Slashdot Mirror


Trump Accuses Google of Rigging Search Results To Favor 'Bad' News About Him (cnet.com)

President Donald Trump says Google search results for "Trump News" show only negative coverage about him. From a report: The results present "only the viewing/reporting of Fake New (sic) Media," the president tweeted early Tuesday. He said it's a "very serious situation" that "will be addressed!" "In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of ... " he wrote in the first of two tweets at 5:24 a.m. ET. Update: White House probes Google after Trump accuses it of bias.

1,024 comments

  1. Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

    1. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

      https://pjmedia.com/trending/g...

      You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

    2. Re: Occam's Razor by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:Occam's Razor by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

      You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

      If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Occam's Razor by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

      https://pjmedia.com/trending/g...

      You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

      This only makes sense if you provide objective evidence that ) there's a number of non-liberal (mean conservative) news sources that cover trump comparable to those liberal news outlets you refer to, and/or B) conservative news outlets produce media and news at rates and quantities comparable of those produced by the liberal news outlets.

      Until then, the simpler explanation should stand.

    5. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a lot of reasons this can happen. Google ranks pages higher when they are shared / linked to more often. Google is not "neutral" in the fact that they let more popular pages rise to the top. Not being neutral in that respect is what made them what they are vs. search engines that only rank on keywords - it weeds out spam. But not being neutral is not the same as intentional bias.

    6. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

      I'd rather wish for the genie to be free and forget the other two wishes.

      But hey, you can get over your partisan biases without the help of magic. All you have to do is ask yourself why Sinclair broadcasting is so manipulative and deceitful.

    7. Re:Occam's Razor by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.

      You believe that your own worldview is always right, you believe that your preferred sources are the "trusted" sources and that others are suspect, etc.

      Strangely enough, the filters and systems you build produce the results you want.

    8. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Occam's Razor: Trump does one helluva job creating bad news about himself.

      And I voted for him (well, actually I voted against Hillary, but the net effect was the same...)

      Recent example: Leaving the White House flag at full staff when every other flag in Washington DC was at half-mast for Senator McCain.

      Trump's got pretty much the same approval ratings as Obama with none of Obama's likeability. The way the US economy has been doing, Trump should be on his way to a repeat of Ronald Reagan's 1984 running of the Electoral College table where Reagan was something like 4,000 votes in Minnesota away from winning every single state.

      But no, Trump's fucking it up.

    9. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.

    10. Re: Occam's Razor by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

      I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.

    11. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Prolific is not a useful metric (the plague was prolific). Also, Facebook shares are not usually indexable by Google. Even though it's "only" a magazine, The Atlantic has been publishing for over 150 years.

      Being a number 1 rated news channel is not a prize to be proud of. There are only two large enough to be in the running and both are extremely sensationalist and should not serve as a primary news source to anyone with a rational mind.

    12. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And I voted for him (well, actually I voted against Hillary, but the net effect was the same...)

      people like you are whats wrong with democracy

    13. Re:Occam's Razor by rickb928 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"

      And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Fox is #1 because it's basically the only conservative news outlet. If you add up every other news outlet it far exceeds Fox viewership.

      CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel

      And now you know how someone like Donald Trump gets elected in the first place.

    15. Re:Occam's Razor by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It does require a non-simple person to see and understand that though. That does not seem to be the case here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might also want to include, conservative sites that produce news that is believable to anyone outside their own echo chamber.

      There are a few, but they are very few in comparison to mainstream media.

    17. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google rigs all the news and all the searches.... It use to be search engine, now it is propaganda machine...Does anyone still sues google???

    18. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?

      Just noting you are pulling your argument out of your ass or just plain ignorance.

    19. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      Have you been to most of this country?

    20. Re: Occam's Razor by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      Someone has never been to the midwest.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    21. Re: Occam's Razor by drewsup · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yup, left wing media constantly smears Trump , then exclaims ," OMG, look at all the bad stories about him" also bumps up G ranking for bad stories, its a self sustaining cycle!

    22. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "the two party system."

    23. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      After you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, must be the truth.

      In 19 months Trump has kept or is actively working on keeping more campaign promises than any major politician in recent American history. Roughly 50% of the country supports his agenda, and his approval rating reflects this, yet his coverage in the mainstream media (MSM) is over 90% negative. So if the MSM didn't hate him and/or have an agenda against him, then why is there such a mismatch between his approval rating and the proportion of positive articles about him?

      A priori, if the MSM would just report on the good and bad things about his actions as they happen and without bias, then I would expect there to be a positive-negative article split similar to his approval rating, or perhaps an even higher approval rating as the media is known to strongly affect public opinion.

      And don't give me any elitist BS that "the media knows better" and that "the average person is stupid" because if that premise were true then they'd have no problem convincing all the stupid people that they're right, and the fact that Trump has about half the population on his side would mean that he by himself is as smart as the entirety of the MSM... which actually might be true given the hysteria we've been subjected to since he was elected.

    24. Re:Occam's Razor by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").

      Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?

      For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.

      But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.

    26. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Google is a private company. Republicans are notorious for asking for less government intervention and regulation. Google can return whatever results they do choose. You can choose to boycott Google for their actions. See how far that'll get you... Or start your own search engine that guarantees pro DT news only.

      Do you recall Google fighting for net neutrality ? Do you recall the premise that no company should control what users could see on the internet. I am fine with them censoring and acting as a publisher, they just have abandon the protections they enjoy as a neutral conduit that doesn't publish.

    27. Re:Occam's Razor by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Really? Most of the results come from Trump himself, whether as a result of reporting on things he's done or his constant stream of self congratulating verbal diarrhea. The man is a fucking crybaby attention seeking fool and this latest moan just confirms it as if it needed confirming.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    28. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few outside the US think US media outlets are reputable

      FTFY!

    29. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Funny

      I haven't been to the Sun but I am pretty certain it's mostly Hydrogen.

    30. Re: Occam's Razor by gorehog · · Score: 0

      Most of the country by population, not territory.

    31. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Even if it's true that Google is rigged, so what?

      OK, let's stop moving the goalposts here (sounds like some "collusion" argument I heard lately). What they're doing, neutral or not, is legal. It's fine. The question is whether they're doing it so that a reasonable person can set their expectations accordingly.

    32. Re:Occam's Razor by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      NO, people like you are what is wrong with this nation. I don't care who people vote for, it is their right. You on the other hand, hate those that did not vote for your candidate of choice. By the way fool, she lost because she did not work some key states. Also, fool. Your party of choice fucked over Bernie... He should have won the primary asshole, and thus the election.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    33. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its easy to test it by doing the same search on google and duckduckgo.

    34. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not as simple as that. Trump has contradicted himself countless times, so even without any outside reference the factual record shows that he has been lying constantly. (As the old Dire Straits song says: "two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.") And then there are the people that repeat Trump's lies and that are the sources of Trump's lies. Discounting Trump and these people is not bias, it is the cold, objective application of logic.

      Bringing in external facts exposes even more lies, to the point that when Trump says something chances are high that he's lying. That's still not bias, it is purely statistics and logic.

    35. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Here you go
      https://www.agclassroom.org/ga...

      P.S. Milwaukee was a great city same for Chicago, can't say much about them lately apparently their democrat governments have been doing damage to them. G

    36. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using "it's an algorithm" as an excuse denies Google any agency in this. Algorithms reflect the priorities of their designers.

    37. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.

      The Trump2020 Campaign would like to take this opportunity to thank you for driving even more voters to Trump and the Republican Party with your display of virulent, raw hatred & contempt for half of the nation.

      Bravo, Sir, bravo!!

      MAGA! Trump2020

    38. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The news outlets I mentioned are ranked amongst the top on the web

      citation needed.

    39. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2
    40. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      So that would be why the BBC managed not to be included ?

      HMMMM

    41. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, Trump's pretty much spot on on the fake news aspect.

    42. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love Trump? Guess that means Trump 2020

      Hate Trump? Guess that means Trump 2020

    43. Re:Occam's Razor by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most media outlets are rather centrist. However we have a President treating the presidency like a Reality TV Show, and not government.
      So every time he has a temper tantrum, or trolls on twitter, the Media needs to call him out on this for clarification. However he doesn't want to answer the tough questions. So it leads his intentions up to interpretations.

      While I am all for an open government, A presidents internal monologue shouldn't be broadcasted. Because it distracts from the issues at hand, and less on substance we are focusing on intent.

      Trump is doing it to himself. Sure some site may be left leaning, however even most left leaning site will not go out of the way to to hinder the president unless they feel what he is doing is that wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    44. Re: Occam's Razor by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I agree with you entirely.

      And to take your point to a logical conclusion, perhaps we should expect Google to be honest:

      - Admit it manipulates search results for a variety of reasons.
      - That some of those reasons are not related to popularity, or fairness, or equal treatment.
      - That they do not make these decisions based on fairness or equal treatment, and so users should not expect that they will receive results or outcomes that are fair or based on equal treatment, and have no complaint.
      - And that Google will, if it chooses to, make decisions based on corporate, or perhaps management's personal opinions or beliefs, and may not disclose that they do in any specific circumstance or situation.

      And we should, perhaps, expect other search engines, aggregators, and even media and social sites, to make similar statements.

      Honesty would seem to be a fundamental value we could ask these businesses to demonstrate. Other businesses have succeeded and failed because of their adherence (or lack) to principles of honesty. There is nothing special about Internet businesses to me. Do you hold them to a different standard? Why?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    45. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .Does anyone still sues google???

      Only the European Commission when they need some extra lining for their coffers.

    46. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What percentage of google search results about Hillary does come or came from conservative media outlets?
      Depending on the political bent of a media outlet they probably cover a lot more ground reporting negative things about their opponents. And now since Hillary isn't as important than the actual President you shouldn't be surprised that Trump gets a lot more exposure.

      Other than that, yes, google can be biased. But they're a private corporation. They have the same right to be biased as other private corporations like FOX or Breitbart. The First Amendment gives them that right.

      If Trump doesn't like that, he's free to have his friends come up with a conservative answer to google.

    47. Re:Occam's Razor by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Recent example: Leaving the White House flag at full staff when every other flag in Washington DC was at half-mast for Senator McCain."

      And returning it to half-staff, reported on Twitter at 12:46 PM, 27 Aug 2018.

      Trump is also responsive.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    48. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one.

      The simples explanation is: he's right.

      Google has a long history of bias and acting on it. They push sites like Snopes as fact checkers. They cooperate with Vox and the SPLC. They have algorithm "accidents" that hit conservatives. And so on and so forth.

    49. Re:Occam's Razor by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The president will get negative press no matter what.
      Sometimes it will be partisan, sometimes it is just based on fact.
      For the news, Pain sells, so the president will be shown for all his mistakes over the successes.
      We need a responsible adult to realize that, and move forward.

      Being President of the United States is the worlds most thankless job.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    50. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.

      Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.

    51. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only the liberal media covered what Trump had wished to say and do, instead of what he actually said and did. It really isn't fair. I believe this is why all liberals hate Trump.

      Interestingly, conservative media is just as hostile to Trump as the liberal media is. For whatever reason, they're covering the same stories and presenting the exact same facts, and Trump looks just as bad there. This is almost certainly the reason that all conservatives hate Trump.

      Trump needs to abolish all liberal and conservative media. And get the fucking centrists too! This is what he should be concentrating on doing for the next 2 years. Not legal defense; just get rid of the free press.

      And then there's the Republican media, such as Fox News. They are the only ones who had the insight to realize that facts are bad things, and it is insulting to presidents and America to tell people facts about what they said and did. America needs to be kept in the dark and media's job isn't done until everyone is powerless, under the rule of benevolent government, These are the only people who do the right thing and play ball. When the revolution comes, the Republican media is the one who will be spared, dancing on the graves of the conservatives and liberals.

    52. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine... don't use google and have a nice day! There are other Search engines out there! In fact, maybe start your own search engine. Make it a competitor to Google. This way you can use the free market to show your search engine is better and more fair than Google. Then everyone will use your search engine and you will never need to work another day in your life!

      Or just complain and not try to improve things... that works too!

    53. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From real news outlets. You've been damaged to the point where real news is "liberal" to you, and you need a safe-space where you'll be told the lies that the far-right craves.

    54. Re:Occam's Razor by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure you'd love that to be the reason, and not the fact that the loudest conservative media outlets in the US are demonstrably terrible at being actual media outlets. Those media outlets do it to themselves with their constant bullshitting and scaremongering.

    55. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This suggests you may have a point ... https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

    56. Re:Occam's Razor by onepoint · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I looked at your link, read the entire thing,
      so I asked myself, why are the results this way...

      Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.

      you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies.
      They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms
      While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules

      CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.

      it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.

      so yes, the leaning to non-trump side.
      Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue.
      ( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    57. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, no. You think mainstream American media is "leftist" because you've been brainwashed by the far-right. Republican propaganda outlets are really disreputable. The party has gone insane from it's own B.S.

    58. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's useful
      Just looking at that, the WSJ has more sites linking in than either the WAPO or USA Today but isn't represented in the top 100 search results while the the others were.

      Are you out to demonstrate my premise for me ?

    59. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable

      Or more simply, very few outside the US think any US media outlet is reputable.

    60. Re: Occam's Razor by infolation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet... Trump's tweet has achieved its goal.

      Up until his tweet today, Google's first page of results for 'Trump News' did indeed return 'only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media.'

      But since Trump's tweet that crucial first page is now 100% news about his tweet, replacing the voice of the news with noise from Trump.

    61. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not Us-Ian, I would think many of the Canadian non-govt news websites meet this criterion.

    62. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?

      Seems we were talking about local/regional/national/global and now you are trying to switch over to another metric

    63. Re:Occam's Razor by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I kind of wonder if Google shows exactly the same news to all users. I sometimes see significant differences between which News links are presented by Google in different browsers on the same computer. Of course, that might be due to changes in ranking in the time between the invocations of Google. OTOH, they could be tailoring what is presented to their assumptions about my tastes and interests. How would I know?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    64. Re: Occam's Razor by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's not what net neutrality is. You appear to have a terrifying habit of assuming you are correct when you are not, and not bothering to check whether you are correct in the first place. It would explain an awful lot of what you say, such as when you got your climate change science incorrect and went off in a huff.

    65. Re:Occam's Razor by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"

      And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

      Sorry, but no. By European standards, Fox News is a conspiracy theorist right-wing tabloid. Pretty much every Fox News opinion host is perceived as a populist, fear-mongering, right-wing extremist. We form this opinion based on our own cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills - no "leftist media" required.

    66. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's still no conspiracy.

      90% of the major news outlets are left leaning.

      Now if you took a look at the opinions of, say, coal magnates, I'd say you'd get 90% pro. Not the left fault for dominating media.

    67. Re:Occam's Razor by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure there wil be a medical term for what he has. He has a mental condition (Not even saying he is an idiot or a moron.) that makes him think he is always right and others are always wrong.

      And it is not even "most of the times", it is the "always" that makes it a medical issue.

      Or perhaps I am just to kind for him.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    68. Re: Occam's Razor by houghi · · Score: 0

      That 5% is just very spread out over a large area.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    69. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Recent example: Leaving the White House flag at full staff when every other flag in Washington DC was at half-mast for Senator McCain."

      And returning it to half-staff, reported on Twitter at 12:46 PM, 27 Aug 2018.

      Trump is also responsive.

      But that's the kind of response Trump wouldn't have had to do if he had any real political savvy.

    70. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. I miss the days when we had moderate members of Congress great, the Senate the presidency and judiciary. Now all we have is a bunch of extremsists and our reality TV superstar is leading the way to more extremism.

    71. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?

      How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.

      The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and shared (increasing the linkback count).

    72. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're using a web search engine to find news sites, maybe the problem is you, not the search results.

    73. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      That listing doesn't show how many of those inbound links are to Trump articles. You really don't understand how Google's search algorithm works, do you?

    74. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I kind of wonder if Google shows exactly the same news to all users.

      They probably don't. They've already said as much for their regular search results. I don't think that's the supposed bias being claimed here. Especially since it goes against the biases of the person "researching" the article.

    75. Re:Occam's Razor by kqs · · Score: 4, Funny

      And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

      Nope, there is NOTHING that other media can do to make US conservative media outlets seem more disreputable.

    76. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation being that Trump is a retarded piece of shit.

    77. Re:Occam's Razor by houghi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And CNN is seen as right wing as well in Europe.
      Politicaly compared to the rest of the world the US has a right wing and extreme right lunatics.

      (Yes, Urup also has extreme right, but also extreme left and all things in between.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    78. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Being unable to spell words the words you choose to use makes you look like a yokel....

      Rule #1 of calling people out for their misuse of the English language on the internet: make sure your own house is in order first.

    79. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a sister to impregnate? Isn't that what you people do best? All those family trees without branches... do you animals not know better?

    80. Re: Occam's Razor by kqs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup, left wing media constantly smears Trump

      It is completely impossible for anyone to smear Trump more than his own tweets and speeches.

    81. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Hate Trump? Guess that means Trump 2020

      ANTIFA and other hate-driven, violent Leftist groups should be prosecuted under campaign finance laws for providing material support to the Trump campaign and Republicans in the mid-terms. They've done orders of magnitude more to expand and solidify Republican/Trump support than many millions of dollars' worth of cross-platform advertising could possibly hope to accomplish.

    82. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snopes rates this as "I'm a dumbass liberal and love shoving a fully ripe zucchini up my arse without lube."

      See, ackshully, Google just favors liberal media outlets, which in turn, know that ORANGE MAN BAD. So Google isn't conspiring directly to promote bad news about BAD ORANGE MAN.

    83. Re:Occam's Razor by e3m4n · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Normally I'm inclined to agree. However, after the revelation of all the whitehouse meetings disclosed by the Google transparency project, it definitely sounds more like coordinated thought control using ideas like 'group think' to control opinion.

      A detailed examination of White House visitor logs reveals the extraordinary access to the Obama White House enjoyed by Google, its top executives and employees. Since President Obama took office in January 2009 through October 31, 2015, employees of Google and associated entities visited the White House 427 times.

      That includes:

      363 meetings between White House officials and Google employees.
      64 meetings involving employees of companies solely owned by Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt.
      The meetings were attended by at least 169 Google executives, from the company’s senior ranks down to software engineers, and 182 White House officials.

        Interesting that software engineers are in attendance. Im sure everyone brings software engineers with them to meetings top executives have with major world celebrities and organizations, whose meetings are only discussing broad topics like where is the internet headed.

      you can read the full report here https://googletransparencyproj...

