HRC - Earpiece or Hearing Aid?

[Anonymous]

And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

[Anonymous]

infowars as a source? come on.

do better in life

[Anonymous]

3/4 of people in the 60-69 age group have high frequency hearing loss, and 49% have speech hearing loss.

If she needs a hearing aid, that's not a sign of anything serious. Hearing loss is mostly a matter of the number of years your ears have been exposed to sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3/4 of people in the 60-69 age group have high frequency hearing loss, and 49% have speech hearing loss.

If she needs a hearing aid, that's not a sign of anything serious. Hearing loss is mostly a matter of the number of years your ears have been exposed to sound.

The hearing aid wasn't the question, it was whether she had an illicit earpiece to get fed info from her handler. A hearing aid is nothing. But she has a lot more health issues than a little loss of hearing (if she even does).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

SHE IS NOT BEING "FED" ANY RESPONSES! My God. You people swing from calling her a brilliant, cunning mastermind who is controlling the entire press and government to calling her a brain-dead zombie on life support who is parroting responses fed to her by mysterious hidden puppetmasters. You don't care one whit about whether anything is true, just as long as you can keep hurling accusations and smears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

No, it's not illicit if she's using it to properly hear the questions. Jeez.

Trump was complaining about his faulty earpiece earlier this year, but that didn't bother you then. It was fine then, it's fine now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

SHE IS NOT BEING "FED" ANY RESPONSES! My God. You people swing from calling her a brilliant, cunning mastermind who is controlling the entire press and government to calling her a brain-dead zombie on life support who is parroting responses fed to her by mysterious hidden puppetmasters. You don't care one whit about whether anything is true, just as long as you can keep hurling accusations and smears.

This. They are just nasty people who would have loved to man the guillotine during the french revolution. They would have loved being those young women in the Salem witch trials who accused everybody of being a witch. They get a kind of glee out of seeing somebody weak, the kind of glee you see in a pack of dogs on the site of a wounded deer. They are not human.

[Anonymous]

I'm 40 and have hearing loss.

SO?

[Anonymous]

And she isn't weak. And that isn't even an earpiece, it's a light reflection. And it doesn't matter anyway because she obviously was not parroting someone feeding her answers.

Honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

No, it's not illicit if she's using it to properly hear the questions. Jeez.

Trump was complaining about his faulty earpiece earlier this year, but that didn't bother you then. It was fine then, it's fine now.

You people are crazy. An earpiece can be illicit depending on its purpose. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which one is it? If hearing aid then she should be fine admitting it and we go about our business otherwise the idea that this was an earpiece and she was being coached is downright scary!!!

http://www.infowars.com/was-hillary-wearing-an-earpiece-during-last-nights-presidential-forum/

The way she wears her hair makes it easy to hide. I agree she needs to come clean if she's wearing a hearing aide.

Why does she need to "come clean" about wearing hearing aids, assuming that's even what it is? Is there something shameful about that? I'd like to know, because I wear two and I am unashamed.

I didn't mean it in a negative way. To the contrary. If she wears a hearing aid, she should say so to put a stop to the rumors of an illicit earpiece during interviews.
Also, a hearing aid would not in any way raise questions about president's fitness for service. There are other things, though, that would - such as a concussion causing memory lapses, which HRC herself has admitted. Now THAT is a cause for concern.

Yes, you did. You erected a straw man. Hearing aid or TV earpiece -- neither of those things are "illicit." Shame on you. Jesus.

I said I didn't, and referred to an earpiece to "feed" info as the illicit device. Stop telling me what I meant. I suppose you are a mind reader now. Shame on YOU!

You should let us know that you stopped beating your spouse because ... you know ... the rumors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

No, it's not illicit if she's using it to properly hear the questions. Jeez.

Trump was complaining about his faulty earpiece earlier this year, but that didn't bother you then. It was fine then, it's fine now.

You people are crazy. An earpiece can be illicit depending on its purpose. Jesus.

But you have no evidence that a) there is actually something in her ear and b) there is something nefarious going on. If you watch the actual video, it is clear that she is not being "fed" any lines. So why do you insist on hinting that there is something illicit going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

SHE IS NOT BEING "FED" ANY RESPONSES! My God. You people swing from calling her a brilliant, cunning mastermind who is controlling the entire press and government to calling her a brain-dead zombie on life support who is parroting responses fed to her by mysterious hidden puppetmasters. You don't care one whit about whether anything is true, just as long as you can keep hurling accusations and smears.

What is wrong with you? I never said she had an illicit earpiece. I was just making a distinction between a hearing aid and an earpiece that CAN be used for illicit purposes. All of a sudden we're calling her a brain-dead zombie now? You liberals need to calm down and stop attacking reasonable people or you will drive away the independents who haven't made up their minds. And stop calling everyone a liar - except for your precious Hillary, of course. It's amazing how you can't discern between someone telling the truth and someone lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which one is it? If hearing aid then she should be fine admitting it and we go about our business otherwise the idea that this was an earpiece and she was being coached is downright scary!!!

http://www.infowars.com/was-hillary-wearing-an-earpiece-during-last-nights-presidential-forum/

The way she wears her hair makes it easy to hide. I agree she needs to come clean if she's wearing a hearing aide.

Why does she need to "come clean" about wearing hearing aids, assuming that's even what it is? Is there something shameful about that? I'd like to know, because I wear two and I am unashamed.

I didn't mean it in a negative way. To the contrary. If she wears a hearing aid, she should say so to put a stop to the rumors of an illicit earpiece during interviews.
Also, a hearing aid would not in any way raise questions about president's fitness for service. There are other things, though, that would - such as a concussion causing memory lapses, which HRC herself has admitted. Now THAT is a cause for concern.

Yes, you did. You erected a straw man. Hearing aid or TV earpiece -- neither of those things are "illicit." Shame on you. Jesus.

I said I didn't, and referred to an earpiece to "feed" info as the illicit device. Stop telling me what I meant. I suppose you are a mind reader now. Shame on YOU!

You should let us know that you stopped beating your spouse because ... you know ... the rumors.

Unbelievable how liberals accuse everyone BUT Hillary of being a liar! I explained very clearly what I meant, and yet you still insist on screaming....liar...liar...liar. Why not direct some of that venom about dishonest people to your queen? All of a sudden a classified email has to have a header on it, stating so? It's one lie after the other with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for clarity, an earpiece for a "feed" IS illicit in the context we are speaking of.

SHE IS NOT BEING "FED" ANY RESPONSES! My God. You people swing from calling her a brilliant, cunning mastermind who is controlling the entire press and government to calling her a brain-dead zombie on life support who is parroting responses fed to her by mysterious hidden puppetmasters. You don't care one whit about whether anything is true, just as long as you can keep hurling accusations and smears.

What is wrong with you? I never said she had an illicit earpiece. I was just making a distinction between a hearing aid and an earpiece that CAN be used for illicit purposes. All of a sudden we're calling her a brain-dead zombie now? You liberals need to calm down and stop attacking reasonable people or you will drive away the independents who haven't made up their minds. And stop calling everyone a liar - except for your precious Hillary, of course. It's amazing how you can't discern between someone telling the truth and someone lying.

You are full of crap and don't like being called on it. Talk about dishonest. An earpiece "could" be used for "illicit" purposes, and you just happen to throw that out in a thread about.... Hillary Clinton maybe having an earpiece during the presidential forum.

Just like Trump with his "people are saying, I don't know, I've heard, they should maybe check out" whisper campaigns.