Trump's Mike Problem. Was It Planned?

1. 61

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   Trump got ribbed hard for complaining about his microphone at the debate. It appears they now admit it was malfunctioning.
   
   Planned? I don't trust Hillary enough not to wonder.

   replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

   It is unfortunate that his mic was malfunctioning in the hall. Is there any evidence it was intentional?
   
   Also, I watched the debate on tv and I heard nothing to indicate thar sound was affected for the millions viewing the debate on tv, so I wonder how much of an affect it actually had on the debate outcome?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. The report said that it didn't adversely affect the broadcast. However, it was a distraction for the man. I think we all know how little things can affect our performance and our confidence. Not saying the outcome would have been any different but the same was said when we found out there were shenanigans at the DNC.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Yes I agree it could be a distraction for Trump. I guess I didn't hear about shenanigans at the DNC?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Really?  Ask Bernie about it.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, you're talking about the Wasserman-Schultz scandal. Old news and it's been handled.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Just like all the others. How many times before enough is enough? Apparently always one more for a democrat supporting Hillary.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     That's just silly. I'm a Bernie believer. Bernie now supports Hillary because her policies most closely match his vision. Trump's ugliness is repulsive and scary. I looked at Johnson but he's not even close to my beliefs. Hillary is, by far, the best match.
                     
                     All those investigations. And nothing. At some point, after. 7.1 million dollars and almost 4000 questions (Benghazi) resulting in no wrongdoing, you have to at least consider that Republicans are over reaching and wasting everyone's time and money.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I've already agreed that it was a waste of money investigating her. I'm pretty sure she could murder someone and not only get away with it but make republicans look bad in the process.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Hasn't that already occurred? I think the tin foil hat people have the Clinton body count up to over 90 people now. Get with thre program, lady! Where ya been? LOL

                           replyreport
3. 57

   Roger Sheddyposted 7 years ago

   Ohio, by Credence Clearwater Revival
   
   For 2016...
   
   Keep quiet,that "Lady's" napping
   That Clinton named Hilary.
   Get too close--bad things will happen.
   --Four Dead In Benghazi.
   
   The woman's an insider
   Been there thirty whole years
   Shoulda been gone long ago
   New witness--quick,hide 'er
   They'll shoot her quick as a deer
   --Then she'll be quiet,you know.
   
   [Musical interlude]
   
   Whitewater, Travelgate
   Clinton Foundation bribes
   If you can pay,you can play
   Flooded with aliens
   Murderous,terrorist tribes
   Giving our nation away
   
   We're dead broke and Clinton's coming
   Blue helmet troops--that's UN
   I see a bald eagle falling
   No more will he rise again.
   
   [Final yelling into mike]  who killed Vince Foster?   And so many more?
   
                            Roger A. Sheddy.

   replyreport
4. 78

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

   Somewhere in the mid-1990s I started asking myself, "Who benefits from all these accusations of scandal about the Clintons?"  There was literally one right after the other.  I finally realized, the Republicans benefit from them. Once you realize that, you don't jump every time someone throws another one out there.
   
   A defective mike?  Hand signals?  Something hidden inside her clothing?  Seriously?  Isn't it more likely the man is just out of his depth?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, since they admitted that there was a problem I assume there was. It's kind of like deflate gate. A minor change that can affect the outcome. Was it planned or an accident? It's a simple question.
      
      Funny how no one is allowed to ask questions about Hillary without it being some vast right wing conspiracy. That's always her defense.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, it is funny.  I wonder why that is? 
         
         I'll bet the problem with the mike was that Trump couldn't hear himself well enough through his speakers.  A lot of people really like that when they are speaking through a mike.

         replyreport
5. 58

   Alternative Primeposted 7 years ago

   DEFECTIVE Mic? ~ ~ That was "Delusional Donald's" FIRST Ridiculous Excuse for his CATASTROPICALLY Epic Debate FAILURE, even though NOBODY in the Auditorium nor at HOME had a PROBLEM Hearing is Incoherent BABBLINGs ~
   
   That excuse didn't WORK, so he's MOVED on to "OLD Faithful", the "DEBATE WAS RIGGED" which WORKs with a tiny PORTION of his SHRINKING Crowd of FANz ~ ~
   