      When you compare it to other tech companies, telecom companies like ATT etc, all of them combined do not have this many visits. In fact the only other tech company with a disproportionate amount of WH visits during this time is Facebook. Interesting that software engineers are in attendance. I'm sure its not because the former POTUS was trying to use Google to track down the last of his missing Pokemon cards. Conspiracy's are not usually simple, but the motives generally _are_. Power and Greed are always the strongest motivators.

      the conspiracies about Google (which is also Google+ as well as YouTube) and Facebook spying on the public for the government, and imposing their own, guided, form of GroupThink predate Trump by many years. In fact some of the naysayer's here argued quite the opposite back then, before it was used for something they don't seem to mind.

    84. Re: Occam's Razor by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

      I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.

      That is indeed a huge issue nobody in the US except a very few seem to acknowledge. Conservatism and traditional values in the US have gone to shit.
      The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.

      Now the US has a "conservative" president who was divorced two times, he did not serve in the military or a political career, has had various affairs with porn stars and models, grew up as an entitled rich-kid, frequently disrespects women with sexually charged commentary and is so self-centered that he spends most of his days checking what people are saying about him on the news... but conservatives love him because.... I don't know. He's as morally depraved as they are?

      There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain. This conservatism cared about the middle-class and lower incomes, about traditional family values and also about international alliances, fairness towards partners, the rule of law, honoring treaties and also listening to facts and reason.

      That Republican party is no more. It has been hijacked by the right-wing populists who push agendas and fake news (all the while accusing their opponents of doing exactly that in attempt to muddle the minds by pulling everyone else to their low standards). It has solemnly sacrificed logic, reason and the traditional values for some kind of modern, right-wing dadaism that rejects all social norms and values.
      The current president and his favorite news channel (Fox) embodies this state that conservatism has morphed into, perfectly.

      What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

    85. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Building a republic based on TERRITORY rather than Population is the DUMBEST thing a nation could do.

    86. Re: Occam's Razor by doggo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many of these people are the same people who give money to prosperity ministries.

      Rubes. Yokels. Marks. Suckers. Dupes. Chumps.

      Trump is playing them for the fools they are. He's not conservative, he's a damn con man & thief.

    87. Re: Occam's Razor by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Do you recall Google fighting for net neutrality ? Do you recall the premise that no company should control what users could see on the internet. I am fine with them censoring and acting as a publisher, they just have abandon the protections they enjoy as a neutral conduit that doesn't publish.

      You do know what net neutrality is don't you? From that statement it doesn't appear you do. Net neutrality has nothing to do with companies controlling what is on a particular site (other than the sites owner) but about the connections between those sites and the viewer.

    88. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the media needs to give the two year old a time out, IE no coverage of the president, particularly no video or photos for 1 day, then 2 days, then 3 days until he behaves like an adult. We can read about what he did from any new laws that were passed or any exec orders. But no photos of the prez doing anything, and no mention of his name, simply the president signed exec order xyz to do abc.

    89. Re:Occam's Razor by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Objection: Begging the question.

      If your argument requires a logical fallacy to even get off the ground, you're probably an asshole.
      Printing shit you don't want to hear does not partisan bias make.

    90. Re: Occam's Razor by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      That kind of disproves his point, doesn't it?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    91. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone (here) remember searching for

      more evil than Satan himself

      and having MicroSoft/Bill G. show 1st in the results list?

      It was a "joke" back then and everybody had a good laugh.

      Yeah, that was back in the day when CPU's were a fraction
      of the performance of today's architectures - so yeah, it's
      not only possible, but likely that search results are tainted...

      CAP === 'folding'

    92. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I canâ(TM)t tell if youâ(TM)re being sarcastic. Werenâ(TM)t the advantages to a republic of a very large territory exactly what Madison argued in Federalist 10?

    93. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This was started with Bill Clinton playing Sax on late night TV. It carried through to Camera loving Obama and his zealousness for being a Pop Culture icon along with Beyonce and Oprah.

      I agree with you on this.

      Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it? Convenient.

      I'm not the person you replied to, but I think all of it's horrible. Voters don't want someone they don't adore as an icon. Forget someone who will put the time and effort into working and doing a good job. Unfortunately, that's the main reason Hillary didn't get elected rather than thinking she wouldn't do a good job. I thought she was both unappealing as a person AND probably wouldn't do a good job. Donald Trump was ONLY elected because of the spectacle.

    94. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

      Wait, are you saying McCain was given cancer because he stood up to this bullshit!?! That makes so much sense!!!

    95. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why the popular vote is so important in the US.

    96. Re: Occam's Razor by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Not if it wants to hold on to territory.

    97. Re: Occam's Razor by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      That does not remotely prove your point.
      "Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
      You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?

    98. Re: Occam's Razor by doggo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The point is, there are more people (voters) in a neighborhood in Chicago than in the entire state of Wyoming or Idaho.

      For example, Illinios has a population of 12.8 million. The Chicago metro area has a population of 9.5 million.

      Why should policies that affect a huge cosmopolitan urban population be driven by a handful of retrograde hicks who consistently vote against their own best interests.

    99. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.

      The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject

      One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?

      But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now

      http://www.bbc.com/

      Trump attacks 'left-wing' Google search results

      It seems you are factually challenged.

    100. Re:Occam's Razor by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about George W Bush in the middle of that?
      or George H Bush before
      Ronald Regan
      Jimmy Carter
      Harold Ford
      Richard Nixon

      The president being an elected official, will take opportunity to be in the spotlight, but that is different from being a Reality Star.
      Obama had star status, I bet he loved it too, but he kept it under control and used it to actually lower the drama, with self deprecating humor.

      Presidents have been unofficial entertainers from the TV era onward. But it wasn't a daily dose of scandal and scorn.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    101. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing mainstream conservatism conserves is the wealth of the wealthy.

    102. Re: Occam's Razor by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not so long ago, there was another conservative, ex-military officer, a technologist who stood down Russia over Afghanistan, and battled the oil cartels. He was a white guy from the South.

      His name was Jimmy Carter.

      Carter did what he thought was right, and wasn't interested in polls. During his office, the primordial tech soup evolved into the first microcomputers. The long peace process with Vietnam was started. The Cold War got colder.

      And conservative as he might be, he was also a Democrat.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    103. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.

    104. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Google is a single entity; they don't need to "conspire" with anybody to rig search results. And Google is a highly progressive company and takes strong political stances, so they certainly have motive to change search results to promote their preferred politics.

    105. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our party of choice fucked over Bernie... He should have won the primary asshole, and thus the election.

      To date, that is the stupidest reason I have heard for why someone would vote against Gary Johnson. It wasn't Johnson's fault that the Democrats' party works against the Democrat voters. It wasn't even Jill Stein's fault, either.

      Anyone who voted for Trump had 2 or 3 (depending on how much you hate the Clinton Democrat party) superior candidates. It was a bad move, pretty no matter what your political preferences.

    106. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The policies that help a huge cosmopolitan area typically not that well thought out for people in the less populated areas. Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas.

      handful of retrograde hicks

      You really don't know that many rural people. I grew up in a rural area and the split is nearly as wide there as it is in the cities. Just because a city goes blue doesn't mean that much more than 50% of the population is on that side.

    107. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Trump is everything people liked in Obama and Bill Clinton

      Competent and well spoken? roflmao

    108. Re: Occam's Razor by doggo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, citing Idaho was hyperbole. But you get my drift, right?

    109. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To his detriment, both Bush's tried to avoid the tv drama. They effectively gave Democrats the microphone that they used to demonize them and own the narrative. Romney, McCain and others did most of the same and they were demonized for it as well.

      Personally I think Trump was elected because he was willing the use the megaphone to fight back. I dont know of any other Republican that was willing to use their exposure to something like Pelosi or Reid or Schumer or Clinton or [insert democrat name here].

      The Republicans have been too nice

    110. Re: Occam's Razor by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait, are you saying McCain was given cancer because he stood up to this bullshit!?! That makes so much sense!!!

      No, what I'm saying is, that if, figuratively speaking, traditional conservative values were an Eastern Algonquian Native American tribe, John McCain was the last of the Mohicans.

    111. Re: Occam's Razor by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong. Trump is a populist, with borrowed pages from an authoritarian's playbook.

      But most importantly, Trump is Trump. He was raised in a world of entitlement and privilege. His father emboldened the young Trump's sense of self-interest by telling him: "You are a king. You are a killer."

      No wonder he seems like he's inside his own head and sees nothing but himself, like in Being John Malkovich.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    112. Re:Occam's Razor by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's more comparing news organizations FOX is the number one rated news channel,

      No, Fox is the #1 rated channel on cable news, as watched by people ages 25-54.
      The fact that a bunch of angry shit-for-brains are glued to their tube for large portions of the day doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
      If you were remotely honest instead of trying to push a narrative, you'd have acknowledged that when you tried to use that shit ass metric of "truthiness"

      CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel

      You've touched upon the point right there, buddy. Cable news ratings favor bullshit programming for the simpler folk who don't know how to get off their couch, and like being told fantastical conspiracy theories.

      despite having similar standards with regard to factuality.

      Yes, that must be it.
      Answer me this- how the fuck do you hold down a job being so unforgivably stupid? I know that's a crap word to use, but what the hell else do you call someone so incapable of applying even fundamental logic to an argument they're trying to make?

    113. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but conservatives love him because.... I don't know

      Money. Obama spent it (ACA) and Trump gives it back (tax cuts).

    114. Re:Occam's Razor by apoc.famine · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By European standards? By any factual standard Fox News is insane. Perception or subjectivity are not required to make that determination.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    115. Re: Occam's Razor by doggo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "You really don't know that many rural people."

      Just most of my family, but hey, your experience clearly... trumps mine, right?

      "Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas."

      So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues.

      Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.

    116. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Google ever claim to be transparent, bias-free or without self-interest?

      No intelligent person has ever expected Google to be any of those things.

      The “debate” about their agenda is driven by people pushing a straw man argument (“Google not fair!”) because their ideas can’t compete in the marketplace.

    117. Re:Occam's Razor by fuzzywig · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Mate, I've seen some Fox news and I can tell you that by international standards your "US Leftist media" is being pretty polite.

      It took me a few minutes to be sure that it wasn't a piss-take on a statical news show. The amount of distortion would be flat out illegal in a lot of countries I think (as shown when they do have news from outside the US, and get it so hilariously wrong)

      I'm afraid to say it's reality's well known liberal bias, raising it's head again.

    118. Re: Occam's Razor by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Certainly since they remove 'Don't be evil' from their code of conduct.

      Alphabet seems to have replaced that with "do the right thing", while Google itself still (so far as I can tell) retains this at the end of theirs:

      "The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”"

      And we know how well speaking up at Google works, whether it's your personal observation of how thing are, or why.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    119. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our party of choice fucked over Bernie... He should have won the primary asshole, and thus the election.

      To date, that is the stupidest reason I have heard for why someone would vote against Gary Johnson. It wasn't Johnson's fault that the Democrats' party works against the Democrat voters. It wasn't even Jill Stein's fault, either.

      Anyone who voted for Trump had 2 or 3 (depending on how much you hate the Clinton Democrat party) superior candidates. It was a bad move, pretty no matter what your political preferences.

      And a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein was de facto wasted as neither was ever going to get enough votes anywhere to win any Electoral College votes.

      So whether or not you think either one of those would be superior to Trump, voting for Trump was the only available way to actually vote against Hillary. A vote for Johnson or Stein was a de facto abstention. Which is fine, if that's the message you want to send.

      In another year, maybe you vote for Ross Perot.

    120. Re:Occam's Razor by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:

      1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
      2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.

      People who doubt this should ask themselves:

      1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
      2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
      . - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
      . - Single Payer healthcare
      . - A livable minimum wage
      . - An effort to ensure employment is available for all

      For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    121. Re: Occam's Razor by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Steve Schmidt
      Neil Cavuto
      John Podhoretz
      Joe Scarborough
      George Will
      John McCain, RIP
      Bill Kristol

      To name a few "nobodies."

    122. Re: Occam's Razor by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Dammit. I pulled McCain out of the list and then the post system crashed on me, and he was still on the clipboard.

      Yes, I read your post.

    123. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds exactly like something someone participating in or supporting a conspiracy might say...

    124. Re: Occam's Razor by Torodung · · Score: 1

      So I'll take that to mean you are only offended by his lack of spelling ability, and not by his use of the word.

    125. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However we have a President treating the presidency like a Reality TV Show, and not government.

      This was started with Bill Clinton playing Sax on late night TV. It carried through to Camera loving Obama and his zealousness for being a Pop Culture icon along with Beyonce and Oprah.

      Nope. Try John F. Kennedy for the beginning of the TV era, though you could make a case for FDR and his radio performance, or even Teddy Roosevelt and his news-hogging. And literary examples include President Winthrop, Windrup and even Deutscher, among others.

      Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it? Convenient.

      That's your character. Remember when you were railing about Obama suppressing companies? Now Trump declares it on Twitter and you're indifferent, surprisingly so, if not eager. Inconvenient for you that people remember it.

      As far as I can tell, Trump is everything people liked in Obama and Bill Clinton, but wrapped in an Oompah Loompa suit. People are okay with it, because that is what we've had for the last 18 of the last 26 years.

      LOL, your observation skills are so blatantly showing your own actual bias. It's funny how you are so apologetic now that your vaunted President Turnip is railing around like a blatant fool, to the point where he even paid off strippers, actual strippers, cozened up to Russia, and disrespected a deceased war hero, that you can't even bring yourself up to criticize him in the slightest.

      Yet, of course, you still purport to your brazenly false claims of neutrality. Sorry, but you're a Stalwart, and that's why you shoot yourself in the foot as you run your mouth.

      It'd be one thing if you mentioned your "beloved" cowboy presidents as examples, but you surely can't bring yourself to do that, not at all. Nothing of the sort.

      Just admit you're pissed that Hillary couldn't rig another election, after not being able to beat a Junior Senator / Community Organizer the last time around.

      Soon as you admit that after 30 years of trying, you still have only your own imaginary accusations about Hillary Clinton to offer, nothing of substance or value in the way of genuine concern.

      This will likely never come. Heck, you couldn't even admit you were totally wrong about the whole birth certificate thing with Obama. You know, the one you spent years fuming over, continually promising results, and delivering...noting.

      Must be great to be a blowhard windbag. Which we just need to put in front of a wind turbine, and then you'll be useful.

    126. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      His term was indistinguishable from someone who tried to do the right thing but was easily swayed by propaganda (or maybe partly by classified info that we don't have). I don't know how much was malice or incompetence or just naivete. Donald Trump is clearly NOT trying to do the right thing. That's the difference.

    127. Re:Occam's Razor by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "...even most left leaning site will not go out of the way to to hinder the president unless they feel what he is doing is that wrong...."

      I'm not sure whether what you wrote is a truism or staggeringly naive.
      EVERY left-leaning site WILL and DOES go out of their way to hinder the president, because (according to their views) everything he does is wrong.

      --
      -Styopa
    128. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").

      Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.

      It is interesting that the criticism of Fox News (by you and by others in this thread) cite no examples to back up your assertions. Your criticism is purely ad-hominem name-calling ("populist, fear-mongering, right-wing extremist"), and appeal to authority ("European standards say it is bad!").

      I used to think Fox news was not news, because the news I did consume (Washington Post and NY Times) told me so. Them I watched it. They have an opinion, and it clearly shapes their choice of stories. But they are far less biased than the NY Times was. If you disagree, give some examples where reporting by Fox News is biased. This should be easy: They are on 24-7 for decades, and the american left has organizations like Media Matters watching for anything they can be upset about. The fact that you have no examples in spite of this tells me that your dislike of them is not based on ideas.

    129. Re: Occam's Razor by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      No. It is mostly hot.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    130. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We [Europeans] form this opinion based on our own cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills

      Yeah, you Europeans have always been known for that.

    131. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feed the kikes

    132. Re:Occam's Razor by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Wrong, people outside the US use a thing called critical thinking. The left doesn't twist Trumps words, he does so himself.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    133. Re:Occam's Razor by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      The only thing naive about your comment is to think when trump does terrible things that people think not he is a terrible person. They are not wrong.

    134. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was simply a narcissistic blowhard

      And uppity to boot, right?

    135. Re:Occam's Razor by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.

    136. Re:Occam's Razor by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Even if it were a conspiracy. It's not illegal for a private company to post with a bias. I honestly don't think Google is deliberately posting a bias against Trump; but, even if they were. That's not illegal. It's perfectly legal for a private company to have a negative opinion about someone and share it.

      Trump has always been about squashing liberties. Now he wants to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (actually, he's been against those two things all along- this is just another example).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    137. Re:Occam's Razor by PmanAce · · Score: 2

      Don't forget, a democrat isn't really leftist, they are centrists outside the US. They may be on the left of the far-right, but still, you guys have no understanding of the real political spectrum and positions in the 2D spectrum.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    138. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the simplest explanation is this:

      Pretty much every news outlet is owned by ~5-6 conglomerates.
      Conglomerates are massive corporations that own other corporations.
      The absolute goal of a corporation is to make a profit.
      If they are a television station is going to serve their main interests and nothing else.

      It's all very simple.

      What's the conspiracy is that the citizens of this country somehow think that for some reason these 3-letter mafia media outlets actually have some prime directives or some shit like Robocop or something because it's like you and everyone else think that they are so high and mighty and ethical they would NEEEEVER say anything that's false. OH NO.

      That's what's complicated.

      Humans are not perfect.
      Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      What's complicated about the above two statements?

      I mean basically everything I've said supporting my position are facts.. Where are the facts that keep the 3-letter news stations honest and impartial?

      Shit man. It's obvious first of all that they aren't impartial because Fox News favors conservatives.. Near everything else favors liberals.

      DUH.

      Just like what he said about most news being bad. DUH. This is the first time though a US President has the audacity to say it in the mainstream.

      Whether due to Tourettes syndrome, sociopathy, psychopathy or not he's telling the truth.

    139. Re: Occam's Razor by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama ... caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs...

      Not according to fact check:
      https://www.factcheck.org/2017...

    140. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was unaware that the definition for rural was synonymous with farmer... The OP is right. Apparently you've never been to the midwest. Farms and ranches account for most of the land area. But land usage does not directly reflect employment.

    141. Re:Occam's Razor by Calydor · · Score: 1

      That depends on the algorithm.

      If the algorithm looks for having, as an example, both 'Trump' and 'Orange' in the text in order to give it five extra points, that's bias.

