Expert testifies liberal Google moved 2 million to 10 million votes to Hillary in 2016

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

Trump won the popular vote too?

[Voltaire 4,554]

It was intended to counteract the 5-6 votes Russia may have swayed.

I'm wondering where I can find more on this.

[drobeski 3,061]

How many different ways did they cheat and still lose ? 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

2 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

Trump won the popular vote too?

Apparently so.

That's not even accounting for places like California/New York where there's rampant voter fraud.

[BufordT 371]

Anyone who believes this is just as nuts as those who believe Russia stole the election.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

21 minutes ago, BufordT said:

Anyone who believes this is just as nuts as those who believe Russia stole the election.

You don’t think Google edits organic search results or search suggestions? You think they are 100% legit and unbiased?

[nobody 2,031]

Cambridge Analytics swayed 3 million to 11 million votes towards Trump

[Cdub100 3,366]

5 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You don’t think Google edits search organic search results or search suggestions? You think they are 100% legit and unbiased?

All you have to do is go to Google and try for yourself. Google used different results completely when compared to bring, Yahoo, duck duck go etc...

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

15 minutes ago, BufordT said:

Anyone who believes this is just as nuts as those who believe Russia stole the election.

 Just another conspiracy, huh? Like CIA/FBI/DOJ spied on Trump? Like Hillary Pay to Play State Dept? Uranium One? Seth Rich gave the emails to Wkileaks?

Aren't you tired of being wrong and writing stuff off that doesn't go along with your political ideology? Pause before you dismiss something and READ up on it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

6 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You don’t think Google edits search organic search results or search suggestions? You think they are 100% legit and unbiased?

How exactly would Google searched sway votes either way really? It immeasurable in any event. 

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

All you have to do is go to Google and try for yourself. Google used different results completely when compared to bring, Yahoo, duck duck go etc...

Yeah it’s definitely been proven numerous times and there’s countless examples. When you do things in mass it does sway votes, I don’t know why some people can’t grasp it. 

[Cdub100 3,366]

3 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

How exactly would Google searched sway votes either way really? It immeasurable in any event. 

You can't think of a way for the world's most used search engine could sway opinions on candidates?

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

3 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

How exactly would Google searched sway votes either way really? It immeasurable in any event. 

You know, you’re right. Google is a 100% legit company and they had no bias whatsoever for one candidate or the other.

[RLLD 3,455]

8 minutes ago, nobody said:

Cambridge Analytics swayed 3 million to 11 million votes towards Trump

I think Hillary swayed more toward Trump than anyone else on the planet....

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

6 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

How exactly would Google searched sway votes either way really? It immeasurable in any event. 

Go research that expert's claim and see what you find AFTER you learn what he's researching.

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

Yesterday-  It doesn't matter what Russia did with Facebook it didn't influence or change anything.

Today - Google moved 10 million votes to Hillary.

:

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yesterday-  It doesn't matter what Russia did with Facebook it didn't influence or change anything.

Today - Google moved 10 million votes to Hillary.

:

It is a little funny....

[Kanil 519]

Why does it matter if a company used their influence to push their agenda?

[DonS 3,063]

For sh1ts and grins I tried googling on "Google and Hillary Clinton".  Most of the results were for random Hillary stuff but I did find the following article. Interesting read:  http://www.aei.org/publication/is-google-manipulating-search-results-to-promote-a-political-and-social-justice-agenda/

[BufordT 371]

16 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yesterday-  It doesn't matter what Russia did with Facebook it didn't influence or change anything.

Today - Google moved 10 million votes to Hillary.

:

  Self awareness is lacking around here.

[BufordT 371]

43 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You don’t think Google edits organic search results or search suggestions? You think they are 100% legit and unbiased?

I generally don't use google but I doubt a google search swayed any more votes than Russia interference.  I think both are crap.

[Strike 3,947]

15 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Why does it matter if a company used their influence to push their agenda?

Seriously? 

[RLLD 3,455]

20 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Why does it matter if a company used their influence to push their agenda?

The people need protection from companies, they also need protection from the government itself.

Powerful entities should be muted in their influence over the governmental structure.  The government should serve the people first.   Companies should not have a prominent voice in governmental policy.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

23 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Why does it matter if a company used their influence to push their agenda?

Wow

[Cruzer 1,992]

47 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Why does it matter if a company used their influence to push their agenda?

Happens all the time.

My firm ROUTINELY sends out all personnel emails - emails letting us know of particular Judges up for reelection/election, petitions to be signed and/or of propositions on a ballot.

If one thinks these emails are simple/friendly/informative updates on our local election scene - they truly are focking stupid.

