Saturday, September 24, 2016

Dependent Words and Deception

Insight into Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch?  

In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Patrol knows this dependent word:  "only"

"I only had two drinks, officer" with the unnecessary dependent word "only" signaling that the subject is thinking of a number greater than two.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer."

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It must rely upon something else in order to be appropriately used in a sentence.  The subject is thinking, via comparison, of another number, greater than two.  

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have  a brother."

Answer:  Two.  We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

How many people are found within this statement?
Answer:  3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.
We have the brother as two. 
Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward lie.  

Let's look more deeply at the response. 


Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.
Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  

Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  

A.  "I learned about it through media."  

This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 

It is not what he said.

"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."

Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  

The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  

This rapid processing means:

The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?

Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 

Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in most every speech given, from funeral speeches that were intended to be about someone other than himself, to any announcement in which success is claimed.  Some journalists have learned to literally count the number times he uses the pronouns "I", "me" and "my" in speeches, suggesting self-aggrandizement and narcissism.  

Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."

"Else" refers to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  This becomes vital in not only seeking justice, but in a case like this, gives insight into personality and experience in deception.  

Mothers of a 8 year olds who come home from school with a touch of trouble recognize this dependent word.  

Most people are afraid of lying to authority.  It is, therefore, concerning when one is bold enough to lie to a police officer.  

What about someone who lies to two or more police officers?  In early Casey Anthony analysis, she showed fearlessness in the event of lying to several police officers, telling them that she worked at a specific company in which she did not.  

They drove her to the company.  

Think about this car ride and why she allowed this to continue.  

She actually allowed them to do so, without interrupting them and saying, "No, don't bother.  I lied.  I don't work there." 

Time elapsed.  

She then got out of the car and walked to the building with them.  

She could have stopped this at any point and admitted the inevitable:  they will see that she does not work there. 

Why did she do it?

This was a very strong indicator of a sociopathic liar; one who lies so often that she lies even when there is no cause to lie.  She lies as she breathes and has become so successful in her lies, that her confidence told her "I'll think of something..." as time elapsed.

Most people would fear lying to a single police officer. 

What about lying to the FBI?  This is now to lie to a federal agent. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  

Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. 

Lastly, think of one who has the utter blind confidence in his or her own ability to deceive and "put one over" (the element of contempt) to...

an audience of 300 million Americans.  

Liars hold the world in contempt.  

They believe the world at large is beneath them, and without the capabilities to discern their words and catch their lies.  

Where one quickly folds and admits lying to a teacher, or a mother, or someone in authority, we should take note of what a tender conscience looks like.  

When another has no fear of being exposed, we are looking at an entirely different display of human nature within personality traits and the language will reveal itself. 


"I will not allow anyone to impugn my record, just because I misspoke a few words..."

Richard Blumenthal revealed himself as 'god-like' with his ability to control others, outside himself, by refusing them the ability to impugn his record. 

He had talked about what it was like for him, as a young man, when he was in Viet Nam, to a group of Viet Nam vets.  

He had never stepped foot in the country of Viet Nam, nor any country near Viet Nam, nor any country that resembled Viet Nam.  He had not left the United States.  

What is missed in this is right within his language when he introduced the word "record."

As a prosecutor, his "record" (note he calls it "my record") of successful prosecutions entered his language while talking about lying, which he minimized by using the word "mistruths" (signaling inability or refusal to take personal responsibility). 

He was concerned about his professional record under the topic of lying. 

How many convictions did he obtain using deception?

We will never know.  

We do know this, however: 

The people of Connecticut read his "apology" (as media reported it) and elected him to office.  


41 comments:

Ode said...

Thank you for the Sat Post, PH

This video is of what is present, the ricochet of Obama and Hillary's doings.
Destabilization of the Middle East, as your post Dependent words and Deception
These two working hand in hand. The media their red carpet.

Vid, content is spot on to engage open conversation: topic same.

https://youtu.be/3C0kDDK_bR8

John mcgowan said...

I "only" had two drinks officer

Vs

I had two drinks Officer.

The Sheep said...

So what's the difference between "email account" and "email system"? I'd guess when he is asked about an "email system" it goes beyond the private address. The logic here seems to be he emailed her at a private address so he must have known about the private server. That's either faulty logic or an assumption that "email address" and "email system" are one and the same. I've never heard an email "address" called a "system."

Anonymous said...