      If the algorithm looks at how many times other pages link to the page, as we are reasonably certain is how Google works, then it's content-neutral and only biased towards "stuff liked by a lot of people in the demographic that uses the internet and frequently links to things they like". Whether or not that demographic leans left, right, center or slightly askew towards C'thulhu's home in the depths is up for debate.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    142. Re: Occam's Razor by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's limited to conservatism or the political right in the U.S. as the other side went to shit as well. Part of the reason that the Democrats lost the last election is that they abandoned the blue collar working class in favor of ultra progressivism. They claim that they want to help fix the issues surrounding the extreme poverty that inner city blacks face, but at the same time are in favor of mass immigration that is going to hurt the people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder the hardest. They claim to want healthcare for everyone, but when they had the chance ended up enacting what was essentially a Republican healthcare solution that just doesn't work.

      The heart of the issue comes down to the first past the post voting system used in the U.S. This is guaranteed to result in a two party system and they will start to define themselves not in terms of their own belief structures, but instead as enemies of each other. I think that this explains things like the political lefts strange defense of Islam. Normally you would not expect a political party that is supposed to be the champions of rights for women and homosexuals ally itself with a group of people that have some of the worst stances towards those groups of people. It isn't that the liberals in the U.S. care about Islam, but that the conservatives are opposed to it and in order to show everyone how unlike those dirty conservatives they are, liberals rush to the defense of Islam.

      And this isn't unique to Democrats either and you see the same thing on the other side of the aisle. You should expect that it would be the conservatives that are in favor of more immigration as immigrants are often hard working and willing to work for less money. The party of business and free markets should be overjoyed at the chance to have access to a larger labor supply. However, because the liberals really like multiculturalism and immigrants, conservatives have to show everyone how unlike those dirty liberals they are, conservatives end up chanting crap about building a wall.

      Both parties have become massive balls of ideological inconsistency, but as long as we have a first past the post voting system, there's no way to escape from this outcome. We need to change to a system that allows for more parties to grow and thrive so that people have a chance to find something that works for them and we can get a more representative government. Once you get a half dozen or so different political parties, it's far more difficult for the us vs. them mentality to take hold. Odds are that most of the "them" parties will agree with you on a few, but different topics. Even that small amount of common ground would be enough to reduce the outright animosity that we tend to see today.

    143. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The late night show people are to blame, too, because they are completely one-sided. Mocking "space force" because it sounds stupid, not delving into why it might be valuable, or even why it's a stupid idea. Just mindless lulz for the unwashed masses to soak in their information deprived brains. Give the people what they want, I guess: a simple story they can repeat on twitter.

    144. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I've posted on this elsewhere, but I agree. The could do it, but I hardly imagine it to be very maintainable. Their algorithm is already hard enough to tweak without adding in manually set vectors everywhere.

    145. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most media outlets are rather centrist.

      Citation needed.

      Most people define "the center" as "me, and people who agree with me". Is it possible that the media leans left, you lean left, and therefor the media looks like it is in the center *to you*?

    146. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple answer: he's trying to change the subject. He doesn't like the comparisons between him and McCain, it's a battle he can't win.

    147. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?

      But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now

      http://www.bbc.com/

      Trump attacks 'left-wing' Google search results

      It seems you are factually challenged.

      Let's test your premise further:

      26 occurrences of "Trump" right now

      24 occurrences of "Trump" right now

      16 occurrences of "Trump" right now

      4 occurrences of "Trump" right now

      Boy, BBC sure does a lot of stories on Trump. Must be because they're as obsessed with him as US news outlets are...

    148. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    149. Re: Occam's Razor by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      I see where you're going with this. Is there a 7 1/2th floor in Trump Tower? Who's up for a treasure hunt??

    150. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too are not wrong. But Trump is a much more predictable evil than Hillary, so I'll keep voting for him until you sheeple can put a decent human on the ballot. And I hope you do. Conservatives will just give us another nicely dressed version of Lucifer.

    151. Re:Occam's Razor by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

      The figure in that article places Infowars as being just center-right, and the Koch-supported Reason straddles the left-right centerline.

      If you draw your line that way, you're probably the sort of person who complains about reality's liberal bias.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    152. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama never claimed what you claim he did.

      He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and focus on the war against Al Queda. He accomplished this.

      He promised to end the indiscriminate drone killings of civilians and low level fighters that was endemic during the bush years (the Bush admin actually fired a hellfire at a guy because he was tall and people deferred to him, seriously, this action killed a high level tribal member not affiliated with the Taliban and caused them to ally with the Taliban) and to use more aggressive targeted drone strikes against the al queda and Taliban leadership, something he was lambasted on the right for during the campaign. He was in fact immensely successful in this, the leadership of both groups was forced to break all communication and their war effort and coordination fell off a cliff for a number of years because they were forced into hiding and unable to communicate except through hand delivered couriers. These targeted strike were about 100X more effective than the Bush's indiscriminate attacks were and the anger in Pakistan about the Bush drone attacks largely faded because of it which allowed the drone program to continue.

      Obama talked about the NSA and did change his mind once he had access to the intelligence. I don't consider that a broken promise, I consider that an example of willing to admit you were wrong.

      Obama oversaw that biggest cut to federal spending in a LONG time when he signed the bill that authorized the sequester. The vast bulk of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration was the debt created by Bush. Two unfunded wars and an economy in a tailspin. Within 1 year Obama was able to bottom out the recession. Job growth began almost immediately afterward and proceeded until the end of his term.

      Handed wall street and corporations vast amounts of money? Really, when did Obama do this? And this in comparison to Trump who just gave the average corporation, millionaire and billionaire a 20% tax cut? Seriously, that's your talking point?

      As stated before the Job losses were in place when Obama took office, peak losses were in the first quarter of the Obama administration (after growing consecutively for the past 8 quarters) and began to grow net jobs within his first term. Frankly an amazing achievement given the depths of the great recession with 10-20% of the population unemployed.

      The healthcare reform Obama "saddled" us with provided insurance to millions of uninsured and arrested the price increases. Prior to the passage of the ACA health costs were increasing at 20% a year for the past 2 decades. Cost growth was in the single digits when he left office even with the number of retiree's growing every year. It's also point out Obamacare was in fact a proposal created by the Heritage foundation (Koch) created as an alternative proposal during the attempt by President Clinton to reform the healthcare system. It IS the conservative plan.

      You have no memory for history.

    153. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By any objective measure, Obama was indeed a conservative. To argue this is to basically assert your own political ignorance.

    154. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you got "caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,". The US entered a great recession right as he became president and by the time his term ended, millions of people were employed again. And since then, the economy has continued to grow and unemployment has continued to go down. That all started in the second term of Obama.

      Everything else you said was completely accurate though and were pretty much the reasons I didn't vote for him during either election. The first election being I knew he wouldn't live up to his promises and the second election being I knew he was failing to live up to his promises. That and it still pissed me off how Obamacare but rammed down everyone's throats. Not that the current republican regime is doing any better by ramming their crap down everyone's throats too.

    155. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 0, Troll

      FactCheck is misleading you. Yes, Obama "added 11 million jobs". Obama also caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs (and for many of them, not regain them). The two statements are not incompatible.

      To be precise, what I was referring to was the massive drop in labor force participation rate under Obama. And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male demographic.

    156. Re:Occam's Razor by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      "Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"

      And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

      I assume that your belief is informed by the restrained and nuanced portrayal of the US Leftist media by US conservative outlets. Ahem. (Incidentally, the "conservative" outlets seem to spend a lot more time talking about the "liberals" than vice versa.)

      The non-US world has access to Fox just as readily as to MSNBC. In assessing reliability and trustworthiness, they've adjusted their Bayesian priors based on continuously supplied evidence about which networks give the most airtime to hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    157. Re: Occam's Razor by Hasaf · · Score: 0

      Agreed, Senator McCain was one of the last, "Eisenhower Republicans." History will probably see even Nixon as a better president. After all, It was Nixon that opened the door to diplomacy with China. He also introduced the healthcare plan that became Romney Care and then Obama Care.

      The republican party, as it stands seems committed to improving the economic and diplomatic status of countries that are seen as adversary's while at the same time distancing the US from countries that we had seen as allies. At the same time abandoning the future through programs that are more concerned with passing more wealth to the already wealthy and disregarding the workforce of the future.

      Oddly enough, I am still a registered Republican; but I have no respect for President Trump.

      This predated his presidency. His tacky style and his "Daddy gave me a lot of money so I can be a bully (and not pay my bills)," turned me off long before he entered the Presidential Stage.

    158. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.

      He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.

      Obama ... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations

      You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.

      , caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,

      Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.

      and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.

      Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.

      ... was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected ...

      Are you describing Trump?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    159. Re: Occam's Razor by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I see where you're going with this. Is there a 7 1/2th floor in Trump Tower? Who's up for a treasure hunt??

      No thanks. The last place I want to be is inside Trump's head. [*shudder*]

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    160. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His term was indistinguishable from someone who tried to do the right thing but was easily swayed by propaganda (or maybe partly by classified info that we don't have). I don't know how much was malice or incompetence or just naivete.

      Well, it certainly doesn't make him a conservative as the GP claimed.

      Donald Trump is clearly NOT trying to do the right thing. That's the difference.

      I have no idea what Donald Trump is "trying" to do. But unlike Obama, Trump so far has reduced regulations, appointed/nominated better justices, and lowered taxes. On the other hand, he has done nothing to hurt me (I'm a gay immigrant) and started no new wars. Drone strikes are also way down under Trump. So, whatever Trump is (and he is certainly no conservative or libertarian either), I have no cause to complain.

    161. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People confuse results with causality. If the media is left-leaning, maybe the US population is left-leaning. The article suggests Google is acting against its best interest... HOGWASH. Google is an economic enterprise; it has no economic benefit to biasing results beyond what the US population wants to read.

    162. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one. I've heard him diagnosed with "malignant narcissism."

    163. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any good news?

    164. Re:Occam's Razor by GrahamJ · · Score: 2

      I'm on your side, but to be fair, no one outside of Google really understands how their algorithms work. There could actually be a "Google execs like this" input. Probably not, but we can't really know for sure.

      I say this not to argue against your point but to point out that no one really has all the answers here. We're all debating on observations.

    165. Re:Occam's Razor by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Voters don't want someone they don't adore as an icon.

      Sure they do. That is exactly what they do. GWB isn't the exception, but largely because he was only a slightly better optical choice to Al Gore and John Kerry.

      It also explains how Hillary lost, in spite of having the media, and spending advantages. She was poor optics.

      Keep in mind, it is the flexible middle that count in these elections, not the entrenched base which is not affected by optics.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    166. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain. This conservatism cared about the middle-class and lower incomes, about traditional family values and also about international alliances, fairness towards partners, the rule of law, honoring treaties and also listening to facts and reason.

      Did you forget about this? He obviously didn't care about the elderly...

      https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five-6431838

      Sure McCain was 'cleared'... but everyone knows the Keating 5 were all guilty. He was the original white-collar OJ Simpson.

    167. Re:Occam's Razor by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      I agree with your implication, but to be fair, nothing about Google's search algorithms are simple. Because they keep the algorithm hidden we can't argue for sure that Trump doesn't have a point. I don't think he does, but it would be nice to be able to prove it.

    168. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.

      The Trump2020 Campaign would like to take this opportunity to thank you for driving even more voters to Trump and the Republican Party with your display of virulent, raw hatred & contempt for half of the nation.

      Bravo, Sir, bravo!!

      MAGA! Trump2020

      Like anyone else would have these awful people.

    169. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European standards are left wing, no shock there.

    170. Re: Occam's Razor by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama also caused ...

      Correlation !=causation

    171. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single family isn't an example. I know some really shitty families, so you may want to branch out for your sample set. Personally i've lived in both city and country settings and found great and horrible people in both places...much more negative in the city though. Also, most country people are happy to work with city folk, it's the reversal where we see the walls going up.

    172. Re: Occam's Razor by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Obama never claimed what you claim he did.

      Awwww! But it was such a nice straw man!

    173. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s only true if you consider Europeâ(TM)s political spectrum as some kind of objective standard, which is something only an arrogant cunt would do.

    174. Re: Occam's Razor by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Obama did little to end the wars or NSA spying, but he expanded drone killings, massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.

      It is quite funny seeing people complain about Obama not achieving all the things that he couldn't get passed through Congress despite actually staying true to his promise.

      Obama tried to end the war, congress got in the way. Obama tried to close gitmo, congress got in the way. Federal debt spiked but hardly as the result of anyone in government, as all over the world they pulled all stops to limit the damage from fucking huge economic mess that unfolded, your American jobs likewise. As for the healthcare reforms, I find it cute that you don't realise *why* it's own architects say it's unworkable. Hint: The abomination that finally appeased congress was nothing at all what was architected or proposed. Hell the GOP made no secret at all in their attempt to turn it to garbage if they couldn't kill it.

      But sure, yep, all Obama's fault! GO TRUMP! Toot toot.

    175. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be illegal in many countries, yes. All news outlets make mistakes. All news outlets lie. Fox may be the closest to the truth, which is supported by people calling to silence them.

    176. Re: Occam's Razor by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      Obama also caused ...

      Correlation !=causation

      People here on Slashdot like to think they are, oh so, sophisticated by throwing out the "Correlation does not equal causation" line. However, they miss the obvious, that many times correlation is directly due to causation. No, it is no an iron law. But treating the exception as a law leads to more frequent error.

    177. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.

      So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.

      Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.

      That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.

      Are you describing Trump?

      I'm describing all presidents. I'm pointing out that Obama fits right in with Trump and Bush.

    178. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s obviously not the reason though. You seriously believe that CNN gets more page views than Alex Jones? Itâ(TM)s not hard to check their respective web traffic.

      No, what happens is that content from Joneâ(TM)s site is hit with a âfake newsâ(TM) penalty by the algorithm. Conveniently, it also seems to hit every other conservative news outlet... and because liberals are blind to that which benefits them, they are more than happy to pretend like itâ(TM)s ok. After all, their vision of the world is the only real one.

    179. Re: Occam's Razor by cleavet · · Score: 5, Informative

      What rubbish. The 2007 recession and resulting financial crisis caused millions to lose their jobs, and turned large deficits--thanks to the tax cuts passed by the GOP--into gargantuan deficits. The trends for both of the labor force participation rates you cite (thanks for including the 2008-2009 data in your second set), as well as for the unemployment rate, were fully in place before he took office. And as for the Affordable Care Act, it was so unworkable that it dropped the uninsured rate by a third from March 2010 to Nov. 2016.

    180. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the strange funhouse mirror goalpost-moving version of Obama that Trump apologists like to look at when they feel guilty about what they've done.

      Those topics you listed are a lot more complex than soundbites or campaign slogans. You get in to the seat of the most powerful job on earth and you realize that ending them with a swipe of your pen will cause a lot more harm than good.

      For that matter, If you're a trump supporter debt is the last thing you're allowed to talk about.

      By all credible benchmarks and measures Obama was an excellent president.

      And you know what? George W Bush was alright too (Despite his flaws). It took the shit-show that is Trump and frightening proto-fascist transformation of the modern GOP to make me realize just how alright he was.

    181. Re: Occam's Razor by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you don't have to prove causation.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    182. Re: Occam's Razor by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right on. I've been saying that for a while, people are focused on whether what Trump said is true or not, where all that matters is what effect it achieves. He tweets something and the idea enters the public consciousness, typically further polarizing people, but those are sometimes ideas worth discussing.

      I go to Google news to check the pulse of the left world, though occasionally a Fox News article slips in, then I go to Fox News for the pulse of the mainstream conservatives, and occasionally check Breitbart or Vox to get the reading on the far ends. Though in reality most of it I see as entertainment, the understanding or something close to it I get from Geopolitical Futures. For example they said long time ago that what matters in a trade war is not the rhetoric but what % of a country's GDP is export. If it's a lot, it will have to bend to the will of the one that imports a lot and exports less, and that's exactly what we see happening with China, Mexico, and what we will see with Canada.

      All that said, Trump benefits from hostile mainstream news, in the eyes of supporters and probably a good deal of independents, if such people exist with respect to Trump.

    183. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, in this case, Obama's policies are responsible for the job losses and the anemic recovery.

    184. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain. This conservatism cared about the middle-class and lower incomes

      Hahahahahahaha

    185. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It is quite funny seeing people complain about Obama not achieving all the things that he couldn't get passed through Congress despite actually staying true to his promise.

      Obama had both houses for the first two years. Furthermore, it's his job to promise only what he can deliver; "Congress thwarted me" is not a valid excuse.

      Hint: The abomination that finally appeased congress was nothing at all what was architected or proposed. Hell the GOP made no secret at all in their attempt to turn it to garbage if they couldn't kill it.

      The GOP unanimously voted against that crap. And if Obama thought it was an "abomination", then he should have vetoed it.

      As for the healthcare reforms, I find it cute that you don't realise *why* it's own architects say it's unworkable.

      I realize that full well: its architects thought that it was the "stupidity of the American people" that wouldn't let them impose their health care plan on Americans. That's why they had to lie and adopt a strategy that relied on Hillary as the next president.

      Of course, the plan they actually wanted (some form of single payer) was as crappy and unworkable as the plan they actually passed, they were simply too stupid to realize that.

    186. Re: Occam's Razor by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      We've been spending years on this site talking about AI, the increasing automation of jobs, subjects like universal income as a solution to the coming wave of unemployment, and the future of what "work" will become, and you choose to blame Obama for not just the impact of technology, but also blame him for baby boomers reaching retirement age? That seems a little unfair...

      You also like to cut n splice clips of Obama debating himself, but seem to be ignoring the times that Trump contradicts himself on an almost daily basis, sometimes in the same run-on sentence!

    187. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, Iâ(TM)d like to offer you a position at Google as one of our content reviewers. Youâ(TM)ll make sure our algorithm is showing only the best and most accurate information!

    188. Re: Occam's Razor by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      (In?)arguably the nation ended up more neurotic after eight years of that President. It may have had nothing to do with him, it could have been better or worse without him, it's unknowable. But the fact is people are more torn inside now. Something is not working, or is working less. As Luis CK would say, "Everything is amazing and nobody's happy." That internal friction has exploded and resulted in conservatives embracing Trump and Democrats embracing identity politics. They are the antithesis of each other and are a symptom of a collective internal strife that needs to be resolved in -- I believe -- exactly the way it is unfolding.

    189. Re: Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Now I'm not going to tell you that Obama is perfection incarnate but he certainly didn't do some of the things you said he did and other things you're leaving out of their proper context.

