In the debates last night, there was no clear winner in all honesty from my point of view. Trump went too easy on Hillary in several instances by allowing her to get away with debate issues. Hillary managed to “sound” like she knew what it takes to be president but the general public knows now from her own actions and illegal email server problems as well as leaked emails just how crooked she is. Trump got in jabs but he also got taken off topic and put in defense mode to easily. I doubt he makes the mistakes again though. Both traded a few one-two verbal spars but for the most part, I think Trump was attempting to be in a mode of restraint for fear of saying wrong things. We know he can come off the cuff with outlandish oft-repeated phrases so I get the restraint. However, his combative nature and willingness to tackle “forbidden” topics is exactly why so many favor him over the politicians.
The following was posted on Twitter – but I think if a front view is seen, the clip-on microphone may be the reason for this obvious equipment. The question remains though was it also a listening device discreetly in her ear? None of the pictures I have seen show her left side ear. The right has a medium-sized bob that covers the ear opening pretty well.
During the debate that Hillary did not turn to her opponent in recognition of his existence very much at all, as if he was beneath her or as a point of disdain. In Bernie Sanders debates she was often photographed looking at him despite whatever topic.
In this photo Trump was seen visibly observing her as she talked. His stance is fairly relaxed, head up but bent slightly toward her with eyes focused on her expressions. Hillary was in a stiff-as-a-board defensive stance, elbows in, and hands rather tightly clasped as she glared directly at the camera. To be fair on the hands, I think from looking at other photos, she often has a habit of holding her hands together. For a veteran politician trying to make a point to those voters, this is a telling No, No.
In the following photograph, Trump has on an American flag lapel pin while Hillary has nothing which could tie her to representing our country. This to me is a tell of her ideology which should send out warning bells. Hillary has mentioned on a few occasions in statements that she works closely with the UN. She certainly appears to champion the Islamic groups. Thanks to leaked documents we are well aware of Hillary’s anti-American socialist shadow handlers like bankers, Wall Street financiers, the Bilderberg Group and Soros. Thanks to social media blogs and media reports we are aware that she has always worked for or with those who follow a socialist ideology just like Pelosi. Given Obama’s current fiasco of trying to destroy our republic, can we afford another communist in high office?
Red color was the “power” color in the late twentieth century for successful women’s suits in business. What she has on and has apparently begun to prefer in all public appearances is more indicative of the United Nations socialist style approach to world domination where all basically wear unisex buttoned up uniform-style clothes to denote positions of power.
For a person who is supposed to be for women in general and women in business in particular, nothing I have seen clothing wise that she has worn over the last year speaks to feminism or gender identification with her sex. Most of the choices for her campaigning are pretty bland, plain cut, and understated.
The role of females in the political or business industries and their right to wear more feminine than masculine business clothing is just as important a message as skills. For many years in the last half of the 20th century women were discouraged from being the least feminine unless they were simply eye candy. There are many today that do not follow that trend thank goodness. I don’t mean outlandish overtly sexual predatory attire but feminine business wear.
If she truly cared about women in business, she would, at least to me, display this through an attire unlike unisex socialists who repress women’s roles in leadership. I saw her on a Kimble show where her attire was much more acceptable for a woman in today’s leadership role.
Out of curiosity, was the podium microphone even turned on for Hillary? Here in the picture she clearly has a clip-on mic or was it a ruse for something which had already been denied?
Long ago I was warned in speech class that the part overall body language played a part in audience believe-ability. How arms and hands appeared in expressions helped in presenting confidence, understanding of a subject, truthfulness, or openness, if the speaker was going to be convincing. How Hillary could command anything over $10,000 in fees for other than name alone is a mystery. With all of her speaking experience, she should have been far more comfortable and animated than Trump though he is learning quickly.
Here is Trump and Clinton both in a stance with arms out but notice the difference in hand position. One is open and welcoming to outside stimulus while the other is determined to suppress and dominate those below it. You decide which you would more favorably respond to in any situation.
Personally the head cocked stance of Trump at a sales meeting might bother me to the extent I recognize a salesman; but, the dominatrix stretch of Hillary’s arms would have me backing away. I have worked with enough power Biatches over the years to know that this is the stance of a power-hungry backstabber who rides roughshod over underlings. Even the cut of her eyes and the facial expression would give me pause because she does not project an open nor honest approval of those who sit or stand in front of her. No one can call her honest of course.
Final picture to look at is the meeting of adversaries – before and after debate.
Interesting isn’t it how pictures may not be but a frozen moment in time yet speak volumes if you take the time to do more than glance at them. More primitive people believed that photographs captured the essence of the person which terrified them. In today’s world pictures, unless deliberately altered, merely strengthen our mental perception of a person and often willingly or not betrays the character of the one photographed.