debate because Whitewater and Benghazi happened , and it's up to you the noble internet denizen to figure out how.

You're not even being consistent. The same people who argued she has the technology to have a tiny, nearly invisible earpiece in some of her previous public appearances are arguing she's using a piece that requires a thick wire now? If she has something that's more advanced, doesn't it stand she wouldn't be using a very visible device on a night where more people will be watching?

a reply to: introvert

Musicians and other performers move around a lot which could generate static. Two people standing still answering questions do not have a static issue to deal with.

These are your words, not mine.

It could also appear to be a bigger wire if the person that placed the mic on Hillary used gaffer's tape to hold it in place. That is quite common.

Yes, you said tape should rarely if ever be applied to the skin. But as shown above you clearly suggested that is exactly what happened with hillary. Why would hillary allow anyone to do that to her if it should not happen?

OK, you believe Snopes. So the wire is 1.5mm. So you can stop asking me to measure it and explain how a 1.5mm wire can look so large on her back under heavy fabric, especially when NOT covered in gaffers tape... and then fail to even be visible when coming over her shoulder...

You are contradicting yourself quite a lot here.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The point is that it's on you to suggest what that is then. If 1.5 mm wire was used, and it likely was, and that bulge you're seeing isn't 1.5mm wire, then what's your explanation as to what we're seeing?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The point is that it's on you to suggest what that is then. If 1.5 mm wire was used, and it likely was, and that bulge you're seeing isn't 1.5mm wire, then what's your explanation as to what we're seeing?

Going all the way back to the beginning, the OP, it might have been an ear piece or some other type of device, possibly medical in nature. I can't claim to know exactly what it was. But I have evidence that strongly suggests it was NOT a mic wire.

a reply to: Aazadan

She is above the law, thats why. She is the puppet of the elite and within the elites inner circle. Do you really think Hillary would be charged with ANYTHING? Nope, nope and nope.

And how is it a leap of logic that she could have cheated because of Whitewater and Benghazi? Those two (AND MORE) prove that she is a bad person and bad people cheat.

As I said, for who she is and what she has done, I would not put it past her to cheat at these debates in some fashion. Its common damn sense.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why don't you explain why someone who wants to cheat would use a wire that is so easily visible? I noticed you skipped that part of my reasoning, but don't worry I won't let you side step it. It's fun making you look silly with your super biased craziness here.

The same people who claim this was a wire feeding her information rather than for her mic, are the same people claiming she had a super small nearly invisible ear piece feeding her information in previous events.

Yeah it's another piece of Conspiracy Theory science fiction technology. Just another McGuffin to make the CT sound plausible.