      "Obama was an inexperienced community organizer". Why on earth do conservatives always bring up him being a community organizer on a list of negatives? Community organizing is just getting people active in our democratic process.

      "massively added to the federal debt" This was done in the context in one of the worst depressions this country has had (one which he inherited). Not only did tax revenues drop massively which he couldn't possibly have any control over but he also encouraged increased spending in the Keynesian model to help combat the depression. And now look where we are, the economy is finally looking vaguely healthy again and all Trump can do is crow about and take credit for the growth Obama created.

      "caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs" Job growth happened throughout Obama's presidency.

      "and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable" I'm not a huge Obama Care fan as it fails to address any of the under-riding problems our healthcare system has (it's still twice as expensive per person as those evil socialist's medical systems) but with an extra 20 million people with health insurance out of the blue it is certainly "working" in that context.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    190. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming Obama for the financial crises (other progressives are responsible for that). What Obama did was to turn what should have been a normal recovery into a long and drawn out stagnant economy that kept millions who lost their jobs from regaining their jobs.

      As for ACA, it's easy to cover more people in the short term if you borrow to pay for it; that's not sustainable. It's the lack of sustainability and financial responsibility that makes the ACA so crappy.

    191. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the U.S. has "affirmative action" - legalised discrimination against men, asians and whites - which is forbidden by E.U. legislation, and supported in Europe only by the far left.

    192. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you thought about submitting your comment to the Webster's dictionary as a perfect example of irony?

      "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks.."

    193. Re:Occam's Razor by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well I think a lot of conspiracy theories begin when you start with a bad set of assumptions (lemmas). Ie, if you assume that Donald Trump is the greatest president to ever exist and is full of infinite wisdom and extremely popular, then you could probably conclude that Google is altering the search results in order to dump on the Trump (sad). The more likely explanation that the negative stories are more comon and more popular conflicts with the original assumptions. Of course, if you've got an ego the size of a galaxy you'd be pretty upset if your name wasn't always used in glowing terms.

      This isn't about Trump. Go back to previous presidents and search results alway tended to be more negative than positive. Prior to search engines, headlines in newspapers were generally more negative about presidents than positive; at least in those papers that weren't party mouthpieces. Negative stories sell more copy.

    194. Re:Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "I will observe, the immediate response was to try and silence my post so it wouldn't be noticed.
      https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]

      Something of a pattern amongst the left."

      Oh please, get off your cross. Everyone in here gets modded down for reasons not inline with Slashdot's suggested mod usage. You're not so special that the evil Left targets you special and the same thing happens to them.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    195. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets unpack your comment.

      Everything conservative is sycophantic (itâ(TM)s not)

      There is no disagreement among conservatives about Trump (there is)

      Youâ(TM)re all backwater, uneducated morons (weâ(TM)re not)

      This is how Trump won. Arrogance in liberalism is a disease and it drives away moderates of all stripes.

    196. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I wonder what happened six months before Obama came into office. Oh, that is right, a massive recession.

    197. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are fake news.

      You literally said Obama was conservative. I mean holy sh!t.

      The guy that used the IRS as a weapon against political enemies.
      The guy that had his AG held in contempt of congress over supplying firearms to mexican drug lords in the hope that it would lead to gun control.
      The guy that used his corrupt AG to choke hold any industry he didn't like by threatening banks if they continued to work with payday loan, gun stores, porn companies and anything else Obama didn't like.
      The guy that said people that don't like him are just bitter clingers.

      If you can look at 300 news papers all releasing editorials against Trump on the SAME DAY and not see bias, that he 'deserves it' you're just as blind as those you're being so dismissive of.

    198. Re: Occam's Razor by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.

      The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.

      Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?

    199. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are surprised by this?
      Long, long ago, The Donald discovered he could get his name in the papers, on TV and on radio simply by spouting some trivial nonsense.
      This is Trump's one and only ability: Donald can keep his name in the headlines.
      That's how he became president. He failed to be nominated in 2000 because he ran a normal campaign and the front-runners pushed him aside.
      I dislike the man intensely and I think he is a poor choice for president, but in the information age he has the super power to keep his name published.

    200. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Occam's Razor or Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    201. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try it you fuckwit. Use a proxy and you will see that you are wrong. Or you could just read the other Slashdot article literally talking about Google getting heat for changing their Chinese search engine results based on......WAIT FOR IT......LOCATION.

    202. Re:Occam's Razor by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Narcissitic Personality Disorder:

      Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Those affected often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.
      ...
      Self-confidence (a strong sense of self) is different from narcissistic personality disorder; people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (self-concept), intolerance of criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority.
      ...
      The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:
      1) Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
      2) Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
      3) Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
      4) Needing continual admiration from others
      5) Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
      6) Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
      7) Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
      8) Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
      9) Pompous and arrogant demeanor

    203. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything not that's not sychophantic is yokel to you liberals

    204. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Dipshit, it was the Repubs who proclaimed their moral standing, for decades. And you are still doing it by calling out the Clintons. And Big Giant Orange Head did this eleventy million times during the campaign!

      The issues here are:

      1). The Repubs are hypocrites and no one has to listen to their moralizing any more;
      2). We (all of us) were lied to during the campaign and after;
      3). America has a big problem in that a profoundly unqualified narcissist is now President;
      4). The Clintons are yesterday's news but you'd never know that by listening to Dipshits like you.

    205. Re:Occam's Razor by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I've posted on this elsewhere, but I agree. The could do it, but I hardly imagine it to be very maintainable. Their algorithm is already hard enough to tweak without adding in manually set vectors everywhere.

      Indeed, and not only that but they wouldn't deliberately cut their market share in half in an important market just to be political.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    206. Re:Occam's Razor by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      However as I see it. George W Bush won over Gore a lot of the fact that there was a Lot of Drama with the Clinton Administration, and Gore was too closely tied to Clinton. There is still a lot of Clinton Hate with Hillary, basically still tied with Bill Clinton's drama, which caused enough people to vote against Clinton in protest.

      We didn't know at the time what type of president Trump would actually be. Most of us thought, he would at least try to take the job seriously, and have common sense take over the political stump items.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    207. Re: Occam's Razor by calgarynerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, maybe... because of the 2008 recession, which was caused by the financial crisis meltdown? The crisis which became widely public in late summer/early fall of 2008, while he was still in the process of actually getting elected? He didn't actually take office until 2009... This has been a standard part of the republican playbook since the 80's... Either run up massive debt and ignore fiscal responsibilities just before leaving office, so that when democrats are elected, it "appears" as if it was all their fault, and then they have to spend time recovering...

    208. Re: Occam's Razor by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Remember, this was back before the political party quantum wave function collapsed into the binary eigenstates of liberal versus conservative.

    209. Re: Occam's Razor by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But mostly, he was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected and then did whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do.

      Sounds like most presidents, including the present one.

    210. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

      You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

      If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.

      Google is like the Hubble's Deep Field: a tiny slice of the Internet full of the same stuff.

      People should try DudkDuckGo, if only for the completely different landscape. It's like pointing your telescope to the other half of the Universe.

    211. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That listing doesn't show how many of those inbound links are to Trump articles. You really don't understand how Google's search algorithm works, do you?

      I'm not entirely sure Google does, at this point. Too many cooks.

    212. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And CNN is seen as right wing as well in Europe.

      Right wing like El País, The Guardian and the BBC? Their content is almost the same. So your are delusional, sir.

    213. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should policies that affect a huge cosmopolitan urban population be driven by a handful of retrograde hicks who consistently vote against their own best interests.

      That's why the federal government shouldn't have that kind of power. Policies that affect Illinois should be decided by Illinois voters. The federal government is supposed to be there for the big stuff, like national defense and interstate commerce.

    214. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Russian provocateur? Paid shill? Or just regular traitor to your own country? Regardless, your imagined conspiracy theory is pure rubbish.

    215. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that in Europe the idea that a nation's government should tax a lot of the domestic income and then give back some of that money to carefully chosen recipients is mainstream. It is also true that that idea is not mainstream in the US.
      Around here we believe the federal government is here to defend the nation, not to redistribute the money. Call me right-wing, but I'm a normal American.

    216. Re: Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You seriously believe that CNN gets more page views than Alex Jones? Itâ(TM)s not hard to check their respective web traffic.

      Yes. And I did check. Alexa seems to show about 30x as much traffic to CNN on a daily basis. CNN also has roughly 10x the number of inbound links in their database. Those are all metrics that would rank CNN higher on a plain old algorithmic basis. Do you have a more reliable source with better information?

    217. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a gay immigrant, unless you are mentally disabled.

      I am pretty sure you are not the latter so I will leave the rest up to the readers.

    218. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.

      So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.

      Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.

      That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.

      Are you describing Trump?

      I'm describing all presidents. I'm pointing out that Obama fits right in with Trump and Bush.

      BTW, in case you didn’t get the memo, according to the new norms established by the current president, those would be considered alternate facts at worst, not lies as you suggest. Obama was the biggest president ever, everybody loved him.

    219. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon..

      What's your point? The Federal Reserve and its families have taken over America after they killed JFK. They now own the world's largest army.

      Keep watching CNN though, little mind.

    220. Re: Occam's Razor by apoc.famine · · Score: 1, Troll

      You seem to have a pretty principled and pragmatic view of the Republican party. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like many current Republican politicians share your views. Or if they do, they are too afraid to express them.

      How do you square your dislike of Trump and the current swathe of ass-backward policies with your support for a party that largely seems to be for them?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    221. Re: Occam's Razor by Novae+D'Arx · · Score: 1

      Technically, last I checked, about 20% of Americans live in rural areas, not 5%, but your point stands. A tiny number of Americans in predominantly rural states are, more and more, deciding everything because of their disproportionate impact on Senate seats. We desperately need to move to proportional allocation of Senate seats, period, and do a better job of allocating House seats for the same reason, not to mention annihilating gerrymandering. Also to change FPTP voting (the only thing keeping the 2-party system viable) to something more modern, like ranked-choice voting.

    222. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama had both houses for the first two years. Furthermore, it's his job to promise only what he can deliver; "Congress thwarted me" is not a valid excuse.

      This is how we know you don’t know shit about politics. You’re still in college am I right? Wait... this idealistic, high school?

    223. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.

      So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.

      What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.

      Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.

      That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.

      You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it. Democrats in congress were, but he was definitely a force in getting it done. I believe what he said was something along the lines of the status quo can't continue. He said other things to get people to see it in a better light, for something that wasn't perfect but was better than what was there.

      TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA, but I agree with at least 1 of its principles: get everyone covered. Why? Because today you're helped if you need it. And if you can't pay, someone has to pick up the bill, and that invariably falls on those of us that do carry insurance and do pay taxes. I hold that everyone has de facto emergency coverage, so everyone should be covered. I also believe that everyone should have basic coverage for basic things, like preventative care visits once a year, vaccinations, and perhaps 3 or 4 office visits per year per individual.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    224. Re:Occam's Razor by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I know anecdote isn't data but when I searched the other day to see what Trump said about McCain's death, the top 3 results were New York Times, Washington Post and the third was BBC.

    225. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we killed him for his land!

    226. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Recent example: Leaving the White House flag at full staff when every other flag in Washington DC was at half-mast for Senator McCain."

      And returning it to half-staff, reported on Twitter at 12:46 PM, 27 Aug 2018.

      Trump is also responsive.

      That is the response of a petulant child.

      All Trump had to do in the wake of McCain's death was to express the nation's gratitude for McCain's long service in the military and the Senate, making no reference to their personal relationship. His boundless narcissism and boorishness prevented him from doing the right thing until he was forced.

    227. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are entertainment and pander to a certain worldview to make your tummy feel good.

      They dont educate or inform.

      There were numerous a studies showing fox news viewers were significantly less informed than other stations viewers.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/amp/

      Case in point many fox viewers still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Breitbart has to cause even greater dissonance.

    228. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/amp/

    229. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US had a conservative president . . . but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.

      They hated him because he was a dishonest liberal that went about fleecing America and its economy when it was already down and out from a previous bout of government interference.

      Obama and conservative shouldn't be uttered in the same universe, let alone the same sentence.

      He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues . . .

      Obama may have been from the middle-class, but he was supported by the same big-money donors as supported Clinton. The difference between Democrat politicians and Trump is Trump's campaign was mostly self-funded. It makes Trump and his policies way more independent than Obama and Clinton could ever have dreamt of being.

      Obama could hardly reach out to his own party, let alone Republicans. Trump on the other hand has made several honest and real attempts at bipartisanship. For example, "dreamers" could have finally been made legal, but Democrats just couldn't find it in themselves to fund a wall that they were actually in support of just a few years ago. When did Obama reach out to Republicans again? Please . . .

      There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain.

      John McCain has always been known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) or, as the media loved to call him, the maverick of the Senate. That's because he was very moderate and disagreed with the Republican party as a whole on many issues and in many circumstances.

      Just because never-Trumper McCain battled his own party's president, the Democrats and their media are in love with him again. Back in '08 when he ran against Obama, he was considered an extreme right-winger, with racist tendencies. Anyone who criticized Obama was smeared as racist, by the way.

      What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

      Nobody? Ever heard of never-Trumpers? John McCain was a card carrying member, and he wasn't alone, unfortunately. Could it be RINOs are standing up, but have nothing productive to offer? The 2016 election is your answer.

      Not to mention, Trump gets an extremely inordinate amount of criticism from the opposition party and nearly all of news media, social media, academia, entertainment, and government in their constant battle against everything Trump. Obama, on the other hand, was worshiped by these liberal institutions, who could rarely find anything wrong with their messiah.

      That Republican party is no more.

      Indeed. We are purging the McCains, Lakes, and Corkers of the party in favor of real conservatives, who support freedom and free markets, not just those riding on the coattails in name only.

    230. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While you are googling, try "worst president" and set the time frame to "past year". Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

      In particular, there is this link: The White House's Disastrous Reaction to McCain's Death

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    231. Re:Occam's Razor by sabri · · Score: 1

      https://pjmedia.com/trending/g...

      You may wish to rethink linking to a website where I have to click "Load More" 20,000 times before being to read the whole article.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    232. Re: Occam's Razor by cleavet · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not blaming Obama for the financial crises (other progressives are responsible for that). What Obama did was to turn what should have been a normal recovery into a long and drawn out stagnant economy that kept millions who lost their jobs from regaining their jobs.

      That is not at all what you originally said, and what you're saying is still false. The 2007 recession and financial crisis was not a normal recession, and there was never going to be a normal recovery. There was too much damage, and it was spread too widely. The GOP capture of the House in 2010, and complete intransigence in the Senate (check how often the filibuster was invoked after 2010) was what stymied the recovery. After the Democrats passed the ARRA in 2009 there was no further opportunity to improve the economy, thanks to Republican dogma.

      As for ACA, it's easy to cover more people in the short term if you borrow to pay for it; that's not sustainable. It's the lack of sustainability and financial responsibility that makes the ACA so crappy.

      In 2010 the CBO estimated that the 10-year cost of ACA reforms would be $940B, and that taxes and cost reductions would yield revenue of $1044T. Since then overall costs have come under projections, and have been below pre-ACA estimations. In other words, the ACA has saved the federal government money vs. doing nothing.

    233. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump benefits from hostile mainstream news

      I see very little "hostile" trump news on the google news front page. If you want that, you have to go to twitter feeds and the like. What you apparently mistake for hostile news is actually horrified news, in reaction to the horrific actions of a horrible person.

      One thing is clear: today's "google news is fake news" trump troll is just a brazen attempt to switch the focus away from John McCain and back to him. Same with yesterday's fake trade deal. Sigh, this week is going to be along week from trump. Expect another troll tomorrow morning.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    234. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harold Ford

      ???? Was there a President in between Nixon and Carter I missed? Or is this just another one of those "alternative facts" we keep hearing about lately?

    235. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values.

      Uh, you're kidding right? There was *NOTHING* conservative about Obama. He was/is dedicated to destroying the US and all it has historically stood for. His "traditional values" revolve around Saul Alinksy and his book Rules for Radicals. His world apology tour was a disgrace to us.

      He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement,

      Fast + Furious? VA scandal? "You can keep your doctor and your health plan if you like it." IRS targeting conservative groups? The list of scandals is long and well documented.

      he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues...

      By ramming Obamacare through congress without a single republican vote. By telling everyone that elections have consequences, and we need to get over it. Yeah, really reaching out.

      but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.

      That is your own racist interpretation. You are a racist for assuming that people disagree with Obama purely on the color of his skin. I vociferously disagree with him on POLICIES, and him being half black doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, you clearly only see color, like all other racists.

      McCain was not conservative. Why he called himself a republican is beyond me, but I guess he would not have retained power in Arizona as a democrat.

      I could go on. You clearly are quite indoctrinated in your racist beliefs, but let's just leave it as that.

    236. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      financial responsibility

      The ACA is all about financial responsibility. It says that unless you are very poor, you are responsible for your own healthcare. It's about personal responsibility. Don't show up at the hospital uninsured and expect the rest of us to pay for you. It's a Republican (RomneyCare) plan, fer chrissakes.

      BTW, my mom hated Obamacare, but liked the ACA.

    237. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discounting the jobs lost during the months at the beginning that it took for his policies to actually kick in and start to straighten out Bush's mess, Obama created 22.309 million jobs, more than any other President in history. And very interestingly, he is the first President since before FDR to actually oversee a reduction in the number of both Federal and overall government jobs during his tenure. So he didn't do it by cheating and hiring them himself.

      The drop in labor force participation is primarily a result of the recession that was not his doing. It was so bad that it drove millions to abandon traditional work and go off the books. Most are actually working and happy in their new life of not paying taxes on the money they make. They would not choose to go back to traditional work because they'd have rigid hours and not make enough more to matter.

    238. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Trump has the highest approval rating of a Republican with Blacks in 70 years

    239. Re: Occam's Razor by jeffporcaro · · Score: 1

      >Rule #1 of calling people out for their misuse of the English language on the internet: make sure your own house is in order first.

      You want to capitalize the first word after a colon when it begins a new sentence.

      Rule #1 of calling people out for their misuse of the English language on the internet: First, make sure your own house is in order.

      --
      It is not the doing of things that is difficult. What is difficult is getting in the right mood to do them. ~~ Brancusi
    240. Re: Occam's Razor by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

      John McCain voted for the "Trump" position 83% of the time. That's not exactly "standing up" to much of anything.