By accident, I pasted this email I have just sent to Trader Joe's. Pausing a moment before deleting, I thought "Wait, why not go ahead and post this here?" ha ha. I've already sent it to Trader Joe's, and was going to paste it into an email to my sister, but I thought "Why not let people here see this?" This is my unedited email to TJ's, written NOT thinking of SA. P.S. if everyone ignores this, I'm cool with that!

While eating your frozen vegan Pad Thai this morning, I bit down on something super hard, like a small stone, and it broke my teeth (I think), upper and lower on the back left. I haven't been to a dentist yet. This happened this morning and I called my dentist but never got a reply. I had a lot of pain, upper and lower teeth today. I'm sending you this message only because my family told me to. I never found the "stone", and maybe swallowed it. I think my way-back lower left tooth is actually broken off, and I think an upper tooth also got cracked or broken partly off. I feel silly telling you this, but maybe it will cause you to look into the product. Thanks so much.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^Did you unfreeze it before you ate it?

It Sounds like total BS.

Anonymous said...

Of course I cooked it before eating. Thanks for your expert analysis, Anon 8:30.
And here's the reply I got:

Trader Joe's Feedback
7:51 PM (41 minutes ago)

to me
This automated response confirms that your email has successfully been sent to Trader Joe’s. We value your comments and will do our best to get back to you as soon as humanly possible. (That’s because a few humans are busily reading and responding to ALL of the great customer feedback.)

If this is a matter that requires immediate attention, please contact your local Trader Joe’s to speak to one of our crew members live. It’s the fastest way to get a response, plus, they just might tell you a good joke.

Mahalo (thanks)

Anonymous said...

Are you vegan?

My analysis is you got pissed because you chomped down on something hard and it hurt for like 20 seconds, and you didnt break any teeth (did you look in a mirror? you can see in the mirror if your back teeth broke) but you were upset so you emailed Trader Joe's.

Anonymous said...

I've noticed an internal change since studying and learning from this website last few months: I know I have nothing to hide, so I have confidence any time I need to say something that others might not like. I feel zero need to defend criticism. It's something new for me, because all my life I always felt like I had to explain myself to death, and others (predators especially) knew it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:01: Good debating skills!

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:19

"While eating your frozen vegan Pad Thai this morning"

Note that many deceptive statements begin without the pronoun "I" when one claims or alleges something happened" to a subject.

Whom was eating the "frozen vegan pad thai?"


Allegedly breaking ones tooth is personal.

The expected

1) "I" first person singular taking ownership
2) "was" past tense
3) "eating your frozen vegan pad thai" " specific action

That you remove yourself from the sentence and don't tell us whom was eating the "frozen vegan pad thai" is questionable.



Becky Rose said...

I agree with the points others are stating in regards to the Trader Joe's email. I'd also like to point out the sentence, "This happened this morning and I called my dentist but never got a reply."

I'm not sure why, but there's something off about pointing out that the dentist "never" responded. I'm not a professional so I could be wrong, but doesn't a word as severe as never mean that the dentist DID respond? Besides, if it were a true statement, it would be written something like, "...my dentist hasn't returned my call yet."

Using the word never might mean that the writer is seeking to avoid being honest about what the dentist told him/her, such as the broken teeth were not caused by the Trader Joe's food.

Anonymous said...

Since Anon 8.19pm said they had just sent the text to Trader Joe's, I am assuming it is truthful and describes an actual incident that happened to Anon, and that Anon isn't just wasting time trolling the folks at Trader Joe's with false information. I don't understand the "it sounds like total BS" and other similar comments that question the authenticity of comments...the constant doubting/challenging of what people post here is an odd "new" habit on this site. It takes away from a friendly community of people interested in SA.

Anon's 8.19pm post is interesting because I think it shows current writing/speech habits that we often employ. "While eating...I bit down" is more economical than "While I was eating...I bit down" - the absence of "I was" could be from trying to be brief, or post-writing edits to remove what they thought were extra/unnecessary words, etc. It doesn't mean that it's untruthful or deceptive.

There is a difference between the SA principle that says "if they didn't say it, we can't say it for them", and "That's BS, you're lying, it never happened". The SA principle doesn't say the subject is lying, it just means that we can't take an implied/assumed event as a definitive statement; additional questions would be needed to clarify, to get the subject to make a definitive statement.

