TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

dale blanker wrote:Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

That is hardly a convincing refutation of the original premise by Snopes.

Whether it is actually true or not, we'll never know as the people involved, the only ones who actually know, will be marinated in sheep poop before they confirm it.

Is it plausible? Of course. Plausible deniability? Don't leave home without it!

Ok, let's not be bothered with common sense...

The conclusion at Snopes seems reasonable:
"This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator — as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often."

In other words, the signals weren't necessary anyway and so the accusation simply doesn't make sense.

Ok, well just in case there's an interest in reasoning about the hand signal conspiracy, see http://www.snopes.com/debate-secret-hand-signals/

Lynyrd wrote:

Try http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles ... ething-say.

LucasMcCain wrote: Yeah, you might not want to just take wikipedia's word on stuff either. It has it's uses, but it is by no means inerrant or unbiased. Most of what you quoted was from the founder of snopes himself. Even he says that he used to be registered as republican, and his wife is Canadian. Being from a country which is (correct me if I'm wrong here) much more liberal than this one does not make a person unbiased politically.

I have found snopes to be useful when they actually give you references for their opinion on a given urban legend. When they don't, their bias starts to show.

Sure, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia with editing and confirmation ongoing. I've been lucky so far and not found any political bias but I'm sure it's possible.

I've always found Snopes to be based on solid facts with clear references. The owners may be liberal, or not, but I've found them to be objective.

What information sources have you found on Internet that are even more objective and reliable than Snopes and Wikipedia?

Lynyrd wrote:
You might want to check into Snopes before you swallow everything they have to say.

I've always been impressed with their thoroughness and objectivity. They provide evidence for their conclusions, not just opinion.

I like Wikipedia, too:
"Critics have accused Snopes of having a liberal bias.Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 as to obviate launching one of his own. David Mikkelson, the creator of the site, has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them. In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy."

Lynyrd wrote: The expressions on her face while Trump was talking was what convinced me. Sometimes it sure didn't look like she wasn't listening to Trump, it looked like she was listening to something else. And sometimes she would have this blank expression that all of a sudden changed to a big smile when she realized what she was going to say next. Those changes in her facial appearance from listening to smiling did not correspond with what Trump was saying at the time. The timing was off.

Wow, I can't imagine what it must take to be able to listen to two speakers at once and still provide timely replies. Hard to believe... she must be smarter than I thought!

I still wouldn't vote for her though.

Anyway, see http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'm actually hearing a decent amount of "this didn't hurt Trump and it didn't help Hillary" commentary. There were a few times that's Trump got her frazzled, but he needs to calm down and quit bragging so much for the next two. And Pence should mop the floor with Kaine.

I was disappointed with Trump's performance. He was very defensive and repetitive and sometimes incoherent. I hate to admit that Hillary had almost complete control.

Hopefully the next debate will be different...