      His most famous opposition to Trumpland, his vote against the ACA repeal, was supposed to be about not following "regular order" in the Senate.....and then he voted for the tax bill that stripped the individual mandate despite that bill also not following "regular order".

      McCain had excellent public relations, so he's being remembered as a "Maverick" and principled, when he didn't actually do all that much maverick-ey nor follow his principles that closely.

      There has not been a principled conservative in power since Ike.

    241. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just the hot air coming out your piehole. Get out and exercise you lard ass incel.

    242. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what I'm saying is, that if, figuratively speaking, traditional conservative values were an Eastern Algonquian Native American tribe, John McCain was the last of the Mohicans.

      You have to be a Mohican before you can be the last one. John McCain was known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for a reason. He frequently disagreed with his party.

      The Republican party is as strong as ever with a real leader at the helm. However, we still must continue to purge the establishment and moderate elements before it will be great.

    243. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice laundry list of propaganda. Reducing regulation for clean air so your buddies in the dying coal industry can make a few more bucks. Is NOT "doing the right thing".

    244. Re: Occam's Razor by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Absent a compelling mechanism demonstrating causation (which was not provided by the GP), why should we accept that correlation implies causation?

    245. Re: Occam's Razor by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Which job losses are Obama's fault, caused by which policies, through which mechanisms?

    246. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will take Black Unemployment as a Measure for $200, Alex.

    247. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh now we have another vector. Hmmm

      Maybe you're right it's not as if Google doesn't have a pattern of censorship for conservative content. Oh wait what do you know they do.

      http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...

      http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

      https://www.theblaze.com/news/...

      So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?

      Feel free to go again

    248. Re: Occam's Razor by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I see very little "hostile" trump news on the google news front page

      #1 link on Google News right now: "Trump slams Google search as rigged -- but it's not: CNN". That is a fairly hostile title, and outside of any news network's competency, including CNN's, to say if it is or not without a deeper analysis. (The irony of the link notwithstanding.) Under "More Coverage" under that very first link, #3 is "Debunking Donald Trump's latest conspiracy theory on Google", also by CNN, ironing the irony quite a bit further.

      Interestingly the second link is "Canada rejoins talks to stay in NAFTA, deal possible this week: Reuters" is completely along the line of Geopolitical Futures' prediction.

    249. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was simply a narcissistic blowhard

      And uppity to boot, right?

      And he's racist for criticizing Obama, right? What a joke.

      Shit like that is why Trump was elected.

    250. Re: Occam's Razor by jeff4747 · · Score: 0

      The only hate I see is coming from your post.

      That's because it's hard to see everything when you have blinders on.

      Just as an example, who are "Real Americans"? What do you think you're implying when you say this to imply we city folk should be second-class citizens because we're not "Real Americans"?

      And that's just the most SFW example I can think of off the top of my head. Y'all have lots of people paraphrasing the Phelps clan and plenty of other hatred that let's just say should not be mentioned in polite company.

    251. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.

      Hey you do realize Google using it's presence to manipulate elections has consequences right ?

      The fact that they enjoy legal immunities for being a common carrier can change in a heartbeat

    252. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Clinton started the ball rolling with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the_Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

    253. Re: Occam's Razor by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      But... but... we could be IN CONTROL!

    254. Re: Occam's Razor by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time nor even if there "Real Americans" existed what they'd have to do with all this. But you did quote my post, so I'm confused?

    255. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

      #1 link on Google News right now: "Trump slams Google search as rigged -- but it's not: CNN". That is a fairly hostile title

      You apparently have your own private definition of "hostile". Did you read the article? (I doubt it.)

      The central point in that article is: "Google's most fundamental interest is returning search results that users find helpful, because that's how it gets them to come back. It does that, in part, by prioritizing results from trusted news outlets with large audiences." The headline summarizes the thesis, the article supports it.

      By the way, Google personalizes all news results according to what its algorithms say you are interested in, and you don't need to be logged into gmail for Google to get an accurate read on who you are. Google fed you that article at the top of your new page because you frequently search for and click through to similar content.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    256. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Accurate" is not "hostile"

    257. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over seventy million people died during Obama's presidency! 70,000,000! Hundreds of inches of rain flooded the land over those eight years!

      The USA gets a black President and suddenly, eight years later, we find there are millions more Kenyan and A-rab kids!

      I was a beautiful 25 year old when Oabama became President, and suddenly my health has deteriorated to the point if a 33yo's!

      I'm not saying these things are his fault, but if not for those eight years, I'd still be in my twenties...

    258. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, mainstream conservatives are mostly concerned with providing tax cuts to major corporations so they can wave rainbow flags in our faces.

    259. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.

      I'm sure they were, but realized getting there would be essentially impossible. Even the public option with Obamacare had to be dropped due to Republican protests over it. More likely they wanted single payer, realized it would simply not happen, and instead work towards it and hopefully that would develop over time. Problem was, Trump won; had Hillary and/or a Democrat controlled house and congress, we may have started heading that direction step by slow step which is likely what the architects foresaw happening.

    260. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Newt Gingrich and the republican house and senate started it. They had veto proof majorities which means even if Bill Clinton vetoed it, it would have become law.

      #FalseEquivalence.

    261. Re: Occam's Razor by swillden · · Score: 1

      LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      80.7%, actually. As of 2016.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    262. Re: Occam's Razor by jeff4747 · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time

      Yeah, the goalposts really do look better in their new location.

      Now, if you actually go read your own posts, you'll find out that you were discussing what other people were saying. In that you did not hear people who live in rural areas hurling insults at people who live in urban areas. Which means what you personally said or typed is utterly and completely irrelevant. But it's a lovely fig leaf to hide under when you're starting to run into trouble.

      As for not hearing the phrase in a long time, you apparently have not heard a single Republican speech in the last 40 years....especially the ones representing rural areas. Or this fellow named Trump who frequently uses the phrase "Real Americans". But again, your personal bubble of not-paying-attention-to-anything is the problem here: your blinders are why you do not see the hatred.

    263. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it strange how facts showing it is true are getting downmodded and the same communist leftwing trolls moderated up? Really makes you think.

    264. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i always get fox and cnn as top hits when I use google even though I usually click on most other sites bc both are bad imo

    265. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's goal is to salt the fields. All the fields. He heard salt was good for farming.

    266. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

      You're welcome.

    267. Re: Occam's Razor by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      . Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?

      I'd think he was wrong. NoSQL is webscale.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    268. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president will get negative press no matter what.
      Sometimes it will be partisan, sometimes it is just based on fact.
      For the news, Pain sells, so the president will be shown for all his mistakes over the successes.
      We need a responsible adult to realize that, and move forward.

      Being President of the United States is the worlds most thankless job.

      Being president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There's nothing to do but to stand there and take it.

      Lyndon B. Johnson

      Ole Lyndon could turn a phrase...

    269. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been to the Sun but I am pretty certain it's mostly Hydrogen.

      That's what the liberals want you to believe.

    270. Re:Occam's Razor by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Terms of Use | Fox News

      Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment.

    271. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.

      The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.

      Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?

      As must be clear by now hate is all that's left. Both sides just endlessly rehash the same talking points that were ineffective to being with. There's nothing new to say and it's impossible to debate someone who chooses to believe lies. Both sides believe they're the ones who know the truth. Objectively one side is correct and the other is wrong but when all you have to do is say "fake news" and ignore any and all evidence no progress can be made. At a point you just give up and hope that sufficient ridicule will shut them up and to some extent that actually works.

      The irony is that one side is poorly educated and struggling to survive despite having their jobs actively protected while refusing any opportunity to help themselves while the other is highly educated and largely responsible advancing civilization as a whole. Not once have I explicitly named these sides and yet you know exactly which is which because facts are facts, even if they aren't favorable.

    272. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an expression of frustration. On the one hand you have a group saying let's work together and make a better society. On the other hand you have a group saying my way or the highway, buster. Both groups are now like that. But conservatives dug their heels in first. They were more ideologically driven to implement small government, pro-christian solutions and were unwilling to compromise on that. The country as a whole is worse off. And I don't blame all conservatives. A minority of them are actually the unreasonable ones but they must be catered to for some reason. You see it in congress too, where the house isn't able to do anything without the freedom caucus.

    273. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ronald Regan
      Jimmy Carter
      Harold Ford
      Richard Nixon

      Gerald Ford's legacy evidently doesn't appear to be standing the test of time.

    274. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crisis had multiple causes, such as tax cuts, interest rates, investment decisions, the willingness of people to take out loans, and the cyclical nature of bubbles, and probably several others of more minor consequence.

    275. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It actually started under Reagan, but I didn't want to go into that much detail.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    276. Re: Occam's Razor by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      people are focused on whether what Trump said is true or not, where all that matters is what effect it achieves

      Nicely expressed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    277. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it might be different if 96% of the what he and his administration do and say isn't total bullshit meant to destabilize the u.s. and their relationships with their strongest political, military and economic allies.

    278. Re: Occam's Razor by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?

      Good judgment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    279. Re:Occam's Razor by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0

      Trump has always been about squashing liberties. Now he wants to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (actually, he's been against those two things all along- this is just another example).

      I'm completely against any government censorship of the news, or media at any level. Of course, so is Trump:

      “You know, I’d rather have fake news like CNN,” he said, waving toward the bank of reporters in front of him. “I would rather have fake news — it’s true — than have anybody, including liberals, socialists, anything, than have anybody stopped and censored.”

      “You can’t have censorship. You can’t pick one person and say, ‘Well, we don’t like what he’s been saying. He’s out.’ So, we’ll live with fake news,” he said. “I mean, I hate to say it. But we have no choice. Because that’s by far, the better alternative. We can’t have people saying, ‘censorship.’ Because you know what? It could turn around. It could be them next We believe in the right of Americans to speak their minds.”

      That's from a speech from less than a week ago.

      Google news isn't biased against Trump nor against right-wing news sources because someone is manually tilting it, it's biased against them because the people at Google are leftist in outlook in general and so they consider left-leaning news sources more "reliable". If the NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN are your gold standards, and your algorithm uses a web of left-leaning sources (academia, government sites) to judge how good a news source is, you're going to end up with news summary which is slanted to the left in terms of what it considers a reliable source.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    280. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's how you abuse search engine algorithms. SEO at its finest.
      Captcha: sponsors

    281. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you saying McCain was given cancer because he stood up to this bullshit!?! That makes so much sense!!!

      No, what I'm saying is, that if, figuratively speaking, traditional conservative values were an Eastern Algonquian Native American tribe, John McCain was the last of the Mohicans.

      I'll assume by the last of the Mohicans you mean Daniel Day-Lewis.

    282. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sounds like most presidents

      True.

      including the present one.

      The present president is certainly "a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected". What sets him apart from others is that he is unpredictable, instead of doing "whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do".

    283. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail on the head.

      Anybody who doesn't realize how the news is slanted in a hostile manner towards Trump need only consider these two ways of presenting a headline:

      1. The fair and balanced presentation: "President Trump announced today that the moon is made of green cheese."

      2. The hostile, slanted presentation: President Trump announced today that the moon is made of green cheese. But it's not.

    284. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      nd you choose to blame Obama for not just the impact of technology, but also blame him for baby boomers reaching retirement age? That seems a little unfair...

      At least bother to read what I wrote: And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male [bls.gov] demographic. Obama's job losses cannot be explained by retiring baby boomers.

      but seem to be ignoring the times that Trump contradicts himself on an almost daily basis, sometimes in the same run-on sentence!

      What does Trump have to do with anything? I didn't vote for Trump. I did vote for Obama, which, I believe entitles me to point out the numerous ways in which he failed to deliver on what he promised and in which he disappointed me.

    285. Re: Occam's Razor by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I mean, if it was setup that way, I'm sure it wasn't hard for Google to fix it. I doubt they made result manipulation hard to do in their system.

    286. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was in Washington for 20 years where is the result of all that Evil?
      what ACTUAL CRIME did she commit?

      Please leave your conspiracy theories from the Vince Foster "Murder", the list of people she supposedly killed, the Debunked Uranium conspiracy theory, her Eeeeemaaailllls!
      at the door.
      When does she get locked up now that good old boy jeff sessions is head of the FBI?
      it's been 18 months since trump came in, when will they LOCK HER UP?

      Oh wait! it was all bullshit!
      In the end we still have enough of an independent justice department that you actually need to have credible evidence to take to trial to lock someone up.

      You Got Nothing.

    287. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Why on earth do conservatives

      I'm not a conservative. I actually voted for Obama. I left the Democratic party in 2016 and became an independent over Obama's lousy performance and Hillary's nomination.

      always bring up him being a community organizer on a list of negatives? Community organizing is just getting people active in our democratic process.

      Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them.

      This was done in the context in one of the worst depressions this country has had (one which he inherited).

      Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for.

      "caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs" Job growth happened throughout Obama's presidency.

      Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes.

      I'm not a huge Obama Care fan as it fails to address any of the under-riding problems our healthcare system has (it's still twice as expensive per person as those evil socialist's medical systems) but with an extra 20 million people with health insurance out of the blue it is certainly "working" in that context.

      Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all.

      And Democrats are not seriously proposing nationalization either; all they keep talking about is an ever increasing crony capitalist "single payer" scheme that has no parallel anywhere in the world.

    288. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The crisis which became widely public in late summer/early fall of 2008, while he was still in the process of actually getting elected? He didn't actually take office until 2009...

      It was Obama's choice to bail out Wall St (Bush left it up to him). It was Obama's choice to deal with the recession through massive government spending and fiscal policy. It was Obama's choice to saddle the country with a hugely expensive health care reform package that did nothing to control costs and amounted to little more than a massive handout to corporate interests.

      This has been a standard part of the republican playbook since the 80's...

      Who the f*ck cares? I'm not defending the Republicans. I didn't vote for McCain in 2008, I voted for Obama. I think that entitles me to assessing Obama's performance eight years later, and I consider it piss-poor. It was so poor that (along with the nomination of Hillary and the increasing vitriolic partisanship coming out of the Democratic party) to make me leave the Democratic party and become an independent.

    289. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.

      I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.

      You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it.

      If Obama had disapproved of the ACA, he could have vetoed it, or not defended it in court. Of course, Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.

      TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA, but I agree with at least 1 of its principles: get everyone covered. Why? Because today you're helped if you need it. And if you can't pay, someone has to pick up the bill, and that invariably falls on those of us that do carry insurance and do pay taxes. I hold that everyone has de facto emergency coverage, so everyone should be covered.

      Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.

      I also believe that everyone should have basic coverage for basic things, like preventative care visits once a year, vaccinations, and perhaps 3 or 4 office visits per year per individual.

      Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.

      In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.

    290. Re:Occam's Razor by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      In this case, having the "presidents internal monologue " is good, because it makes it obvious that he is a lying sack of shit.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    291. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That is not at all what you originally said,

      Really? How was it not what I originally said?

      The 2007 recession and financial crisis was not a normal recession, and there was never going to be a normal recovery.

      So you agree then that Obama's recovery was lousy, you are just trying to make excuses for it.

      In 2010 the CBO estimated that the 10-year cost of ACA reforms would be $940B, and that taxes and cost reductions would yield revenue of $1044T. Since then overall costs have come under projections, and have been below pre-ACA estimations. In other words, the ACA has saved the federal government money vs. doing nothing.

      Yes, but costs to the federal government are not the primary costs of the ACA, the impact on the insured is the primary cost. For example, my deductible under ACA now is more than my entire annual insurance premium (with no deductible) used to be. I now pay about as much as I used to for essentially worthless insurance and even higher prices.

    292. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Which job losses are Obama's fault, caused by which policies, through which mechanisms?

      The usual: increases in regulations, failure to lower taxes, increases in government spending, fiscal policy.

    293. Re: Occam's Razor by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      How high are you, and will you share with me please?

    294. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party"

      I would really like to know what the interest of the parties is? I only see efforts to discredit and vilify. Both sides are disgusting and self-serving. I have an interest called America.... we don't need parties to tell us what to think.

      Technology and the net are destroying self-directed thinking, welcome to the era of the "Feed". I'm not hungry, keep your contrived feeds and let me discover and explore without trying to guide me.

    295. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brawndo is better!~

    296. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obamacare gives many insurance by skyrocketing costs on the middle class. Try retiring before medicare and getting your own insurance at a reasonable cost. It's not at all a solution; it's a complete mess.

    297. Re:Occam's Razor by golodh · · Score: 1, Informative
      Most of what Dirty Donald does is completely appalling. People write about that, it fills the Internet, so Google reflects it, as per the page-rank algorithm.

      Nothing fishy or "biased" about that.It would be biased if those stories did *not* appear in the search engine.

      Besides which, Dirty Donald has a long history of lashing out with accusations and conspiracy theories whenever he's pushed into a corner. As happened last week for example,

      How? Well, the logical conclusion of Mr. Cohen's testimony seemed to be that Dirty Donald had personally ordered Mr. Cohen to commit a federal crime.

      Combined with the conviction of Mr. Manafort olus the news that Mr. Allen Weisselberg (Dirty Donald's longtime financial man) was about to testify against him. Ouch.

      That's the kind of stuff that could even get a sitting president in deep trouble. My guess is that it made Dirty Donald nervous. Very nervous.

      And what does Dirty Donald do when people make him nervous? Well, he tries to divert attention from his predicament by changing the subject and he lashes out against people with all kinds of accusations. We saw him do both.

      As to trying to change the subject, he suddenly started talking about a preliminary draft agreement with Mexico and desperately tried to pass of what he had achieved (a few minor adjustments to the existing NAFTA treaty) as a major win.Plus he was quite desperate to call it something other than "NAFTA-plus-a-few-minor-adjustments".Considering his base, he may well get away with that.

      As to lashing out, he always picks whoever he thinks he can sufficiently muddy the water against. The media. Search engines. Institutions. Mrs. Clinton. Illegal immigrants. The Government. Anything really. As long as it resonates sufficiently with his base to provide a target for a good smear campaign. In this case that would be Google.

      As regards explanations for his coverage this explanation looks much simpler than any conspiracy theory about who met whom how often three to four years ago. It's all based on known facts about Dirty Donald's behaviour. As reported in the media.

      Small wonder he hates the media that consistently put his grotesque and puerile antics on display.

      Does he really have any credibility left? Apart from his diehard fan-base that is?

    298. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually like the United States it's mostly empty space.

    299. Re:Occam's Razor by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Google is a single entity; they don't need to "conspire" with anybody to rig search results.

      NASA is a single entity; they don't need to "conspire" with anybody to fake a moon landing.