   ANYWAY, what have we LEARNED? ~ The FACT that Donald can be Easily INDUCED into a "Deranged Uncontrollable TIZZY" by a supposed "Crackling Microphone" &  "Miss UNIVERSE" ~

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not the CAPS on Caps OFF guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      
      UNCLE, UNCLE, UNCLE!!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Live to Learn:  I've complained to him as well.  Apparently it's his signature style.  I tried to tell him that it is like yelling at people online,, but he doesn't seem to get it.

         replyreport
6. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Hillary blamed Trump and the Russians for the DNC hack.
   It was intelligence within the NSA, to help derail her presidency because they are smart enough to know she cannot be trusted with classified information.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      NBC News: Why Experts Think Russia Hacked DNC Emails

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Lying Hillary Clinton claimed that Russia hacked the DNC's emails to help Donald Trump in the 2016 race, but former NSA official William Binney, an architect of the agency's surveillance program, says that it is more likely that a member of the U.S. intelligence community leaked the emails.
         
         On "Fox and Friends" this morning, Binney said that accusing the Russians is a way of diverting attention from the actual issues that the emails bring to light.
         
         Binney has a 200 IQ.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            It's possible, but one guy versus the US intelligence community, with no hard evidence, is not proof nor is it probable.

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Colorfulone:  For about the tenth time here on HP, please check out Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact for Hillary's scores on truthfulness as opposed to Donald's.  It's 45% to 4%.  Then come up with an adjective for her that is more accurate.  Maybe, qualified?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               GUESS WHO EARNED POLITIFACT’S TOP LIE OF 2013?
               *  http://www.infowars.com/guess-who-earne … e-of-2013/
               * http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … hpt=hp_bn3
               
               Politifact lies, their pants on fire!
               Snopes skews the facts too. 
               
               Lying Hillary is a pathological liar.
               " hillary clinton lies "
               *  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ … inton+lies
               
               Obama got a noble piece prize, and we have had nothing by perpetual wars.  What a joke...hahaha!

               replyreport
7. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

      Take some time to think about it.
   Russia has far more important things to do.
   
   
   *  https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781449999250972672

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I can think about it all I want but until there is actual evidence it's all pure speculation.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The USSR isn't there anymore.
         
         Daniel Borsten ~ "The greatest barrier to discovery was not ignorance, it was the illusion of knowledge"
         
         Logical Argumentation
         1. Grammer = Clear Terms
         2. Logic = True Premises
         3. Rhetoric = Valid Argument
         
         Assange: Clinton Whipping Up "Neo McCarthyist Hysteria"
         *  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhkmKXX3LTw
         
         The whole collectivism mind set creates fear, Hillary, the media...
         I much prefer the joys of discovery, its liberating!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'm glad you prefer the joys of discovery. You just need to work on evaluating your sources and knowing the difference between innuendo and fact.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               The facts are in hacked emails. 
               All the other is deflection.
               
               Who did the hacking isn't what is important. 
               What is in the emails is what is important.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Who did the hacking IS important, especially if it is Russia. You're the one who brought the issue into this thread about the debate, not me, so who is doing the deflecting?
                  
                  If you believe one guy over the U. S. intelligence community when that guy provides no evidence to back up his claims, then you are playing loose with the truth.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Okey, here's how it works.  The US Army had Hillary Clinton on their training website as a "Security Threat" for 18 months.  That gets revealed and all of a sudden her photo gets pulled off the US Army website, and they say someone made a mistake?    Nice to have friends!
                     
                     Hillary certainly was an insider security threat, and still is IMHO.
                     Email scandal.
                     She takes in big bucks from terrorist countries. 
                     The Clinton Mafia? 
                     Scandal after scandal...fabrication after fabrication.
                     
                     Arkancide:  http://www.arkancide.com/

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Lol, another change of aubject to try and deflect.
                        
                        Yes, a single local army unit listed Clinton and General David Petraeus as insider threats as part of their training on handling classified materials. It was not sanctioned by the U. S. Army.
                        
                        But, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?
                        
                        http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/ … on-threat/

                        replyreport
      2. 61

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Pure speculation? How many people on the left have blamed Russia, with no hard evidence to back it up?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Um, the U.S. intelligence community blamed Russia. It is possible they are deflecting, but until there is actual evidence of that I have to go with the experts.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Unless I've missed something, they suspect Russia. There is no hard evidence that I am aware of.
               
