What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Ham said:
Monday is so crucial.  I expect Hillary to wipe the floor and get a consensus opinion that she slayed Trump.  Of for whatever reason that doesn't happen, and even if there is a spilt opinion on who won the debate (i.e. Trump on the same stage is nationally viable), then he leads and doesn't look back.  Truly a prize fight.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of permutations here.

A big danger for Hillary is what if Trump is actually prepared on a factual policy issue and beats her on it?

That has a Green/Tyson quality to it. Hillary could win on 95% of the debate and lose on one issue and that will be the thing that sticks with people. He's a crafty SOB so I could see him preparing more in the background than people expect or that he has put out.

However I also think he sincerely respects her. I'm sure that surprises some, that I think that or that it could be true, but I'm expecting him to be largely respectful of her. I think the fireworks will go in other directions, but there will be fireworks.

I don't think anyone is prepared for him to be knowledgeable and prepared. He should show up and do that, know where Aleppo is and know what the Bush/Obama Doctrine is. Things like that. However I still don't know that he wants to win this.

In boxing terms: if he's serious he will go rope-a-dope.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Jesus Squis, the Snopes explanation doesn't make a lick of sense, and it's a left wing owned media site.  Regardless of what angle you're shooting the live stream, you'll catch the objects in those screen from any angle.  Use your own brain on this.  It's ludicrous and untrue.  She was not walking in front of the screens.  

The fact that article is pushing that clear lie is scary as hell.

This is a red pill, blue pill thing.  

Here is an example of e video technology available, and is similar to what was used to CGI Hillary.  In the glitch, the vertical stripes on the flag as perfectly clear in the space she would have obscured of there.

Great there are some left wing fringe sites willing to take the Hillary talking points and create fodder for the likes of you to explain obvious lies away.  What you are saying does not hold water.

https://youtu.be/ohmajJTcpNk
Click to expand...
You've got this. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Anybody seriously wavering from confidence on a pretty substantial Hillary win this November? Previously I would have put Hillary at 400-425 and 48-52% vote share. 

Now I'm thinking if I absolutely had to put a chip down I'd say 375-400 & 43-47%.

This is purely for fun, anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
I will let you know after the first debate but 538 has her barely scraping by right now

 
Mr. Ham said:
Her supporters don't care.  "Donald Trump, Donald Trump!"  It's the quiet closed door conversations outside of her supporters that just may decide the election.
Click to expand...
Seems like this goes the other way even more often. Sooooo very many people voting Trump just because he's not Hillary.

Worst candidates ever. :(

But honestly, when dealing with terrible candidates, it's really not unreasonable to make a final decision "she's not as bad as Trump".

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yaknow... it's easy to mock and post a Snopes link but at least address the guy's claims. It's getting kind of silly where you don't reject his points.
Click to expand...
The Snopes argument is technically and physically garbage.  Their explanation is that Hillary would have shown on those screens had they been shot from another angle.  Just ####### think about that.  It's a two dimensional screen.  Her image is either on it or it's not.  The fact someone felt compelled to write a debunking article about this from a "trusted" site and that technical argument is impossible might give a logical person pause.  Not Tim and Squis, maybe, but some.  Also, maybe this explains why left wing operatives bought Snopes.  In Squis' world, one link and it's all washed away.  Despite several indications from that video that it's produced, green-screened and enhanced with CGI.

But nothing to see.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
The Snopes argument is technically and physically garbage.  Their explanation is that Hillary would have shown on those screens had they been shot from another angle.  Just ####### think about that.  It's a two dimensional screen.  Her image is either on it or it's not.  The fact someone felt compelled to write a debunking article about this from a "trusted" site and that technical argument is impossible might give a logical person pause.  Not Tim and Squis, maybe, but some.  Also, maybe this explains why left wing operatives bought Snopes.  In Squis' world, one link and it's all washed away.  Despite several indications from that video that it's produced, green-screened and enhanced with CGI.

But nothing to see.  
Click to expand...
Wait, you claim Hillary uses a body double who impersonated her and faked her voice before the press. You also have claimed the Clintons bribed Ken Starr to not prosecute them over the murder of Vince Foster. That is not to mention all the other nutty conspiracy theories you have brought up in this thread.

And you consider yourself a logical person? Please.

 
squistion said:
Wait, you claim Hillary uses a body double who impersonated her and faked her voice before the press. You also have claimed the Clintons bribed Ken Starr to not prosecute them over the murder of Vince Foster. That is not to mention all the other nutty conspiracy theories you have brought up in this thread.

And you consider yourself a logical person? Please.
Click to expand...
Rather than misrepresent, address the argument that an image on a two dimensional screen will not show up when shot from an angle.

Seriously, don't go broad.  That's the argument your bastion of truth and credibility Snopes hung it's hat on.