    300. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could actually look up a speech on youtube to find out what someone said without bias, or read a Mueller indictment, or a bill in congress, and then you could stop pretending that the MSM is based against Trump.

      Also, you're understanding of free trade is lacking.

    301. Re: Occam's Razor by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Correlation !=causation

      Try telling that to all my gay frogs.

    302. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama fucking doubled the debt. DOUBLED it. That means he overspent, roughly, more than all of the previous presidents combined. Most of it went to his cronies in the media-banking complex. The same geniuses that now manufacture Trump's 90% negative news coverage: assholes got a lot to lose!

      That much debt, spent in a stupidest possible way, would normally increase GDP by 5-10% per year. Obama never got a single year over 3%. Had he done nothing, we wouldda had 5% growth. He found a way to fuck it up.

      Prior to the passage of the ACA health costs were increasing at 20% a year for the past 2 decades.

      That would be a 3,800% increase. Have you heard of math, bro? Or are you a typical liberal?

      At least the Drone King has closed Guantanamo! Oh wait...

    303. Re: Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them."

      Reference please. I really don't believe that there is any evidence of this and without that you're just making shit up.

      "Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for."

      That wisdom can be debated. The sudden crashing of those giants would have most certainly turned what was one of the worst depression this county has had into what was most certainly the worst. Don't get me wrong, it upset me to see those people who pretty much caused that recession get handouts but the immediate alternative would have been worse for all of us.

      It should also be noted that the Republicans who control both houses of congress during most of his two terms were openly antagonistic to future restrictions on these groups.

      "Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes."

      So what? The massive economic decline that precipitated all of this wasn't his fault. Meanwhile, there's no way Trump could possibly be responsible for the first year of growth under his presidency despite his claims. He hadn't been in office long enough to make any major difference. There is no denying that our economy was far healthier after Obama had finished his terms.

      "Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all."

      Our system is what is not sustainable. We were spending twice or more than every single other nation with socialized medicine before Obama Care and now after Obama care. It's our stupid system that isn't sustainable and you're clearly exemplifying ideology before truth here. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone who isn't a child or mentally deficient but if something can deliver something comparable for half the cost then clearly there is a problem with the more expensive option.

      Yes, capitalism generally gets us more bang for our buck but there is so much obvious data out there that socialized medicine outperforms our current system per dollar spent it's ridiculous anyone would support our current system.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    304. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.

      I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.

      Apparently you don't. Try here and here and maybe refresh those rose-tinted glasses of yours (/s in case you missed it). In 2000, when Trump stood next to Hillary and said she'd be the first woman president, my response was the only way I'd vote for her was if Trump was her opponent. Little did I know...

      Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.

      Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise. As for health care, the first thing they should have pushed through was posted rates. No special treatment for someone because they're with A or B, but everyone gets charged the same. That would also address transparency.

      Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.

      You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think? And if he really hates us, you'll live 100+ years? And that being part of society is that when everyone pays in, everyone benefits. Or should we just dump those young freeloaders down Sweeney Todd's chute?

      Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.

      In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.

      Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free? And why did they have to exist in the first place? Is it because health care was unaffordable? BTW, I have paid for my own healthcare, out of pocket. It's not a fun thing to pay for. I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.

      And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    305. Re:Occam's Razor by superwiz · · Score: 1

      But Fox has higher ratings than CNN. So why would CNN show up more often than Fox? It's entirely plausible that there is a reason. But the simplest reason (more interest) doesn't quite work here.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    306. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is that Trump has done NOTHING that is good for the people of this country! Trump thinks that everything that he does is good, great,excellent. That is because he is insane, a malignant narcissist, a psychopath, sociopathic, and a moron! He wouldn't know reality if it bit him in the balls! Any news he doesn't like is (in what passes for his mind) fake news. Trump is a legend in his own mind, living in his own twisted, perverted world in his own head that has NOTHING to do with reality!

      If right wing nut jobs are being censored at all, it is their rabid hate speech that is being censored! It has been decided in the courts that hat speech and speech that incites to violence is NOT free speech!

    307. Re: Occam's Razor by JThundley · · Score: 1

      You're comparing apples and oranges. Why should we compare the Dresden bombing and the Battle of Verdun to something that was not war? Yes, bad shit happens in war, but we've never been at war with Iraq. That makes the bad shit that happened even worse!

    308. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

    309. Re:Occam's Razor by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Fox News is the RNC's propaganda arm. MSNBC is the DNC's propaganda arm. CNN is the CIA's propaganda arm.

    310. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raises basket, says in you go.
      The combination of flyover stupidity and arrogance is rather amusing really.
      Dumb as bowling balls.

    311. Re: Occam's Razor by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Isn’t it funny how the areas with the least population density contain the most dense people.

    312. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your simplistic view on the universe is utterly flawed, and only eclipsed by your staggering lack of intelligence.

    313. Re:Occam's Razor by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Do you mean Nielsen ratings? What on earth do you think that has to do with a website ranking algorithm?

    314. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't. Try here [politifact.com] and here [washingtonpost.com]

      Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.

      Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise.

      Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.

      You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think?

      So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?

      Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free?

      Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.

      I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.

      Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.

      And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.

      My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.

      So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault of politicians who perpetuate a system under which insurance rates are set by government and not by the market.

    315. Re: Occam's Razor by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The "masters" here seem to be whoever last whispered in his ear, or whoever last praised him. Which I think he appears so unpredictable because it's always someone else whispering in his ear. Early on, the appointments for cabinet and agency positions definitely appeared to be driven by Steve Bannon and the like to drive their anti-government plan, and it certainly didn't hurt that most of them were billionaires as well. After that, I think some political leaders have learned the trick of how to talk to Trump so that they get him to take action, while others keep making the mistake of assuming there's a two way negotation that should happen.

      Then the other unpredictability comes from whatever late night conspiracy program he watched before the morning tweet storm.

    316. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone values McCain's "service" to the country.

    317. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both those headlines are ridiculously slanted towards not criticizing the emperor for fear of repercussions. A fair and balanced headline in those circumstances would be "Our president is a fucking moron". Tell it like it is, for fucks sake.

    318. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Reference please. I really don't believe that there is any evidence of this and without that you're just making shit up.

      I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"? For one, look at where the poorest and most miserable conditions are in the country: in inner cities, almost universally governed for decades by Democrats.

      So what? The massive economic decline that precipitated all of this wasn't his fault.

      We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not.

      We were spending twice or more than every single other nation with socialized medicine before Obama Care and now after Obama care. It's our stupid system that isn't sustainable and you're clearly exemplifying ideology before truth here.

      Not at all: I fully agree that our system wasn't sustainable before Obama and it is just as unsustainable after Obama.

      Yes, capitalism generally gets us more bang for our buck but there is so much obvious data out there that socialized medicine outperforms our current system per dollar spent it's ridiculous anyone would support our current system.

      We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that.

      clearly there is a problem with the more expensive option

      There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those.

      What did he do instead? Obama did nothing to rein in costs in the inefficient public system and instead just forced private payers to divert even more money to corporate cronies.

    319. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACA as passed by Congress contained more than 150 amendments from what was first presented to congress. The *vast* majority of those amendments (more than 120) were proposed by Republicans.

    320. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having open disagreement, debate, and many non-solid votes is a sign of a healthy party. Not having that is a sign of a rising dictatorship.

    321. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And his choices worked. Counting from the turn of the recession, he created more jobs than any other President in history, and he did so while reducing government jobs on a nationwide basis instead of padding his numbers by doing some of the hiring himself. He also started and presided over much of the longest recovery in history - one that virtually every economist in the world gives a maximum of 18 more months. Creating jobs and reducing the size of government are which party's values?

    322. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That a comment mentioning President "Harold" Ford can get a +5 shows that having a president as stupid as Trump is a symptom, not a cause of our country's problems.

    323. Re: Occam's Razor by Raenex · · Score: 2

      by prioritizing results from trusted news outlets

      Who are these "trusted" news outlets? Does it include CNN, which tried to spin a story about Trump acting like a buffoon on a foreign trip?

      Blaring headline:
      "Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond"

      Truth: "President Trump was following Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe's lead when he dumped his fish food into the koi pond."

    324. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for proving the point. You see Trump negatively, so of course youâ(TM)re sympathetic to hostile news articles.

    325. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you've discovered the principal behind psychological operations, also known as inform support operations or by the older term "propaganda". (See also, the Iraqi Information Minister cira 1991 )

    326. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed.

      Trump needs his own Google search function that filters out anything negative about him. Or he could just add a filter himself when he searches himself, like "trump -asshole -idiot -retard -lowiq -liar -thief -taxevader -loudmouth -fuckingdisaster -whosthenextprez -nazi -pussychaser -pornstar -playboybunny -kkk .... "

    327. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they got nothing, and they lie and throw mud to try and hide their moral bankruptcy. The right, no policy, no idea, no loyalty and no hope.

    328. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy within Google that would require many people in the company to be complicit. We are talking about a specific, fundamental change to Google's flagship product.

      It's not like anyone in the company can just push an update to the search engine code and change how it works without anyone else knowing. It would require people at every level of the company to be in on it (the conspiracy): executives, project managers, engineers... The idea that this could go on without someone blowing the whistle, purposefully or accidentally, is ridiculous.

      This also isn't something you could just do once and leave. You would have to maintain it, constantly pushing updates to suppress any good news about Trump, as it happened.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    329. Re: Occam's Razor by belthize · · Score: 1

      It seems odd that McCain and then Romney both made claims about what unemployment would be if they were elected. In both cases Obama's subsequent 4 year terms beat the targets that McCain and Romney ran on.

      And yet now the narrative is it was too slow and a conservative would have done it faster.

      Since politicians usually over promise and under deliver I find it fascinating that both of them apparently under promised what, according to you, they could have delivered.

    330. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the same token, maybe Trump keeps seeing negative articles about him in Google's top results because that's what Google has figured out he is interested in seeing.

    331. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      So? No Republican voted for the bill. Ultimately, the bill was 100% the responsibility of Democrats.

    332. Re:Occam's Razor by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The search algorithms Google uses are tweaked. Google marketing and public relations, can not claim anything about them any more, they are purposefully biased in what ever direction management at Alphabet wishes for what ever reason they wish it with the simplest of instruction down the line. Yeah, Google the corporation just like it's parent Alphabet are full of shit, lie as a matter of course, a typical US major tech company. Trump is probably correct but not a correct as he believes. All the administration has to do is start requiring the use of a spread of products, rather than a single one ie using another companies search engine in the current administration. For more love from Google I would suggest Trump does Google a favour, Google likes net neutrality, Trump killed it, Google hates Trump and will support whom ever supports net neutrality, as simple as that.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    333. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Most of what Dirty Donald does is completely appalling.

      You're entitled to your opinion. While I don't like Trump's personality, so far, he hasn't done much that I find objectionable.

      Besides which, Dirty Donald has a long history of lashing out with accusations and conspiracy theories whenever he's pushed into a corner. As happened last week for example,

      Yeah, so? Seems to work for him politically. And the left has its own set of delusions and conspiracy theories about the economy.

      Does he really have any credibility left? Apart from his diehard fan-base that is?

      He didn't have much credibility when he ran for president, which is why I didn't vote for him. But so far, I have no significant problems with his policies.

    334. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

      Explain that to fElon musk.

    335. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

      Venezuela agrees.

    336. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy within Google that would require many people in the company to be complicit. We are talking about a specific, fundamental change to Google's flagship product.

      Google is a firm believer in unconscious bias, the idea that women and minorities are underrepresented at Google and elsewhere, not because of some grand conspiracy, but because even the well-meaning, progressive employees at Google just can help themselves be unconsciously biased against women and minorities.

      There is clearly massive, widespread bias at Google against Trump and conservatives. It's not just that the company clearly discriminates against people who don't believe its party line, it's that people who don't agree with the nutty leftist beliefs prevalent among its employees would even look for a job there.

      So you see, it doesn't take a "conspiracy" for that bias to influence every decision about news ranking, rating, banning, hiring, investments, etc., it just takes widespread unconscious bias. Google itself tells you so.

    337. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You think you are a real American, lets see.

      Do you support regulating hate speech ?

      Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?

      Does the world or the country owe you a living ?

      Do you consider yourself a victim of large interests ?

      If you answered yes to any of the above you probably aren't a real American, or at the very least you don't believe in the country's social contract.

    338. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      maybe Trump keeps seeing negative articles about him in Google's top results because that's what Google has figured out he is interested in seeing.

      Yes, my point. Like a special punishment in hell reserved for the likes of him, don't you think?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    339. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      That does not remotely prove your point.

      "Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.

      You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?

      Maybe, but I'm not the idiot that is deliberately misinterpreting yokel or trying to say half the country is yokels.

      I am also not one of the idiots trying to argue Google doesn't have an ideological bias

    340. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yes that way California and New York can decide everything.

      No need to note that over half of California by territory wants gone from the other half already, from just the system you propose.

    341. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      In both cases Obama's subsequent 4 year terms beat the targets that McCain and Romney ran on.

      McCain was utterly incompetent (and a psychopath to boot), so who knows why he said what he said.

      But Obama has a serious problem in terms of claiming credit for the unemployment rate. See, the actual unemployment rate was even worse than what Obama predicted would have happened without his stimulus plan (you can find the same data on many other sites if you don't believe someone with an "R" in front of his name). That is, his stimulus plan had the opposite effect of what he predicted (which isn't surprising to many economists).

      And that red line is only the official unemployment rate; the actual level of unemployment was even higher than that, because a lot of people just gave up and dropped out of the labor force. You can easily add several percent on top of that red line.

      Obama's stimulus plan was a miserable failure based on his own models.

    342. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are actually validating the GP (grandparent post)

      That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

      *You* don't see anything hostile to trump, because you redefined what that means, and in your biased bubble, no news can be hostile enough to trump for you to accept what that word means, even news that you youself describe as "horrified news in reaction to horrific actions of a horrible person". In fact I wonder if you're a troll, because the cognitive dissonance is screaming out aloud.

      Cue the quotes from "Oxford Dictionary" about what the word "hostile" means and how you clearly still don't see it as applicable.

    343. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      80.7%, actually. As of 2016.

      Rural doesn't equal yokel so close enough for government work.

    344. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I am sorry when was the last time you heard of conservatives pulling a fire alarm to stop libs from speaking ?

      Staging a riot to prevent someone visiting a campus ?

      Phoning in a bomb threat ?

      Shooting a congressman at a baseball game ?

      Not me on the cross but a pattern just the same.

    345. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, more or less.

      The reason conservative news doesn't pop to the top of news searches is because conservative news is generated by bots, intellectually dishonest, and proliferates by bots. Liberal news doesn't need that, it thrives entirely on outrage, no matter how factual it is.

      One could easily say that the google is drowning the news outlets in their own hubris. If I go to news.google.com I will see whatever is pissing off the most amount of people WORLD WIDE, not just the US south. So no matter how big "Fox News" is, it will never be able to down out any other news source, and since most news sources worldwide generally think very little of the current president, of course Trump isn't happy. The rest of the world perceives Trump as a moron.

    346. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You are actually validating the GP (grandparent post)

      Yah, no. Somebody above put it more succinctly than I ever could, I quote: "Accurate" is not "hostile"

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    347. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I actually used to defend Google on this sort of thing. Given nothing but the evidence of the search results I would certainly have to agree with you.

      Google however has made it's bias evident in the way it treats Youtube videos. Taking a site dedicated to teaching Austrian/Chicago school economics down as hate speech is a bit of a strain. Their decision to deplatform people that make firearm instruction/review videos also indicates ideological bias.

      Then there is Eric Schmidt, if you know any former Novell employees you might want to talk to them about him. The phrase crapweasel might come up, also his demands to write drivers in java also might.

    348. Re: Occam's Razor by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      I assume the executions and camps will be part of the 2nd term program? Maybe liquidate all of California so moderates and establishment types are removed from the American gene pool? After all, a strong leader wouldn't stand any challenge to his almighty rule, amirite?

    349. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yes, that must be it.
      Answer me this- how the fuck do you hold down a job being so unforgivably stupid? I know that's a crap word to use, but what the hell else do you call someone so incapable of applying even fundamental logic to an argument they're trying to make?

      You just made an argument consisting of nothing but name calling and then complained about lack of logic ?

      Anyway here's CNN's Chris Cuomo on the air telling people it's illegal for them to download wikileaks but it's OK for CNN to do it.

      So yes I may have been wrong. Ancient aliens at least isn't that bad.

    350. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oops forgot the link

      https://www.realclearpolitics....

    351. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      That's not what net neutrality is. You appear to have a terrifying habit of assuming you are correct when you are not, and not bothering to check whether you are correct in the first place. It would explain an awful lot of what you say, such as when you got your climate change science incorrect and went off in a huff.

      Uhmm I did ? Dude I have been poking fingers into thermophopes eyes longer than you have been around and I haven't stopped yet.

    352. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality has nothing to do with companies controlling what is on a particular site (other than the sites owner) but about the connections between those sites and the viewer.

      LOL what does it matter if the sites won't get traffic or be able to monetize their content. Net Neutrality was about keeping the net a free place. Seems Google is happy with it being controlled as long as they not Comcast is doing the controlling.

    353. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah I mean that Nuclear War we are having with Korea is going real well.
      The great depression his election caused has been hard though, and the fact the FCC repealed Net Neutrality has destroyed the internet as well, then he rounded up all the gay people and jews and put them into concentrations camps. I really wasn't for any of that.

    354. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per the law.

      Personally McCain should have been in jail or at the very least removed from the senate for his part in the savings and loan disaster (if it's before your time look up Charles Keating and Keating 5)

    355. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Glass-Steagall act was repealed during Bill Clinton's presidency. This is the ultimate cause of the 2008 recession. But Dubya wasn't helping things either.

    356. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I suppose we just wish they had been so ruthlessly and dishonestly "accurate" with Obama and his administration.

      Lying under oath to congress? You're hired, Mr. Clapper!

      Trying to make peace with another nuclear power? YOU'RE A FUCKING TRAITOR!

    357. Re: Occam's Razor by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Get lost, Igor.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    358. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Pick a side. Either you're saying this is deliberate or unconscious. The line you appear to be walking is: "Google believe in unconscious bias, which proves that they have a deliberate bias!".

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    359. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the rest of the Western world, Obama's political views are solidly mainstream conservative.

    360. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof? Ah, no, we'll only get opinion.

    361. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow in your head "this thing is outrageous and makes the president a traitor who should go to jail"

      Is equivalent to "the president made a statement. He was wrong"

      You're bat shit crazy

    362. Re: Occam's Razor by swillden · · Score: 1

      LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      80.7%, actually. As of 2016.