"I think" is used several times as a legitimate qualifier, suggesting that Anon does not know for certain and does not want to commit to something that he/she does not know - to me, this also suggests truthfulness and a desire to avoid overstating/misrepresentation.

Written at 8.19pm, it's definitively the end of the day, and Anon "never got a reply" from the dentist. I don't see an issue with this, because Anon is making an open statement about something that didn't happen, not issuing a denial of something he/she was accused of. "Never" is not always a red flag, only in specific circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Oops I just saw Anon's 1:52 post. Yes, thank you!

Anonymous said...

http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

Hey Jude said...

Thank you for this and the other recent articles, Peter, and also to the Guest blogger - it is encouraging to see what an analysis from one who has taken the SA course looks like - as in more 'accessible' than some of your analyses, which I sometimes find to be overwhelming or intimidating by volume and content. Still, I like that, too, as it makes for wanting more and wanting to understand more of how SA works.

--

I would probably have taken President Obama's word for it, and have put the missing pronoun down to impatience at the questioning.

---

The Blumenthal guy's claim he 'misspoke a few words'. 'Misspoke' suggested something less serious - to have spoken out of turn, struck the wrong note, to have said something inappropriate or made a stupid joke - inventing his history in Vietnam was hardly a few words misspoken. That he described it as 'a few words' minimised it further. I Googled him, and there was nothing misspoke or accidental about him - deliberate lies and then neglecting to correct that misinformation when it was published by the media - quite astonishing.

--

Someone recently said in another thread that they did not understand the rule about a person being unable to lie about a lie - not being able to lie twice. I also don't understand what that means or how it works - I read, I forget. For instance, the man's claim that he 'misspoke' when he invented his time in Vietnam - is he telling a lie about his lie? It would appear so - why would that not be considered a lie about a lie for the purposes of SA? I see he didn't address the lie specifically, he only alluded to it - so is that not lying about the lie so much as lying about himself - a sort of deflection?

Davey Blackburn and his Big Lie, also - did he lie about his lie, or was his story about having told a Big Lie truthful?

I know an answer to my questioning, but in case the other person who posted about it does not - use the site search for 'A man cannot lie twice' and then read the relevant articles until it sinks in. :) I did the search, have not got a far as also reading, but tomorrow's another day.


---

I think to not feed the Trader Joe clown - she's adept at feeding herself, if not with vegan Pad Thai; there are similar posts on the Blackburn thread, involving Walgreen's and mascara. Someone's desperation to discredit SA and to mess up the comments has been fierce since the Blackburn case. That's sort of interesting, but mostly annoying.

Francine Robinson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"I think to not feed the Trader Joe clown - she's adept at feeding herself..."

I SIMPLY POSTED AN EXPERIENCE I HAD. Now I'm a "clown"???

"She's adept at feeding herself?" What? What is that supposed to mean?

What are you talking about, "Walgreen's" and "mascara"??!

Lis said...

I have a question about the dependent words. If a person has been accused of something, does that explain them using a dependent word in their response in order to contrast their statement with the thing they've been accused of? For instance, if a person had been accused of having several drinks and they replied "I only had 2 drinks" would that be different from the person just offering "I only had 2 drinks" without having first been accused?

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Hi , Liz

If i have it correct, when someone offers up information without reason (being asked first) it is noted as sensitive. For example


What did you do last night?

I watched the football "i only had two drinks". Although having "only two drinks" ("only", being noted) while watching the football maybe be true, it is needless information. I didn't ask or accuse, if you had a drink. One must then ask why did the subject feel the need to say this without prompt (did you have a drink, you had a drink, and how many? etc.) If it is offered up in the "free editing stage" ( i watched the football last night i only had two drinks) it elevates the sensitivity. I would wonder if the subject or persons close to them and so on, had/have any issues surrounding alcohol, past or present.

I would also like to know (in their "free editing stage") why they want me to know they were watching football.

Why it is sensitive, is the question.

Anon "I" said...

