Google munipulated millions of votes in 2016

[healthmyths]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

You didn't read the above link did you????

One of Epstein's studies — which claims 2.6 million votes could have been shifted in favor of Clinton because of a bias in Google's search results — surveyed only 95 participants,

• Epstein told CNN on Monday that Trump misrepresented his findings, saying he didn't have evidence to prove Google actively "manipulated" millions of voters, but rather the bias he found in its search results was "sufficient to have shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes" to Clinton.
• Epstein's findings are based on a phenomenon he says he's been studying for more than six years. He calls it the "Search Engine Manipulation Effect."
  The crux of the theory, as he explained it in the 2016 Sputniknews article, is simple. "All Google has to do is show people search results that favor one candidate, in this case Hillary Clinton, higher in search results," he said.
  
  
• In other words, the theory goes, the more positive information about one candidate shows up in search results, the more likely voters will be to favor that candidate.

 

[healthmyths]

I'll tell you what Lakhota....
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that Trump misunderstood Epstein proved that the bias was such that 2.6 to 10.4 million voters COULD have
shifted to Hillary...again based on Google's search results.
Here is just ONE example of how Google BIASES search results:
I just did Google search "Trump anti-immigrant"!
115,000 results...Almost all probably have the contention "Trump anti-immigrant"...EVEN though he's married to an immigrant and his grandmother
was an immigrant!
BUT do a Google search "Trump anti-illegal immigrant"
Only 550 results!

NOW you tell me that Google doesn't have a BIAS?
How about this for a BIAS?
Google’s executives and employees employed a variety of strategies to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. Google permeated Clinton’s sphere of influence on a broad scale, rivaling the influence it exerted over the Obama administration. A review found at least 57 people were affiliated with both Clinton—in her presidential campaign, in her State Department, at her family foundation—and with Google or related entities. In addition, 10 people who worked under Clinton at the State Department later joined the New America Foundation, a Google-friendly think tank where Google’s Eric Schmidt served as chairman and was one of its top donors.
Schmidt met regularly with Clinton advisors during the campaign to discuss issues such as where the voter-targeting operation should be located and how to compile all accessible information about voters in a single file. After meeting with Schmidt in April 2014, the future Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta reported: “he’s ready to fund, advise, recruit talent, etc.
Google also is an annual financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative, a project of the Clinton Foundation. It has donated at least $9.6 million in grants to the foundation’s charitable initiatives and nonprofit members.

Google's Support for Hillary Clinton
NOW tell me again there is NO bias at Google!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First the Trumpers blamed imaginary illegal Mexican voters. Now they blame Google.

Imagine what it would be like if they'd LOST?
These are the winners whining.
Unbelievable.

So it doesn't bother you at all that Google is cooking their search engine? Is it because they chose your side? When such a powerful company becomes an advocacy group, it can't be good. It is bad enough they fire people for political reasons.

Taking down groups engaged in hate speech and violence is NOT wrong.

Your hate speech is my patriotism and vice versa. 1st Amendment!

Your point is moot. Have a nice day!

The First Amendment applies to government, not businesses.

Hey dumbass! If that business is given a pass for liability for damages for the things I post by the government, they are not allowed to restrict that speech.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

You went to full auto retard three back to back post with the same bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll tell you what Lakhota....
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that Trump misunderstood Epstein proved that the bias was such that 2.6 to 10.4 million voters COULD have
shifted to Hillary...again based on Google's search results.
Here is just ONE example of how Google BIASES search results:
I just did Google search "Trump anti-immigrant"!
115,000 results...Almost all probably have the contention "Trump anti-immigrant"...EVEN though he's married to an immigrant and his grandmother
was an immigrant!
BUT do a Google search "Trump anti-illegal immigrant"
Only 550 results!