      Rural doesn't equal yokel so close enough for government work.

      You claimed 95% of the country is urban or suburban. The actual number is much lower. You didn't say anything about "yokels", which is good because that's not a well-defined category, just a condescending insult made by foolish people who have no idea who feeds them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    363. Re:Occam's Razor by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The lack of citations for Fox News being horseshit is because people don't fall for your "prove water is wet first" tactic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    364. Re: Occam's Razor by nmo.marques · · Score: 1

      Just because he [Trump] is paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get him. He's smarter than 99.9% of the Americans.

    365. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failure to lower taxes? If taxes had been lowered you'd criticise Obama for a larger deficit.

    366. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush and Greenspan, progressives? You seem to define terms freely and without respect for reality.

    367. Re: Occam's Razor by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Yep. But in Trumps case, he makes so many gaffs, tells so many lies i.e. he creates so much noise himself and thats what empty vessels

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    368. Re: Occam's Razor by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Its the view the world over, not just the USA. All extremists of all flavours are empty vessel noisy, elitist because they think they know better and lose all ability to take criticism so they shut down discourse i.e. dictator tendencies and basically a blot on society

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    369. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are googling, try "worst president" and set the time frame to "past year". Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

      In particular, there is this link: The White House's Disastrous Reaction to McCain's Death

      He is populistic, he makes sure that he remains in the spotlight, like a reality TV star.
      And I also think that he uses the media to his advantage to create what he considers desireable effects...

    370. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to the ACA, what you are saying is that the GOO-designed system allowed some insurance companies to protect profits. You would have been better served by something more... socialist

    371. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain a psychopath? That's a bold accusation and has a fairly well-defined (of sometimes debated) set of criteria. What makes you say McCain was a psychopath.

    372. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His statements are not so obviously false that any semi-literate person would be able to judge them so. Given the these two real world alternatives that are both factually true:

      âoeTrump says US âon track to hit the highest annual average growth rate in over 13 yearsââoe

      âoeTrump falsely states US âon track to hit the highest annual average growth rate in over 13 yearsââoe

      Would you dream the second hostile?

    373. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doubled under G. W. Bush too.

    374. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, Google personalizes all news results according to what its algorithms say you are interested in, and you don't need to be logged into gmail for Google to get an accurate read on who you are. Google fed you that article at the top of your new page because you frequently search for and click through to similar content.

      So, that means Trump frequently searches and clicks through to bad news stories about him?

    375. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a two party system this is also how the less healthy party will always be in power. "Crossing the aisle" doesn't work when the other party just uses it for their gain.

    376. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Healthy people have diverse views, healthy political parties do not.

    377. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the absence of more complex theories that also have more explanatory power.

      Fun question: Do you also think the medieval Catholic Church was a "conspiracy"?

    378. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Why would that surprise you? The man thrives on negative attention and feeling aggrieved.

    379. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's all you have for a response then you lose, Cletus.

    380. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I think moving a few hundred thousand soldiers into another country with ordnance and equipment constitutes "war", whether officially declared or not. Especially when everyone calls it a "war". That we've chosen to limit targets is what that comparison is supposed to reveal. We could end the war in short order, should we switch tactics to those used with Germany. There'd be no one left on the other side. That would have its own repercussions on the world stage.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    381. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe 1 Republican voted for it. But that's irrelevant to the AC's point. The Republican amendments were meant to kill the bill by a thousand cuts. There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this. Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    382. Re: Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      That's right... We should all condemn John McCain for having his priorities reversed. How dare he put country ahead of party?

      Wait. Something's not right here...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    383. Re: Occam's Razor by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

      I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.

      That is indeed a huge issue nobody in the US except a very few seem to acknowledge. Conservatism and traditional values in the US have gone to shit.
      The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.

      Now the US has a "conservative" president who was divorced two times, he did not serve in the military or a political career, has had various affairs with porn stars and models, grew up as an entitled rich-kid, frequently disrespects women with sexually charged commentary and is so self-centered that he spends most of his days checking what people are saying about him on the news... but conservatives love him because.... I don't know. He's as morally depraved as they are?

      There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain. This conservatism cared about the middle-class and lower incomes, about traditional family values and also about international alliances, fairness towards partners, the rule of law, honoring treaties and also listening to facts and reason.

      That Republican party is no more. It has been hijacked by the right-wing populists who push agendas and fake news (all the while accusing their opponents of doing exactly that in attempt to muddle the minds by pulling everyone else to their low standards). It has solemnly sacrificed logic, reason and the traditional values for some kind of modern, right-wing dadaism that rejects all social norms and values.
      The current president and his favorite news channel (Fox) embodies this state that conservatism has morphed into, perfectly.

      What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

      That's actually the traditional meaning of conservative. They represented the old guard, the landed elite, lords and barons, the old money. Progressives used to represent the middle class and new money, industrialists, innovators and the average skilled worker. The period of conservatism in the cold war was the anomaly, unfortunately during that period, the last remnants of progressive politics died.

      Now conservatism has returned to it's roots, the elites are back in charge and the hoi polloi are falling in line like they're meant to. It doesn't matter how idiotic or depraved Trump is, he's one of them, the ruling elite and that's all that matters.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    384. Re: Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Actually, he already criticized Obama for increasing the debt, but he's probably a "tax cuts increase revenue" moron.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    385. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.

      You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you? I see that as better than 50%, on some major promises. Others, like closing Guantanamo are empty sound bites much like any number of other presidents. You cannot change things on a whim, but you can work to minimize them. Others required action by congress, and as we have seen, the opposition party use to be quite influential. At least until Republicans made most things a simple majority vote last session.

      Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise.

      Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.

      And you really are a black/white situation kind of guy. Has it occurred to you, much like the ACA repeal attempt, that 218 people in the house and 50+1 in the Senate need to support a bill? And that even when those people are from the same party, they may not all agree? And that under such circumstances you wind up with a compromise? (And I feel like I'm talking to an 8th grader?)

      You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think?

      So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?

      I'm saying you should realize that with any universal social contract everyone must participate. And health care is universal, otherwise I'd be happy to let those uninsured young people stay out of the system permanently, and maybe move them south as well, because I'm sure they'll also whine about supporting roadways, subways, railways, airports and ports.

      Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free?

      Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.

      And yet you fail to answer: they're needed because health care is unaffordable for the majority

      I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.

      Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.

      I have access to multiple bills from multiple folks over the last 15 years. I can assure you the billing process is the same with the initial bill only slightly increasing while the insurance payouts remained relatively constant. For the slow, that means insurance costs have stayed steady while everyone else pays more. ACA had 0 impact on this process, and it was one of the things ACA would have reduced, since everyone having insurance should reduce costs to the insurance level.

      And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.

      My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.

      So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    386. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.

      Someone has never been to the midwest.

      Someone has never left the midwest.

    387. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having open disagreement, debate, and many non-solid votes is a sign of a healthy party. Not having that is a sign of a rising dictatorship.

      Minor disagreements within a political party are expected and healthy. Repeated disagreements over major positions and legislation are not productive or healthy for any party.

      When McCain voted against the repeal of Obamacare, he voted against nearly all his fellow Republicans in congress and a solid majority of Republican voters. One of the things Trump and Republicans have been running and winning on over the last several years is repeal of Obamacare. McCain's failure to support this fundamental and required party tenet proves he shouldn't be in the party at all.

      If the Republican party was the only party and we lacked the ability to vote in our representatives, your concern about a dictatorship may have some validity. Instead, you are spreading fear and lies like all good Democrats do.

    388. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failing to achieve something you intended to do is not the same as lying ("events, dear boy, events") . For it to be lying you need to demonstrate that he did not intend to do those things. Do you have evidence that he did not intend to do those things?

    389. Re: Occam's Razor by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I think you have it wrong. By all accounts actual conservatives hate him as much or more than democrats. He got elected for a number of reasons, however in terms of this conversation, primary among them was pandering to those that felt disenfranchised by current politics, which got him the Republic nomination. At which point, the rest of the conservative voters have a choice to vote for him or the Democrats, and I guess it looks like at least at the time (who knows how it would go in hindsight now that they know what they ended up getting), and he seemed a more palatable choice than switching sides, which I expect for many Republicans was a non-starter. In effect the Republican nomination was the point of failure and the rest just a foregone conclusion. That said, I remember watching the circus, and as much as the nomination process was at fault, much blame could be squarely put on the Republican party itself, as I recall they had like 16! candidates which in itself is crazy, only surpassed by how horrible all of them really were. In effect, was that the best that the Republican party had to offer the voting public, and if so they shouldn't really be all that surprised when it all ends going up sideways on them.

    390. Re: Occam's Razor by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      "Handed wall street and corporations vast amounts of money?"

      Actually as I recall he did. He bailed out the banks and wallstreet due to the subprime mortgage crisis and the derivative debt trading. He did this very early into office. While abhorrent, I don't actually blame him. Again it was a mess that was left to him by Bush, and to a certain extent (as much as a politician can be at cause for that sort or activity) caused by him though deregulation of the banking industry (increasing the debt ratio banks could use for transactions, and allowing those lending practices). I'm sure when he got the file it was a one of those best of two evils type decisions, where the impact of the bailout was determined to be much less that the potential impact of letting the financial institutions go under (the whole too big to fail argument).

      Which by the way if I were to draw a recent analogy with Trumps BS rhetoric about using sections of an act used to protect US security interests in terms of trade deals, it seems to me having financial institutions that are too big to fail having the autonomy to potentially sink the entire nation might be a much larger US security concern than how much Steel or Aluminum is imported from it's closest ally Canada.

    391. Re: Occam's Razor by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Also I feel the decision to bailout VS not to bailout was likely also strongly influenced by the bailout option being a relatively understood option in that what would happen was fairly predictable. On the other side, who the hell knows what would have really happened should all those banks failed, could have been chaos, not only nationally, but for individuals as well.

    392. Re: Occam's Razor by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Oops, meant to add... better the "devil you know" as the saying goes...

    393. Re:Occam's Razor by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      To be fair they are just a product of the US political landscape.

      In Canada we basically have Conservatives and Liberals (and NDP further left). However in comparison to their US compatriots even the Democrats are far right of what we might even call Conservatives. Within the Democrats there are those like poor old Bernie Sanders that might be considered a bit more comparable, but they would be in the minority (hence his unacceptance as a leader).

    394. Re:Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Actually, he proved you specifically wrong.

      Looking at the list, the Atlantic was on it, but not one of the others you listed ("Breitbart or the Federalist, or even NRO") were even listed. Fox is listed, but it's lower than both CNN and the New York Times.

      Also, I don't think the Wall Street Journal runs that many Trump articles, they're kind of concerned with Wall Street issues, not the shenanigans of the Trumpster.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    395. Re: Occam's Razor by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      One thing is clear: today's "google news is fake news" trump troll is just a brazen attempt to switch the focus away from John McCain and back to him.

      Heck, he almost switched focus to himself just by tweeting condolences. I saw several articles popping up criticizing him for sending condolences, but not offering praise for how great McCain was. He barely even has to try to hijack the news at this point.

    396. Re: Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Uhmm I did ? Dude I have been poking fingers into thermophopes eyes longer than you have been around and I haven't stopped yet.

      But you probably should...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    397. Re: Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Yes, and for good reason. Most people agree that you should be able to control who enters your house, establish behaviour rules, and to retract your welcome when someone breaks the rules. That's Google's level of control. Comcast, on the other hand, wants to limit who you're allowed to visit, limit what you can do, and limit how fast you can go based on where you are going. For instance, they want to be able to block you from going to Google's house if Bing pays them to prevent you from going there.

      In essence Google controls one building on the Net (it's a big and important one, but it's still just one building), Comcast on the other wants to control the entire city and wants the right to control where you can go and what you can do based on whatever is most profitable for them.

      If you don't understand that there is whole magnitude of difference in the control over you between the two, then you're hopelessly deluded.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    398. Re: Occam's Razor by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Now the US has a "conservative" president who-

      A weird thing about Trump is that he was a liberal for years. He was good friends with the Clintons (or at least at many photo ops with them in the past). Suddenly for this election he says he's a republican and worst enemies with "Crooked Hillary" and "Sleazy Bill" or whatever.

      And tons of people just suddenly accept him as a conservative from Day 1.... Oddly if you look back, 7ish years ago, Trump was saying stuff about he didn't care if people were straight or gay and had no problems with that... and Hillary was against gay marriage. Now Trump says he's a big conservative and people say Hillary is too conservative of a Democrat.

    399. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you?

      Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.

      And that even when those people are from the same party, they may not all agree?

      So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.

      Don't be obtuse. Insurance rates went up because Trump decided to reduce government subsidies

      No, you need to stop being obtuse: if you hand control of healthcare to government, this is the outcome. That is, people become utterly dependent on the good will of government for healthcare. Healthcare become a tool by which politicians can then blackmail the public.

      As for insurance rates, they're set within the legal framework set up by congress. You are actually pointing out the major flaw in for-profit insurance, in that it is in the companies best interests to maximize profits within those constructs.

      Did Obama get rid of for-profit insurance? Did Obama get rid of for-profit medical providers? Did Obama rein in drug costs? None of that. What he did was give corporations a gigantic handout. That's what the ACA is: cronyism on a massive scale. And you are so "obtuse" that you think that's in your favor.

      I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better than what we have (though not as good as full privatization). But no Democrat is seriously proposing that or anything like any European single payer system. What they are proposing is the most corrupt scheme of all: taking tax dollars and mandatory contributions and handing them to big corporations. And that's what you support.

    400. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Pick a side. Either you're saying this is deliberate or unconscious. The line you appear to be walking is: "Google believe in unconscious bias, which proves that they have a deliberate bias!".

      No, I'm merely saying that bias of its employees (whether conscious or unconscious) is sufficient to explain the bias in its products; it doesn't take a conspiracy.

    401. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoePurge the moderatesâ

      Wowsers is that grim.

    402. Re: Occam's Razor by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Do you support regulating hate speech ?

      Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)

      Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?

      Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech. Can you compel the Wall Street Journal to print your articles? No? Then you can't compel any digital platform to do the same.

      Does the world or the country owe you a living ?

      Do non-sequiturs actually make a compelling argument (unnecessary space because I apparently can't figure out punctuation) ?

      No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo. Making people apply for and maintain access to a dozen programs that are only weakly targeted to their actual needs is not as good as a single program that gives them cash for whatever they actually need.

      For example, poor person in a city: would like a garden but can't grow one due to not having land, so needs help with food. Doesn't need gasoline due to mass transit. Same poor person in rural area: grows garden to supplement food, but needs gasoline to get to anything because mass transit doesn't exist.

      So now we either need SNAP and some sort of gasoline program, or we have one program that lets the person get what they need with the money.

      "Oh, but they'd spend it on the wrong things!!!" That's their problem to solve.

      Do you consider yourself a victim of large interests ?

      Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me, as demonstrated by court-ordered payments and restitution, perhaps you should rethink this as some sort of metric.

      If you answered yes to any of the above you probably aren't a real American, or at the very least you don't believe in the country's social contract.

      If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.

      But only Real Americans actually know what's in the founding documents, so it's not surprising people like you are not aware of it. /s

    403. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I believe 1 Republican voted for it.

      Well, you are hallucinating.

      House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)

      Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

      Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.

      When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.

      What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.

      There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.

      Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.

    404. Re:Occam's Razor by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel

      This is the 2nd time I've heard this claim in the last 12 hours. (I was watching Fox last night and they couldn't stop talking about CNN.)

      At first I just wrote it off as hyperbole, but I decided to factcheck it right now.

      Google search returned mostly clickbait or rightwing sites. This often happens with stories like this because often they're the ones trying to make a big deal out of it.

      Finally one of those sites linked to Ad Week which seems to me like a more reputable source.

      https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

      Fox is still #1 although with lower viewership than last year but it was The History Channel, not Ancient Aliens specifically, that beat CNN out.

      But isn't that all History Channel shows anymore?

      I don't know. Let me check. No, it's a lot of Pawn Stars and American Pickers during the week and then Ancient Aliens on Fridays.

      These are ratings for the entire week.

      So while this may still be embarrassing for CNN it isn't clear that Ancient Aliens beat CNN in primetime.

    405. Re: Occam's Razor by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      He has a point there.

      Doesn't Google have a right to be biased? I don't believe they intentionally are as it's in their interest to make searches relevant to their users, but why shouldn't they be allowed to?

      This sounds very much like Trump wants to implement his own Great Firewall. He's attempting to coerce Google and others to implement different algorithms to favor him.

      He's coming very close to treading on the First Amendment if he's not already stepping on it.

      Trump wanted the FCC to fine Fox News and ban Rich Lowry from TV. Forget that the FCC can't fine Fox for what someone says on their network, this is a very dangerous attitude for a President to have.

      Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!

      — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2015

      Rich Lowry is an editor at The National Review which isn't exactly liberal. He simply criticized Trump's debate performance. He may have been harsh, but it's his right to speak his mind.

    406. Re:Occam's Razor by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Other than that, yes, google can be biased. But they're a private corporation. They have the same right to be biased as other private corporations like FOX or Breitbart. The First Amendment gives them that right.

      I can't believe more people aren't shouting this from the rooftops.

      A few people are at least tweeting about it:

      Dear @realDonaldTrump: You should read the First Amendment. @Google has the right to, for example, prioritize cute cat videos over weird Alex Jones rants.

      If government tried to dictate the free speech algorithms of private companies, courts would strike it down in a nanosecond.

      - Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California. August 28, 2018

      https://twitter.com/tedlieu/st...

    407. Re: Occam's Razor by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      And, on the flip side, anything to the right of Bernie Sanders is labeled "alt-right" or "Nazi"

      What about those of us in the middle ? We look at BOTH sides in disgust. Is Trump an ideal human being ? Hardly. However, the economy is growing nicely, jobs are far easier to find, etc.

      With the good comes the bad, and vice versa. These endless "purity tests" by both sides have long since become tiresome.

    408. Re:Occam's Razor by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. The conclusion is that slashdot comments are from 99% liberal democrats and socialist which kind of matches the high-tech profile pretty accurately.

    409. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you?

      Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.

      Successfully, I might add. He appears to have attempted to keep most of those promises. If you'll look, a whole slew of those "failures" were in the Republican controlled congress, even when those measures were to help average people. IOW, he and the democrats tried, but you should lay the blame on the party of NO. Or are you going to claim that he also failed to seat a SC judge and that's also his fault?

      So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.