Anon at 8:19:
While eating your frozen vegan Pad Thai this morning, I bit down on something super hard, like a small stone, and it broke my teeth (I think), upper and lower on the back left. I haven't been to a dentist yet. This happened this morning and I called my dentist but never got a reply. I had a lot of pain, upper and lower teeth today. I'm sending you this message only because my family told me to. I never found the "stone", and maybe swallowed it. I think my way-back lower left tooth is actually broken off, and I think an upper tooth also got cracked or broken partly off. I feel silly telling you this, but maybe it will cause you to look into the product. Thanks so much.
**************************************************************

OK, I'll try... :)

While eating your frozen (you wanted to indicate the type) vegan (explaining your health habits?) Pad Thai this morning, I bit down on something super hard, (not just hard, but super hard) like a small stone, (it was "like," but not simply a small stone) and it broke my teeth (plural, teeth) (I think), (not positive of damage or extent) upper and lower on the back left. I haven't been to a dentist yet. (Explaining why you don't know how damaged the teeth are, did you look with a flashlight and mirror to see any noticeable difference? Can you feel rough edges when before they were smooth? Are you sure they are damaged and not simply sore?) This happened this morning (why do they need to know the time of day, is there some importance to you?) and I called my dentist ("My" dentist... you have been there before and can own that you know him/her. Did you leave a message?) but never got a reply. (In my time zone, this is a Sunday, so a reply would be unlikely) I had a lot of pain, upper and lower teeth today. (You state where, but you don't state that it was in the presumed damaged areas. Were other teeth hurting, too?) I'm sending you this message only because my family told me to. (You are very aware of sending the message, but only would report it because of your family's instructions? What about for your own or others sake?) I never found the "stone", and maybe (unsure, allows for other possibilities) swallowed it. I think (you allow for other opinions) my way-back lower left tooth is actually broken off, (When? By this "stone?" You don't say it wasn't a previous fact and you aren't sure) and I think (unsure) an upper tooth also got cracked or broken partly off. (Which could be either situation.) I feel silly (Why be afraid of recounting it if it really did you damage or are you not really sure when it happened or what caused it?) telling you this, (telling as a sharing in a soft, undemanding way, but why not reporting a wrong?) but maybe it will cause you to look into the product. (Look into what, exactly?) Thanks so much.

You allow for it to be from something else. Did your tooth/teeth break and you can't be sure that it wasn't a piece of tooth (or broken hard plastic utensil) that caused the pain? Might some of this breakage have happened previously? You are unaware of the extent of the damage. Your wording sounds soft like you do not plan to seek compensation for damage from a product of theirs. You want them to "maybe" look into the product. You aren't demanding an answer.

I feel silly trying to pull apart your e-mail! I can only imagine what my words reveal.
For future reference, don't trust those wicker-plated dried fruit trays, either. I did
crack off just short of half a tooth on one of those with a pit.

Lis said...

Thanks for your reply, John.

If the guy was watching football and his wife came home and said "you've been drinking, haven't you?" and he replied "I only had 2 drinks" would it be reliable to say he probably did have 2 drinks, or is it still unreliable? I have a hunch but I'm trying to understand how SA looks at it. Thanks!

Lis said...

Good one, Anon I.

A couple more thoughts I had-

If a person bit into something as hard as a stone and it broke teeth, they would know without question. So it is unexpected that the person is unsure.

"I called my dentist but never got a reply."
How could they ascertain they "never" got a reply so soon after calling?

"I had a lot of pain, upper and lower teeth today."
Does not say the pain was IN the upper and lower teeth, they had pain and they have upper and lower teeth.

"I'm sending you this message only because my family told me to."
The writer wants to pass off the responsibility for writing to their family (share guilt). They broke 2 teeth on this product but they feel silly writing and are only writing because family members told (strong, directive) them to.
"Family" is undefined- did the whole family get together and tell this person in unison to write the manufacturer? Or was it a mother, father, sister, brother, grandparent, child, cousin? self? "Family" leaves the actual person unidentified.

Ha ha, I don't think this complaint will get far. Is the writer trying to get help at writing a truthful sounding complaint? lol

Nic said...

Segue. If there is any truth in HRC's health matters, I wonder how she will do in tonight's debate. If true, maybe they could pray for a blackout of the whole eastern seaboard. After all if you can't film it, then it didn't happen. :0)

jmo

Hey Jude said...

I stayed up to watch - almost 4.00am here. I'd say Hillary won the debate - the bit about the unpaid architect and tradesmen didn't do Donald any favours, and it seems he'd rather solve problems with military might than diplomacy. He's entertaining, but also rather scary - but then so is Hillary. God bless America seems an appropriate reaction.

John mcgowan said...

Lis said...