My illogic says that argument is simply wrong.

 
Even though you tried to straw-man me with the Ken Starr argument I'll explain what I actually said:

The lead prosecutor for the Vince Foster investigation quit siding concealment of evidence.  I found this strange that Ken Starr who was leading this case might be involved in such an affair.

Just a couple weeks ago he was fired as the president of Baylor university do you want to venture a guess as to why he was fired?

 
Mr. Ham said:
Rather than misrepresent, address the argument that an image on a two dimensional screen will not show up when shot from an angle.

Seriously, don't go broad.  That's the argument your bastion of truth and credibility Snopes hung it's hat on.

My illogic says that argument is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Misrepresent? You have stated a dozen times that Hillary used a body double later that day after she became ill and you stated it again today. You stated and never retracted that the Clintons bribed Ken Starr to help cover up their involvement in the Vince Foster death/murder.

I have misrepresented nothing, I have been quoting you. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously after posting wild conspiracy theories like that.

 
squistion said:
Misrepresent? You have stated a dozen times that Hillary used a body double later that day after she became ill and you stated it again today. You stated and never retracted that the Clintons bribed Ken Starr to help cover up their involvement in the Vince Foster death/murder.

I have misrepresented nothing, I have been quoting you. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously after posting wild conspiracy theories like that.
Click to expand...
I never said definitely that the Clintons bribed Starr.  I posed a theory that if Starr had been a Clinton loyalist (for whatever reasons) since the Foster days it would put an interesting lens of future events.  If you said that, then you'd be properly representing and not misrepresenting.

Better to address specifics one by one than to make broad generalizations in an attempt to discredit.  

Back to my specific questions about the many glitches in the Greensboro video...  Snopes is no longer a credible source.  Explain to me how a 2D image disappears based on the angle on the camera shooting it?

 
Mr. Ham said:
I never said definitely that the Clintons bribed Starr.  I posed a theory that if Starr had been a Clinton loyalist (for whatever reasons) since the Foster days it would put an interesting lens of future events.  If you said that, then you'd be properly representing and not misrepresenting.

Better to address specifics one by one than to make broad generalizations in an attempt to discredit.  

Back to my specific questions about the many glitches in the Greensboro video...  Snopes is no longer a credible source.  Explain to me how a 2D image disappears based on the angle on the camera shooting it?
Click to expand...
Yes, you did, but I am not going to dig through over 1250 pages to find it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand given what we know now why Pres. Obama had to pretend he had no idea about the server or the investigation, it's pretty clear he was dissembling now. Which to me is sad, because I do think he's been an ethical president. No Comment and 'let the investigation play out' would have worked for me and most people I think. He didn't have to go on 60 Minutes to interject himself, twice, I don't get it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Yes, you did, but I am not going to dig through over 1250 pages to find it.
Click to expand...
What I said is consistent with what I just wrote so dig through those pages Squis.

And to answer the question I posed above because I know it's inconvenient to you and you won't, Ken Starr was recently fired for (drumroll) concealing evidence.  

But no, he'd never do that.

 
Your candidate is a cheat and a liar and a scam artist and a criminal.

( I was talking to both sides.)

 
Last edited:
Prediction: Squis spends an hour trying to discredit me on anything and everything to avoid answering the tough Greensborough questions because that video is so obviously doctored.  This after furiously calling all Tweets for sound bites that debunk it for him.

Meanwhile objects behind someone aren't visible when they are there and 2D objects are still visible if they are on a screen and filmed at 45 degrees. Sorry Snopes.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
What I said is consistent with what I just wrote so dig through those pages Squis.

And to answer the question I posed above because I know it's inconvenient to you and you won't, Ken Starr was recently fired for (drumroll) concealing evidence.  

But no, he'd never do that.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't, but with all the lies you have told in this thread, what is one more to you? Actually he wasn't fired, he stepped down and while no official reason was given, per wiki it involved "Baylor being accused of failing to respond to reports of rape and sexual assault filed by at least six female students from 2009 to 2016" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr

 
squistion said:
No he wasn't, but with all the lies you have told in this thread, what is one more to you? Actually he wasn't fired, he stepped down and while no official reason was given, per wiki it involved "Baylor being accused of failing to respond to reports of rape and sexual assault filed by at least six female students from 2009 to 2016" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr
Click to expand...
For which he concealed evidence.  And my above prediction didn't take long.

Debunk the Greensborough video that I maintain with solid evidence was doctored.

 
Last edited:
squistion said:
No proof of that nor was it alleged by officials of Baylor.
Click to expand...
Bastion of integrity.  But enough of that microcosm of your inability to see reality in your face...  Greensborough.  You buy the argument that objects on a 2D screen disappear due to parallax?