NOW you tell me that Google doesn't have a BIAS?
How about this for a BIAS?
Google’s executives and employees employed a variety of strategies to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. Google permeated Clinton’s sphere of influence on a broad scale, rivaling the influence it exerted over the Obama administration. A review found at least 57 people were affiliated with both Clinton—in her presidential campaign, in her State Department, at her family foundation—and with Google or related entities. In addition, 10 people who worked under Clinton at the State Department later joined the New America Foundation, a Google-friendly think tank where Google’s Eric Schmidt served as chairman and was one of its top donors.
Schmidt met regularly with Clinton advisors during the campaign to discuss issues such as where the voter-targeting operation should be located and how to compile all accessible information about voters in a single file. After meeting with Schmidt in April 2014, the future Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta reported: “he’s ready to fund, advise, recruit talent, etc.
Google also is an annual financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative, a project of the Clinton Foundation. It has donated at least $9.6 million in grants to the foundation’s charitable initiatives and nonprofit members.

Google's Support for Hillary Clinton
NOW tell me again there is NO bias at Google!
View attachment 275291
View attachment 275290

I'll do a google search on obama and all the front three pages will be about Trump.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

Trumpdrones are crying about Hillary losing -

YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP !

No, we're making a correction "she won the popular vote" Bullshit you TDS'ers have been spewing

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did Google rig voting machines?

How did Russia?

there is growing evidence that they did more than media blitzing...

Mueller report: Russia hacked state databases and voting machine companies
Russian intelligence officers injected malicious SQL code and then ran commands to extract information
The Russian military intelligence unit known by its initials GRU targeted U.S. state election offices as well as U.S. makers of voting machines, according to Mueller’s report.

Victims of the Russian hacking operation “included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities,” the report said. “The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.”

The Russian intelligence officers at GRU exploited known vulnerabilities on websites of state and local election offices by injecting malicious SQL code on such websites that then ran commands on underlying databases to extract information.
[...]
Mueller report: Russia hacked state databases and voting machine companies

& THIS should scare any real patriotic american wanting to keep our next election safe & secure & accurate.... but by the looks of it, that wouldn't include donny or moscow mitch, who won't do a fucking thing to protect us from a foreign hostile state hacking into the machines... which btw can be bought on ebay & can teach anybody how to get into them.

But yet Google couldn't?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote. Nothing has changed. You people are sore winners.

hey- didn't you hear? hillary also colluded with the russians & that 'fake' dossier was all to help make her..............


lose!!!

It wasn't Hillary also
Hillary did collude with the Russians.

hows Obama's birth certificate workin' out for you, Cooter ?

Is that relevant for this thread snowflake?

your conspiracy horseshit isnt relevant in any thread - COOTER.

It's not a conspiracy snowflake just because you don't like it.

 

[playtime]

How did Google rig voting machines?

How did Russia?

there is growing evidence that they did more than media blitzing...

Mueller report: Russia hacked state databases and voting machine companies
Russian intelligence officers injected malicious SQL code and then ran commands to extract information
The Russian military intelligence unit known by its initials GRU targeted U.S. state election offices as well as U.S. makers of voting machines, according to Mueller’s report.

Victims of the Russian hacking operation “included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities,” the report said. “The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.”

The Russian intelligence officers at GRU exploited known vulnerabilities on websites of state and local election offices by injecting malicious SQL code on such websites that then ran commands on underlying databases to extract information.
[...]
Mueller report: Russia hacked state databases and voting machine companies

& THIS should scare any real patriotic american wanting to keep our next election safe & secure & accurate.... but by the looks of it, that wouldn't include donny or moscow mitch, who won't do a fucking thing to protect us from a foreign hostile state hacking into the machines... which btw can be bought on ebay & can teach anybody how to get into them.

But yet Google couldn't?

lol... do you think google has the capability/expertise/thoroughness/ that the GRU does? just how far up trump's ass are you?

 

[playtime]

hey- didn't you hear? hillary also colluded with the russians & that 'fake' dossier was all to help make her..............


lose!!!

It wasn't Hillary also
Hillary did collude with the Russians.

hows Obama's birth certificate workin' out for you, Cooter ?

Is that relevant for this thread snowflake?

your conspiracy horseshit isnt relevant in any thread - COOTER.

It's not a conspiracy snowflake just because you don't like it.

does your brain hurt?

 

[dblack]

The First Amendment applies to government, not businesses.

Hey dumbass! If that business is given a pass for liability for damages for the things I post by the government, they are not allowed to restrict that speech.