Thanks for your reply, John.

If the guy was watching football and his wife came home and said "you've been drinking, haven't you?" and he replied "I only had 2 drinks" would it be reliable to say he probably did have 2 drinks, or is it still unreliable? I have a hunch but I'm trying to understand how SA looks at it. Thanks!


Hi,

These are my thoughts.

"you've been drinking, haven't you?" and he replied "I only had 2 drinks" would it be reliable to say he probably did have 2 drinks, or is it still unreliable?

"you've been drinking, haven't you?"

This is more of a statement than a question. Almost like an accusation.
If it was in the form of a question, the simple answer is "yes" or "no," it's to the point, and without qualifiers. Always note, too, everything outside the boundary of the question. Information beyond the boundary of the question, is critical. It can yield more than the subject may want to. "Yes" and "no" questions are less stressful, and therefore easier to lie to. Ask open ended questions.

"I only had 2 drinks" would it be reliable to say he probably did have 2 drinks,"

Yes. Though the word "only" weakens it. It minimises, and is used as a comparison, another thought or action. What is the subject comparing it to? Are they comparing it to, for example. Say they had 5/6 drinks the night/day before, in there mind "only two" is not as much as 5/6, so they may think, no harm done. It is not to say it isn't true, however.

The setting is important, too. If it is in the form of an accusation, what lead up to this?.
If it is an accusation, why?
Have they had issues with alcohol.
Has it impacted work?
Has it impacted on a relationship?
Driving? You see where this is going.

So yes, is can be true, and it may not.

Context is very important, and we don't declare deception on one thing alone.

Nic said...

Hey Jude, I somewhat agree with you. Clinton "won" based on experience. I don't doubt Trump's camp will be using the first debate as a great learning tool to coach him and he will respond positively. The bit about the unpaid trades is questionable and imo not that big of deal considering the response: Trump didn't deny it because he didn't have the facts, but offered up "maybe it's because he didn't do the job very well." Which is how real life works.

This is my observation: Every time Trump got Clinton’s ire up, (which was every time he got an opportunity to respond and force her to defend her (very poor) record,) she plastered a creepy, Chucky doll smile on her face. I would wager a bet that in lieu of campaigning the past week, she was being coached on how to smile “like a human”, because the voting public does not connect with her. Moreover, she “acts” the opposite of Trump, trying to make him look “crazy” thinking that appearing “calm and collected”, “in control” and “pleasant” will score her points. The truth of the matter is that her temper is legendary.

Her Chucky doll smiles were creepy to watch. It wasn’t natural every time she was forced to defend her lack lustre record, she smiled. Not smugly, but like a painted on Chucky doll. Her eyes got big and round, she pulled her cheeks up to her eyes and there appeared a gap like a ventriloquist’s doll between her upper row of teeth and bottom lip.

Conversely, Trump’s reaction was passionate and a reflection of how American voters feel (defined as "unhinged" by the pundits). Every American who is either already in Trump’s camp or are undecided will be left with the impression that “someone” actually cares about the state of their economy and their future. That they are MOTIVATED and PASSIONATE to do the things they say they are going to do. Not just smile on the outside and hold [them] in contempt on the inside.

Hey Jude said...

Hillary has the advantage in many ways, but Donald did not do too badly considering he is not a politician. His advisors should maybe consider a crash course at charm school for him. :) I don't know if his manner is meant to be part of his appeal, but I found the way he referred to Hillary as 'she' and 'her' to be embarrassing and ungentlemanly, and not how a potential statesman should speak. It may seem a little thing, but if I were voting, that would not win him my vote, because I would think that as President he would be representing the USA as boorish and rude and be an embarrassment on the world stage. I want to know if he can behave and respond in a statesmanlike way, or if he is all WYSIWYG.

It must be that many will find themselves voting for their party whilst being unhappy with the candidate. I'd want to abstain, but as 'those who abstain can't later complain', that wouldn't be a satisfactory option either.

Hillary's responses were at times stilted, and there did seem something wooden about her - maybe she is full of Botox or turning into Pinnochio. At least she managed the debate without collapsing, cackling like a hyena or coughing her brains out - not great pluses, though. I think there's not much to choose between them, for different reasons - shame there is not a scale which can measure their self-interest against their concern for the interests of all.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the next debate goes. I didn't like how Hillary had been looking into the woodwork for what and who they could bring along to make Donald look bad - seems a low tactic and against the true spirit of debate.