               It is, at the moment, speculation. But, hey, if the speculation helps the Democrats whine I suppose we are supposed to pretend it is fact.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought I already shared this but maybe not since I couldn't find it.
                  
                  Why experts think Russia hacked DNC emails/]

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't go to the link since it says 'think'. Speculation.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, you might want to check it out There is a difference between a group of experts laying out a case based on the available evidence and a lone individual's opinion.

                        replyreport
8. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   
   CNN is one of the most dishonest MSM sites there is.
   (Clinton News Network)
   
   Liberation of the individual, you have to do it for yourself, no one else can do it for you. Grow in the direction of some cognitive liberty!
   
   So!  It was unfruitful talking to you once again.  I'm done. 
   
   Top CNN Reporter:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn-zz49DwWw
   Admission!  They are the biggest ones supporting Hillary's campaign.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You're entitled to view it as unfruitful.

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   You ARE all aware that the  debate commission admitted microphone problems ,  correct ?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I posted a link to the statement on another thread. 
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2842658

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There was no problem viewing on TV.  I suspect he was unhappy with the feedback of his own voice in his speaker.  That is a problem no one would be aware of except him.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Trump's mic affected the sound in the debate hall (not on your TV). 
         
         Its a presidential debate. Let that sink in awhile and its importance!
         Its outrageous!

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Even if it had been only him who was aware of it (which it wasn't) can you imagine yourself in that position? One of the most important moments in your life, you know s lot depends on that moment, and you have an obvious irritant, an irritant which negatively effects your performance. Not only does no one do anything about it but you are laughed at for mentioning it.
         
         Sorry. I think it is important to know if it was rigged.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If it was rigged, we need to know. Is there any evidence it was?

            replyreport
10. 90

    IslandBitesposted 7 years ago

    His twitter account is rigged too.
    
    With a perfect, ok, regular or bad mic, the outcome would be the same. He has thin skin and she got him.
    
    That was no surprise since that's how he always acts.
    
    *If it's proven the mic was rigged, someone should be fired. However, the mic is just one of the excuses for his poor performance.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       If the mike was rigged someone should be fired?
       
       I agree.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Is there any evidence it was?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I just googled looking for it. I don't know the answer to that, but I did find this:
             
             An audio engineer posted a comment about the microphone picking up Drumpf’s “sniffles” to Yahoo News. The engineer wrote that the sound man for the event must have “been asleep” concluding that it was rigged for Hillary as this wasn’t an event where you can just stop monitoring audio.
             
             “This makes total sense from an audio engineering aspect. First, Drumpf could NOT hear the broadcast sound, but he could very clearly tell that the sound in the room was not loud enough. That’s why he kept moving closer to the mike (sic). Podium microphones like that are sensitive, so the sound man uses compression, a limiter and a gate. The compression evens out the louder and softer sounds. The limiter stops the volume at a point below where there would be clipping or distortion. The gate is the level at which things have to be loud ENOUGH to be heard through the microphone. This keeps breathing sounds and other room noise from being amplified by the mike. The sound man HAD to be asleep at the switch to not adjust for this. This was not a “set and forget” event.”
             
             “When Drumpf moved the mike closer to his mouth and leaned into the mike the sound of his breathing was loud enough to pass the gate and the compressor (and possibly an expander depending on the situation) made the sounds of his breathing closer to the volume of his speech. You don’t need 35 years of audio experience (like me) to know this.”
             
             Proof? No. Reason to continue to raise an eyebrow? Yes.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                So, where did this come from? I searched several different phrases in your post and found nothing.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   It came from here. http://noscomunicamos.com/index.php/201 … r-hillary/
                   
                   I have no idea what outlet this is or if it is reputable.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Pretty flimsy...

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         I didn't submit it as proof of anything. It simply shares an opinion. And, I'll have to be honest with you. I would think someone else other than Trump would be aware of the microphone problem and would have attempted to address it.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            Agree.

                            replyreport
11. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    The DNC debate people have admitted it ! So ,  Who needs evidence ?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       We're talking about evidence it was rigged. We know the mic malfunctioned.

       replyreport
12. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    If it was a part of the media - It was probably rigged ! And That , is the product of distrust  in the media bias today.    Why be surprised ?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You got any evidence it was rigged?

       replyreport