Hey [insert gratuitous insult]! I said nothing about giving anyone a pass. I said the First Amendment doesn't apply to businesses. Intelligent conservatives used to get that. But Trump's goons bear no resemblance to intelligent conservatives.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The First Amendment applies to government, not businesses.

Hey dumbass! If that business is given a pass for liability for damages for the things I post by the government, they are not allowed to restrict that speech.

Hey [insert gratuitous insult]! I said nothing about giving anyone a pass. I said the First Amendment doesn't apply to businesses. Intelligent conservatives used to get that. But Trump's goons bear no resemblance to intelligent conservatives.

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

 

[dblack]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

 

[dblack]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

Hah.... yeah, I just don't get it! All I see is a bunch of pissy Trump clowns who want to use the government to bully businesses that won't placate them.

Typical statists whining for the government to beat up on people they don't like.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

Hah.... yeah, I just don't get it! All I see is a bunch of pissy Trump clowns who want to use the government to bully businesses that won't placate them.

Typical statists whining for the government to beat up on people they don't like.

You are right. You don't get the fact that being biased violates their liability exemption.

 

[healthmyths]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

I agree with you! It is not a First Amendment issue.
It is a competition and I like millions like me have STOPPED using Google Search and this is dropping their revenue from advertising.
But the sales revenue, based primarily on advertising, was also not great: the figure grew 17 percent, compared to a year ago, when it was growing at 26 percent.
Alphabet misses on Q1 revenues of $36.3B; EPS of $9.50 weighed down by the $1.7B European fine – TechCrunch

 

[dblack]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

Hah.... yeah, I just don't get it! All I see is a bunch of pissy Trump clowns who want to use the government to bully businesses that won't placate them.

Typical statists whining for the government to beat up on people they don't like.

You are right. You don't get the fact that being biased violates their liability exemption.

Heh... I'll consider a dodge that ridiculous a concession.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So dumb you cannot even insult people? That is sad!

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

As you phrased it, your comment has nothing to do with the topic. The entire concept of hate speech is unconstitutional. The right case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. Your goons will just have to get used to that when it comes to restrictions on free speech.

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

Hah.... yeah, I just don't get it! All I see is a bunch of pissy Trump clowns who want to use the government to bully businesses that won't placate them.

Typical statists whining for the government to beat up on people they don't like.

You are right. You don't get the fact that being biased violates their liability exemption.

Heh... I'll consider a dodge that ridiculous a concession.

I would never push a Dodge, much less drive one!

Why don't you just admit you have no clue what you are ranting about because you have everything 180 degrees out of order?

 

[dblack]

Maybe I need to take a class or something. How do I sign up for Trump University?

My goons? Who would that be?

My comment has everything to do with the topic because Trump supporters are clamoring for the feds to "crack down" on the media companies they don't like. And they're citing the First Amendment as their justification. It doesn't apply at all. If anything, the First Amendment protects these companies from just such crackdown.

You haven't really contradicted that, so I assume you know I'm right and just don't want to admit it outright.

If the problem is, as you alluded to, that there's some kind of blanket immunity to liability granted to these companies - well that's on government. Revoke the immunity and stop bitching. Trying to patch bad policy with even more bad policy IS the slippery slope.

The crackdown is for these companies trying to silence conservatives! By being selective, they are no longer exempt from liability.

You just don't even understand the fucking problem, so why don't you just STFU and learn!

You think Democrats are going to vote in favor of silencing their lapdogs? You really are a dumbass!

Hah.... yeah, I just don't get it! All I see is a bunch of pissy Trump clowns who want to use the government to bully businesses that won't placate them.

Typical statists whining for the government to beat up on people they don't like.

You are right. You don't get the fact that being biased violates their liability exemption.

Heh... I'll consider a dodge that ridiculous a concession.

I would never push a Dodge, much less drive one!

Why don't you just admit you have no clue what you are ranting about because you have everything 180 degrees out of order?

You're the one who framed this as a First Amendment issue. You are wrong. If anything, the First Amendment protects businesses from the kind of government bullying that Trumpsters are so excited about.