GeekRad said...

I only had two drinks last night watching the debate.

That my friends is an outright lie. It was definitely a more than two drink event. Why Trump didn't take every opportunity to nail Hillary about her lies about her emails, felonious lies, is beyond me.

Hey Jude- my husband is convinced Hillary was on drugs last night.

The Sheep said...

Trump did best in the first part when he talked about trade, NAFTA, over regulation, how the "political class" had failed America.

Then he played defense too much. His comments on taxes did him no good, he spent too much time defending himself instead of fighting for votes. Because she kept him on defense, she "won" but not sure she rallied her base or got new voters in her corner.

Anonymous said...

Nic, You wrote Her Chucky doll smiles were creepy to watch. It wasn’t natural every time she was forced to defend her lack lustre record, she smiled. Not smugly, but like a painted on Chucky doll. Her eyes got big and round, she pulled her cheeks up to her eyes and there appeared a gap like a ventriloquist’s doll between her upper row of teeth and bottom lip. "

Yes, well put. But there is a reason Hillary's forced smiles looked so ghoulish. Last night was the first time I had seen her on TV in years, and as much as I despise her, her smiling issues stem from a neurological problem like Parkinsons or Lewis Body Dementia. Look carefully at her smiling. The 2 different sides of her mouth do not pull back in s coordinated way to form the frightening smile, and there is also quivering of her lips. She clearly has a neirological disorder. She is struggling the whole time to keep her eyes and face from drooping. I also googled her uncoordinated eye movements that I had read about but not seen...you can view it on youtube. My take it is not that her eyes are spasming for no reason...it appears her eyes are actually moving in that way due to hallucinations she is looking at, so when she turns her head back and forth to address the crowd, her eyes look the way her head is turning but then the turn back and forth to look at whatever she is hallucinating. I had a relative who had Lewis Body Dementia and their long term memory (like remembering people and things and events from the past stay fairly intact) but they have very vivid hallucinations juxtaposed onto whatever they are looking at which largely involve people and animals. My uncle died from Lewis Body Dementia when he was not much older than Hillary and he would actually "see" people in his yard stealing things and when we showed him photographs of people like his parents, he woukd know exactly who they were and remember everything about them but he would see birds flying around in the photograph and landing on the person's shoulder...he would vocalize this and his eyes would move around as he watched the birds fly around in the photograph.
Anyway I think she has something like Lewis Body Dementia (which is typically missiagnosed as Parkinsons initially) and I think she knows something is very wrong with her but is not telling anyone because she is hellbent on winning the Presidency. If she does have Lewis Body Dementia she will rapidly deteriorate.

Hey Jude said...

It must take quite a concoction to prevent collapse, coughing, seizures, laughing fits, and to enable communication all at the same time.

GeekRad said...

You've got that right Hey Jude.

Nic said...

@ GeekRad

Hillary on drugs. Yes. If he really got her back up, she would have started to hyperventilate and that would have caused her to aspirate saliva into her lungs. Then Bob would be Trump's uncle. Best to give her something to calm her down.

This was Trumps very first debate and Clinton's 39th? Considering how much more experience she had, he pretty much controlled the first half. That should be worrying her.

I'm glad he didn't walk through every door she opened, i.e., real estate (White Water), income tax (Clinton Foundation), preparing to be POTUS (he was meeting with voters listening to them, while she was practicing how to be presidential,) etc. She has a false sense of security, now. She thinks she's found his "soft spot". Trump is a fast learner. The next debate won't go so well for HRC.

I can't stand her. I'm pretty shocked DT has gotten as far as he has, but then look North to where I live. Canada elected a drama teacher/trust fund baby. If any other 40-something whose last name wasn't Trudeau wanted to run for leader of the Liberal Party do you think they would have taken him seriously? That's what I call a "revival".

Nic said...

Anonymous said:
I also googled her uncoordinated eye movements that I had read about but not seen...you can view it on youtube.


I've read about the theories and speculation around her neurological issues. There is definitely something off. The bloating in her face and lower body comes and goes so quickly. That's water. That has something to do with the kidneys.

Last night she had one incident (that I noticed). Her left eye turned in and she automatically averted her gaze to the right and downwards like she was "thinking" on her feet. I haven't had the time to research if anyone else picked up on it. If memory serves me correctly it was in the first third of the debate. I think. :0)

Lis said...