 
Mr. Ham said:
Bastion of integrity.  But enough of that microcosm of your inability to see reality in your face...  Greensborough.  You buy the argument that objects on a 2D screen disappear due to parallax?
Click to expand...
Dude, your ludicrous claim of Hillary using a body double was discredited by multiple posters and sources, yet you still repeat it as gospel. If you won't accept that why should anyone spend two seconds trying to prove again what Snopes already debunked? And even if anyone did, like the body double, you still wouldn't accept it.

I have never understood how you are able to hold down a big bucks corporate job when you obviously don't have both oars in the water.

 
squistion said:
Dude, your ludicrous claim of Hillary using a body double was discredited by multiple posters and sources, yet you still repeat it as gospel. If you won't accept that why should anyone spend two seconds trying to prove again what Snopes already debunked? And even if anyone did, like the body double, you still wouldn't accept it.

I have never understood how you are able to hold down a big bucks corporate job when you obviously don't have both oars in the water.
Click to expand...
Have your fit and then answer if objects on a 2D screen are visible at an angle?  All I'm asking you to do is validate this claim, the opposite of which is the crux of Snopes "discrediting"

 
Last edited:
the moops said:
I'm confused now. 

Is it a body double or CGI? Or both? 
Click to expand...
Two separate events connected by the need to project health amidst a serious health crisis. 

It's easier to prove the Greensborough video doctoring and prefer to table the body double until the video doctoring is addressed.

 
Last edited:
How many people at the Greensboro rally, including press, which was heavily attended, were in on the fact that Clinton was a hologram or whatever at the event?  Was the lady that hugged Clinton at the beginning of the event also teleported in?  Maybe Clinton is a vampire whose image doesn't show on video recordings.  That makes just about as much sense as your crackpot idea, porkchop.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where was Clinton when she video confrenced herself into the arena?  Backstage, in a hotel, hangar at area 51?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dutch said:
Where was Clinton when she video confrenced herself into the arena?  Backstage, in a hotel, hangar at area 51?  
Click to expand...
I don't know is the logistics of the event.  I don't think there were hundreds involved or the press Corp.  I saw press Corp photos and videos before and after the rally.  

What I do know is that those videos appear to be doctored and heavily CGI'ed. I don't know who shot them or when.

But video is a subject I know well.  I have never seen a live stream deinterlace in the foreground like that, and an object supposedly behind a person cannot be visible with perfect fidelity without compositing.  Notice the perfectly straight lines.

All I can speak to is what I can observe and draw a fact based conclusion about.

Amongst those is the fact that a 2D image doesn't disappear with parallax.

Most of what went on is a mystery to me.  I can only speak to the authenticity of the video.  It's not.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
I don't know is the logistics of the event.  I don't think there were hundreds involved or the press Corp.  I saw press Corp photos and videos before and after the rally.  

What I do know is that those videos appear to be doctored and heavily CGI'ed. I don't know who shot them or when.

But video is a subject I know well.  I have never seen a live stream deinterlace in the foreground like that, and an object supposedly behind a person cannot be visible with perfect fidelity without compositing.  Notice the perfectly straight lines.

All I can speak to is what I can observe and draw a fact based conclusion about.

Amongst those is the fact that a 2D image doesn't disappear with parallax.

Most of what went on is a mystery to me.  I can only speak to the authenticity of the video.  It's not.
Click to expand...
You need to get some help dude.  You're losing grasp of reality.  Even though I disagree with you politically you seem like a good dude.  Perhaps it's the constant 80 hour work weeks along pressures and stress of family, but something has gone wrong.  

 
Yeah, Donald is playing chess while Hillary is playing checkers. :lol:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-trump-debate-gennifer-flowers/26096/

Hillary Clinton just baited Donald Trump into sabotaging his debate chances with Gennifer Flowers

“If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row,” Donald Trump tweeted just two days before his first debate with Hillary Clinton, “perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!” And with that, Trump officially took the bait that Hillary had been dangling in front of him. Whether or not he actually hunts down Flowers, with whom Bill Clinton once had an affair, Trump has essentially already lost the debate by going there.

Clinton decided to not only put billionaire pro basketball team owner Mark Cuban in the front row of the debate, but to announce it in advance. If she had been hoping Trump would be rattled at the surprise sight of Cuban, she’d have kept it a secret. But when her camp announced it in advance, it seemed to be in the clear hope that Trump would take the bait by either saying something inappropriate in response or by putting someone inappropriate in the front row just to win the proverbial pissing contest.

But Hillary hit the jackpot when Trump publicly threatened to put a former Bill Clinton mistress in the front row of the debate. Sure, his base will love him for it. But no one wins a national election with just their base. And Trump’s decision to invoke Gennifer Flowers will play terribly with the moderate undecided voters who will decide this election, because they’re looking for someone who seems presidential – and taunting a female opponent with her husband’s former mistress looks decidedly un-presidential.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top