[Kanil 519]

23 minutes ago, Strike said:

Seriously? 

 

17 minutes ago, RLLD said:

The people need protection from companies, they also need protection from the government itself.

Powerful entities should be muted in their influence over the governmental structure.  The government should serve the people first.   Companies should not have a prominent voice in governmental policy.

 

15 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Wow

I haven't heard a word from you all about the massive oil companies, NRA, and other right leaning groups spending money to influence elections.  But I guess maybe you have and I just missed it.

[RLLD 3,455]

11 minutes ago, Kanil said:

I haven't heard a word from you all about the massive oil companies, NRA, and other right leaning groups spending money to influence elections.  But I guess maybe you have and I just missed it.

Why would we not also need protection from them, not sure I understand the question....

[Voltaire 4,554]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

I think Hillary swayed more toward Trump than anyone else on the planet....

[Strike 3,947]

14 minutes ago, Kanil said:

 

 

I haven't heard a word from you all about the massive oil companies, NRA, and other right leaning groups spending money to influence elections.  But I guess maybe you have and I just missed it.

If Google wants to donate to a PAC I'm fine with that.  They can donate to existing lobbying/political organizations, or create their own using the rules defined by the government/FEC.  But they can't just behind the scenes try to influence an election. 

[Gladiators 1,903]

Just now, Strike said:

If Google wants to donate to a PAC I'm fine with that.  They can donate to existing lobbying/political organizations, or create their own using the rules defined by the government/FEC.  But they can't just behind the scenes try to influence an election. 

[Kanil 519]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

If Google wants to donate to a PAC I'm fine with that.  They can donate to existing lobbying/political organizations, or create their own using the rules defined by the government/FEC.  But they can't just behind the scenes try to influence an election. 

So Google can't do with their company what they want to do?  How did you feel about the gay cake bakery incident?

[Kanil 519]

17 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Why would we not also need protection from them, not sure I understand the question....

I see your point and at least you're being consistent.  I am for a little regulation as possible (something the R party used to stand for, along with fiscal conservatism) and this thread screams of whining for Google to be regulated.

[RLLD 3,455]

Just now, Kanil said:

I see your point and at least you're being consistent.  I am for a little regulation as possible (something the R party used to stand for, along with fiscal conservatism) and this thread screams of whining for Google to be regulated.

I think there is a balance to be struck.   I am inclined to limit regulation where ever possible, but time and again corporations have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions and guardrails are warranted.

[sderk 1,040]

2 minutes ago, Kanil said:

So Google can't do with their company what they want to do?  How did you feel about the gay cake bakery incident?

Refusing to make cakes for gays is not a mass political statement. It's a religious and/or moral choice. 

[Strike 3,947]

Just now, Kanil said:

So Google can't do with their company what they want to do?  How did you feel about the gay cake bakery incident?

Apples and Oranges.  We have rules about what you can do re: election influencing, whether it be contribution limits or in other ways.  They have been challenged up to the SCOTUS and a set of rules exist based upon those laws and court rulings.  The gay cake incident is interesting because it pits two rights defined in the BOR's against each other.  It also went to the SCOTUS who has ruled on it.  So not real sure what you're looking for.  Basically, we have rules and Google needs to adhere to them.

[Lil' Webtoed Porkbutt 155]

5 minutes ago, Kanil said:

So Google can't do with their company what they want to do?  How did you feel about the gay cake bakery incident?

The cake was gay? I didn't even know cakes had genders. 

[Kanil 519]

2 minutes ago, sderk said:

Refusing to make cakes for gays is not a mass political statement. It's a religious and/or moral choice. 

Googles biggest product is search results.  Can they not define their product based on their moral beliefs?

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Apples and Oranges.  We have rules about what you can do re: election influencing, whether it be contribution limits or in other ways.  They have been challenged up to the SCOTUS and a set of rules exist based upon those laws and court rulings.  The gay cake incident is interesting because it pits two rights defined in the BOR's against each other.  It also went to the SCOTUS who has ruled on it.  So not real sure what you're looking for.  Basically, we have rules and Google needs to adhere to them.

You say there's a rule or law against what they are doing.  Tell me what law/rule specifically they are breaking?

[Gladiators 1,903]

7 minutes ago, Kanil said:

So Google can't do with their company what they want to do?  How did you feel about the gay cake bakery incident?

Would you be okay with companies buying votes?  For example, big oil offering free tanks of gas for those who vote for the individuals they're backing.

[Kanil 519]

1 minute ago, Lil' Webtoed Porkbutt said:

The cake was gay? I didn't even know cakes had genders. 

If you don't know about cake gender, you're mind is going to be blown when you learn about the taco truck.