Thanks, John!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Watching this 4-minute video (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/donald-trump-defends-comments-hillary-clintons-stamina-42379623) with the sound off, Hillary Clinton has an excessive amount of marked left to right eye movement. However, it is unlike one scanning the crowd for support or inclusion. Throughout the 4 minutes, her blinking is often very slow (almost labored), accompanied by frequent looking down.

Also notable is how often she's licking her lips and making mouth gestures as if her mouth is very dry. For someone very used to the limelight, very practiced in public appearances and speaking, and with 38 debates tucked under her belt, this is unusual and unexpected to me.

Equally notable, is how absent her forehead is of any wrinkle lines, compared to other pictures of her and videos from campaign appearances.

Wrinkles: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/hillary-rodham-clinton-a-life-in-pictures/52/
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/hillary-rodham-clinton-a-life-in-pictures/55/
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hillary+clinton+pics&view=detailv2&&id=944D898BDA249A4838674
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hillary+clinton+pics&view=detailv2&&id=69E736BE5781417E09CE46085763124462149AAF&selectedIndex=218&ccid=r%2fCsrZoN&simid=608000386255031272&thid=OIP.Maff0acad9a0dcd4ec183e82e4f61e39eo2
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/photos/hillary-clinton-years-17555279/image-39673813

Non-Wrinkled: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/donald-trump-defends-comments-hillary-clintons-stamina-42379623

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Looking through ABC's "Hillary Clinton Through The Years", I'm wondering if she isn't on Prednisone, causing the noticeable facial swelling.


April 5, 2016 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/photos/hillary-clinton-years-17555279/image-39673813

April 19, 2016 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/photos/hillary-clinton-years-17555279/image-39674356

July 5, 2016 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/photos/hillary-clinton-years-17555279/image-40358904

July 12, 2016 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/photos/hillary-clinton-years-17555279/image-40528440

Nic said...

Foolsfeedonfolly,

I watched some of the first debate on -line looking for the turning eye and lost patience. However, what I did note was the non-stop eye movement/scanning and then looking down and back up again to scan. This is a trick. If HRC doesn't focus on one thing for too long, then she can keep her eye from turning in. If she focuses for too long, her eye will turn because she cannot "hold" the eye straight for a long time. If she was a kid, they'd patch the strong eye and make the weak eye work. But this isn't what's going on with her.

I have personal experience with this. I had eye surgery to correct a turned eye when I was 2 years old. When I was tired and if I was not wearing my glasses, i.e., for watching TV, or sitting chatting with i.e., my dad, my eye would turn.

In a group, scanning and not focusing on one thing for too long was something I did to keep my eye from turning. It's a trick.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Nic- Thank you for the information. Having had a close friend with the same eye issue as yours, I can relate to that. Your response prompted me to look for pre-2016 video of Hillary to get a better baseline of her "normal", outside of a "winning" persona generated for debate audience consumption. Granted I'm not a doctor, but I agree with an earlier post you made on another thread that she likely is having issues tracking and focusing.

What I immediately found was the New York Times Benghazi Hearing video (posted 12-10-2015) and found here https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillary+clinton&&view=detail&mid=A4CACB2E5C8838252738A4CACB2E5C8838252738&FORM=VRDGAR.

She evidenced long periods of focused attention with minimal blinking, the blinking itself at a normal rate (as opposed to the much more deliberate, slow blinks of the recent debate). Also missing in the Benghazi video is the frequent Debate pattern of looking right side-down-left side-front-down. Also noticeably absent are the frequent lip-licking/dry mouth gestures Hillary evidenced during the recent Debate when she was listening to Trump, but not verbally responding. While some may wish to attribute those gestures to nervousness, her extensive history of public speaking (42 yrs: Bill Clinton's 1974 Congressional campaign), Senatorial and Secretary of State experience, and previous debate experience all belie that.

Likewise, Hillary's pronounced eye movements, blinking, and mouth gestures are nonexistent in this second video at the 2015 Women In The World Summit (4-23-2015 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillary+clinton+video+2015&qpvt=hillary+clinton+video+2015&view=detail&mid=3AC333A79E6EF83EF3833AC333A79E6EF83EF383&FORM=VRDGAR)

Paul Flanagan said...

This was excellent, Peter!