      I said that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with in congress, with the attempted interference of the Republicans. The Republicans want to create a system where few are covered, and then at great cost.

      Don't be obtuse. Insurance rates went up because Trump decided to reduce government subsidies

      No, you need to stop being obtuse: if you hand control of healthcare to government, this is the outcome. That is, people become utterly dependent on the good will of government for healthcare. Healthcare become a tool by which politicians can then blackmail the public.

      Who's being obtuse? Who stated "I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better that what we have"? More on that comment below.

      Did Obama get rid of for-profit insurance? Did Obama get rid of for-profit medical providers? Did Obama rein in drug costs? None of that.

      for profit insurance is the biggest issue - the way it's written today it is largely guaranteed to raise all costs 25% (based on the allowed profit, which insurance companies surprisingly always seem to hit /s) Also their interference with medical decisions is absolutely beyond the duties of an insurance company. (see the screw you Aetna articles from this year - mind boggling) For profit medical providers and pharma only bother me in 1 way - the fact that they deal like the shady mob-related car repair businesses of decades ago, where there was a stated price far above the real price you could get if you were "in", "in" meaning that you had insurance or were affiliated somehow with the right billing person.

      What he did was give corporations a gigantic handout. That's what the ACA is: cronyism on a massive scale. And you are so "obtuse" that you think that's in your favor.

      I don't know where you get that I think anything of the sort. I do believe that ACA made the playing field more fair for all. Insurance companies were starting to kick people out because you inhaled a gnat last year and had to sneeze. (j/k, I think) But here, check out what insurance companies were doing to people that weren't covered by their job. There were multiple drivers for health care / insurance reform, and could you imagine what it would take to go from the current system to single payer? It's got to be a step-wise process. The first is everyone has to be in. My personal second is that pricing should be fair and transparent. (ACA completely failed on this one)

      I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better than what we have (though not as good as full privatization). But no Democrat is seriously proposing that or anything like any European si

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    410. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe 1 Republican voted for it.

      Well, you are hallucinating.

      House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)

      Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

      Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.

      Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.

      When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.

      What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.

      You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.

      There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.

      Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.

      Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even more so with their lame-ass repeal & replace effort and subsequent sabotaging actions.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    411. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Europe's recent fine of $2.7 billion for manipulating search results to benefit their own interests, it's not too far fetched of an idea that any manipulation of the search results could be asked for by someone in the Google foodchain.

    412. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the executions and camps will be part of the 2nd term program?

      Maybe after conservatives win the civil war that follows Trump's show trial.

      Maybe liquidate all of California so moderates and establishment types are removed from the American gene pool? After all, a strong leader wouldn't stand any challenge to his almighty rule, amirite?

      I heard California was going to "liquidate" itself through secession. We're all waiting . . .

    413. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Purge the moderates

      Wowsers is that grim.

      There's no room for moderates when it comes to our freedom and liberty. What's grim about freedom?

    414. Re: Occam's Razor by JThundley · · Score: 1

      You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?

    415. Re: Occam's Razor by NeoTubNinja · · Score: 1

      You read the CNN article though before posting it, right? Which means you probably saw the line that says "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump."

      There's a difference between spin and falsehoods. Spin has always been a thing, but as long as they aren't lying, I would argue they can be trusted for the most part. That doesn't mean don't be skeptical of your news, but it also means you shouldn't completely dismiss the truths within because the title has a little spin. Nothing about that title is false as he did "wind up pouring his entire box of food into koi pond".

      If you're going to come out swinging, at least pick a better story and Snopes article to support your beliefs.

    416. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FIFY: That's right... We should all condemn John McCain for having his priorities reversed. How dare he put himself ahead of country and party?

    417. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN more truthful than Fox, wow this is a lefty dream site. Used to be geeks, now its a bunch of liberals. Compare a search on duckduckgo to google and then come back with facts.

    418. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      document the lies and misrepresentations

      What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?

      Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)

      Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)

      There are plenty more.

      no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good

      The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.

      And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.

      and can be amended

      As you are discovering, pass a shitty law now and then amend it later is not a viable strategy because governments change. Its even less viable when politicians try to pass laws that undermine the will of the American people.

      Furthermore, it can’t be amended into anything sensible because, despite the lies that Democrats have been telling you, the ACA moved us further away from both a European-style single payer system and a free market system. Moving towards a European-style single payer system would have had to have started with cutting costs, services, salaries, and coverage to European levels, something Democrats don’t have any intention of doing. The ACA moved us squarely in the direction of higher costs and more corporate cronyism, and that’s all it did.

      I still blame Republicans

      Well, I still blame Democrats, and I and other former Democrats will work hard to remind people what a bunch of authoritarian jerks have taken over the Democratic party, and how dysfunctional their policies are.

    419. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      If it is conscious then it is a conspiracy. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    420. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      And I see why you're so misguided. To be perfectly clear, I hold that single payer basic health coverage is the only real answer. I don't support insurance for profit and forcing all into it. ... Now I wonder where the rest of that $9k/year/person they are charging today is going

      That’s a good thing to wonder. Now, Europeans pay about $3k/person/year (average over the entire population, young and old). Do you think the difference of $6k/person/year is all kept by for-profit insurance companies? Of course not. In fact, the biggest differences are in drug spending, prices of procedures, and utilization of the health care system.

      And the reason we are spending those extra $6k/person is not that companies are “for profit”, it is that US laws have effectively eliminated competition in the market place and have a third party payer system where neither the provider nor the consumer have any incentive to contain costs. And the ACA made that problem worse, not better. And the reason it made it worse is because that’s what the Democrats’ corporate cronies like and want.

    421. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You need to look up “conspiracy”. Conscious bias is not a “conspiracy”.

    422. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?

      You miss the fact that war is the action of taking control of land, generally by killing people when they oppose you. My point was that the people complaining about targeted killing fail to understand what "war" itself is and that yes, we're really in one. I gave an alternative of how to quickly "win" (take over) a region using strategies used previously.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    423. Re: Occam's Razor by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Which means you probably saw the line that says "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump."

      Yes, I saw it. Burying the truth halfway through the article doesn't absolve the article.

      There's a difference between spin and falsehoods. Spin has always been a thing, but as long as they aren't lying, I would argue they can be trusted for the most part.

      Spin is just an insidious way to lie.

    424. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      It is if because of that conscious bias they are making politically motivated changes to their search engine code! You are being deliberately obtuse.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    425. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      document the lies and misrepresentations

      What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?

      Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)

      Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)

      There are plenty more.

      Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.

      I kept my doctor. You can too. No one said it would be at the same coverage as previously. Note there's no surety any more than any year to year change of plans. So I'd say it was true, as much as it would be true for any specific Dr. in a specific plan. One of the ones I used changed plan sponsorship the year before ACA came into play. I had to choose to use out of network for him.

      The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.

      It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.

      And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.

      I hear you - I paid a significant sum for health insurance each year over the past 3 years. I'm paying a little less now, for slightly less coverage. It's ridiculously high, IMNSHO. And yes, I'm covering more than myself.

      As you are discovering, pass a shitty law now and then amend it later is not a viable strategy because governments change.

      There you go again, assuming things. I was merely observing that a) the law had its intended effect, and b) the assumption that other pieces could be fixed later continued to be foiled by the other party.

      Well, I still blame Democrats, and I and other former Democrats will work hard to remind people what a bunch of authoritarian jerks have taken over the Democratic party, and how dysfunctional their policies are.

      I already knew you had an idealistic chip on your shoulder, but thanks for admitting it. I'm neither dem nor rep. I think for myself. And when it comes to authoritarian jerks, have you checked who's in control of the country lately? I'm guessing you wear a MAGA hat proudly, not understanding what it really means.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    426. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama: twice as awful as Bush... Hey, that's about right!

      And probably explains why both of these hate Trump so much.

    427. Re: Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and focus on the war against Al Queda. He accomplished this.

      No he didn't. Creating ISIS (as warned by the US Defense Intelligence Agency), destroying Libya, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, creating political turmoil and revolution in Ukraine to install "our Yats", making a coup in Paraguay and constant pressure on Venezuela is not "focusing on Al Qaeda".

      I don't consider that a broken promise, I consider that an example of willing to admit you were wrong.

      Very forgiving interpretation about someone being corrupted by power. If only he had made a statement, early on, saying "look people, I will not keep my promises because now I know stuff I didn't know before, and I admit I was wrong". But no, he kept the abuse against both the American people and the world secretly, and we found out the crimes against humanity being made in the American people's name mostly because of brave people that he viciously persecuted.

      You have no memory for history.

      Your distortion of history is sad.

      If you are willing to forgive war crime, betrayal of the people and forget all the stuff he was doing all around the world because you like the guy this much, I can't imagine something you wouldn't support for him. That's really bad.

    428. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.

      So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.

      It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.

      The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided

      It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).

    429. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It is if because of that conscious bias they are making politically motivated changes to their search engine code! You are being deliberately obtuse.

      conspiracy
      knspirs/Submit
      noun
      a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
      "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

      Google's anti-Trump and anti-conservative biases are neither secret nor unlawful, hence no conspiracy.

    430. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've changed their algorithms a while ago and are going after a loot of people, like Wikileaks, Democracy now and WSWS, to pick and choose what goes to the top and what is basically censored.
      In august 2017:

      As stated above, since April, other left-wing publications that present themselves as progressive, socialist or anti-war also have suffered significant reductions in their Google search results:
      * alternet.org fell by 63 percent
      * globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
      * consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
      * mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
      * commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
      * internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
      * democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
      * wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
      * truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
      * counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
      * theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

      In september 2017:

      As a result of Google’s censorship, the WSWS’s global page rank has fallen from 31,000 to 41,000, according to Amazon’s Alexa traffic ranking software.
      (...)Democracy Now, one of the top 5,000 sites in the US, had its search traffic fall 50 percent between April and September, up from 36 percent in the period through July.

      So it was getting worst, and it does affect the websites views by the population.

      Here is an article about the subject in another website that was affected, if you want to read more:
      The Silencing of Dissent

      Basically Trump is accusing Google of doing something similar against him. He's a POS, but don't make the mistake of defending their algorithms, they are not unbiased anymore and really work to reflect someone's interests.

    431. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I'm neither dem nor rep. I think for myself.

      And what you "think" is that it's OK to lie to American voters in order to get legislation passed that American voters don't want.

      You also "think" that it's OK to force young, healthy people to subsidize old, sick people.

      In those views, you agree with Democrats; whether you identify as a Democrat, I have no idea.

      I already knew you had an idealistic chip on your shoulder,

      I'm not arguing from a position of idealism, I simply don't want the US to spiral down the drain, like other countries that have been taken over by progressives and leftists.

    432. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      So you are being deliberately obtuse. Definition 2 from Merriam-Webster:

      to act in harmony toward a common end

      Words have multiple definitions because they have multiple meanings. Also, if it's not illegal and it's not secret (so you claim), then who gives a flying fuck anyway? What is your bloody point?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    433. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Also, if there is no secret, then they are not modifying the search engine, which means Trump is a whiny idiot. But don't worry, that's not a secret or illegal either.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    434. Re: Occam's Razor by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      And he let the ayatollahs come to power in Iran, which led to Saudi Arabia exporting Salafism as a counter-influence to Shiite Iran, which led to al-Qaeda and ISIS and most of today's international terrorism.

    435. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Look again his point was based on inbound links and the list wasn't sorted by rate of linking.

      Nice try though.

    436. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know it's easy and humorous. I mean what else are going to do but laugh at people who go chicken little over the "loss of 7.5 billion in coastal property values in the US investors get wise to global warming". Just a hint for you that isn't even a rounding error.

    437. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yes, and for good reason. Most people agree that you should be able to control who enters your house, establish behaviour rules, and to retract your welcome when someone breaks the rules.

      Oh the house in this case is google ? So you are OK with bakers refusing service to gays and restaurants not seating black people ?

    438. Re: Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well nice to see you are insecure enough you used a rhetorical question to virtue signal. But lets look at your answers

      Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)

      So you are ok with businesses discriminating based on creed. Tell me how did you feel about that baker in Colorado ? Oh you just told me

      Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech

      So no Bob and Bob cakes need be made

      No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo

      So your answer is the world doesn't owe you a living but you demand it give one anyway ?

      Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me

      That would be a yes then.

      If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.

      Really ? Lets see what James Madison had to say

      “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

      So the initial point you are talking about is somewhere between 1776 and 1786 ?

    439. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Also, if there is no secret, then they are not modifying the search engine

      They are modifying the search engine all the time in order to change the results it returns, and they are doing so subject to their (conscious and unconscious) biases.

    440. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      So the charge then is that "Google employees acted in harmony towards the common end of maligning Donald Trump and altering search results." Seems like a reasonable statement to me, consistent with everything we know about Google.

      But you really need to improve your English vocabulary skills. The definition you list is the second definition for the verb "conspire", not the noun "conspiracy", and that definition only applies to impersonal subjects.

    441. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.

      So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.

      Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map. Gruber said lots and lots of things. Secondary confirmation is required since many of those things are contradictory.

      It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.

      The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided

      It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).

      It decreased the number of uninsured greatly. It lowered their costs for insurance. It basically forced effective insurance, so those "lower cost" plans that didn't cover anything were no longer legal. Complaining about those going away is like complaining that snake oil is no longer legal. And you can't argue that people that are covered now don't get better care than before they were covered. Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    442. Re: Occam's Razor by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, do you actually have a point?

      Are you actually incapable of understanding the difference between a building and a city?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    443. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map.

      I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama. Obama, in particular, was warned by his advisers to stop making this statement.

      It decreased the number of uninsured greatly.

      You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it also failed at the third objective ("more coverage"), but it's pointless to discuss that in light of the abject failure on the other two objectives.

      Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.

      Even if that were true, if overall costs have gone up, it's irrelevant to the stated objectives of the ACA.

    444. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide a couple examples that demonstrate that "the people at Google are leftist in outlook in general and so they consider left-leaning news sources more "reliable"."?

    445. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map.

      I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama.

      First, while not quoted, Gruber did state what I said above. Second, here's the full context of what Gruber really said in your quote:

      This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.

      Note that all insurance is taking money from those that don't need insurance and passing it to those that do. That is what insurance does. He doesn't say it elegantly, but in true context, that's how it works. Now that we have the full context, does that change what he said? It does as far as I'm concerned.

      It decreased the number of uninsured greatly.

      You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it also failed at the third objective ("more coverage"), but it's pointless to discuss that in light of the abject failure on the other two objectives.

      Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.

      Even if that were true, if overall costs have gone up, it's irrelevant to the stated objectives of the ACA.

      Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance? Looking back at my bills, they've been relatively high all the way back to 2000. I just didn't see the cost 99% of the time. The increase since then for the coverage I have has increased little by little, but not large leaps and bounds like some complain about. Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan that will refuse to pay your first incident, and then drop you leaving you on the hook for everything as you'll then be uninsurable.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    446. Re:Occam's Razor by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Sure, using support for Democratic politicians as a proxy for leftward lean: "Google employees are spending heavily to elect Democrats in California and to flip the House" and it's not a recent thing, "98% of search engine's employees gave money to Democrats in '04".

      For the news sources, see 96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets and then you can confirm for yourself by going to Google News and either looking at their headlines or searching for any politically relevant topic and counting the number of sources they highlight first on the left vs. the right side of the media bias chart, which if anything underestimates sources like CNN which have turned farther left since the election.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    447. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Ok, now I understand. You have no idea how a search engine works.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    448. Re:Occam's Razor by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      The truth maligns Donald Trump, that's the problem you have. You want Google to modify results to suppress the truth that Trump is a terrible President. That is why you, and Trump, hate the truth so much.

      And you are still being deliberately obtuse.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    449. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.

      I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.

      Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance?

      Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.

      Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan

      How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.

    450. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I do understand how search engines work and how much manual tuning, judgment, policy, and feature selection goes into them. Obviously, you don't.

    451. Re:Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You want Google to modify results

      Where did I say that I want Google to modify results?

    452. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.

      I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.

      "if you had a law which said innocent people are going to pay in and guilty people get money, it would not have passed."

      And yet we have car insurance, theft insurance, jails, courts, etc

      Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance?

      Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.

      Just about everything has gone up. The question is has the real rate gone up more than the average inflation costs? And in that, I'm not sure I can definitively say it has. And that's based on costs I've seen across multiple bills from various hospitals.

      Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan

      How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.

      You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my insurance out of pocket, so no, you're not being screwed so I can have better insurance. Yes, that means I'm paying that ridiculous $9K or so / person per year price, meaning I'm likely subsidizing your insurance. If anyone should be bitching about costs here, it's me. So kindly fuck off. Oh, and I've been paying out of pocket for about 5 years so I'm well aware of how much things have gone up.

      It's not ACA that's the problem, but the insurance industry itself. Lay the blame where it belongs. Base universal health care coverage and posted rates will remove 90% of the current problems with the industry, including ACA. ACA is the easy poster boy to blame, because it made it obvious how badly you were being screwed previously, but it was hidden. Ever wonder why your wages haven't kept up with inflation? If you had health insurance, there's your answer. And no, that's not just since 2010, but all the way back to the mid 90s. This cost issue predated ACA by a long shot, and actually was the reason ACA came into being. Something was needed, or you'd be back to 1800s style coverage. You know, when America was great.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    453. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why your wages haven't kept up with inflation? If you had health insurance, there's your answer. And no, that's not just since 2010, but all the way back to the mid 90s. This cost issue predated ACA by a long shot, and actually was the reason ACA came into being.

      We completely agree on all that: the US has had a corrupt, excessively costly health care system for decades, and it's in large part responsible for holding down wages.

      The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits. It is numerically impossible by a long shot for those two factors to account for the 3-4x higher US healthcare costs compared to Europe. What the ACA did instead was to force even more people into that system, which only made the problem worse.

      There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through free markets. The ACA does none of those. What it does instead is ensure that the medical cartel receives massively inflated monopoly rents. Neither Obama, nor Hillary, nor Sanders, nor any other Democrat have proposed any amendments to fix it.

      I really don't care which of (1-3) we do if it brings down US costs to European levels. What I object to is the lies and massive corruption that gave us the ACA.

      You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my insurance out of pocket, so no, you're not being screwed so I can have better insurance.

      The whole, explicitly stated point of ACA, is to redistribute money from some insurance payers to others. And that pretty much summarizes the political calculus of the Democrats: they wanted to pay off their corporate cronies with the ACA and government subsidies and pay off a sufficient number of Americans through redistribution to ensure electoral victory in 2016, and then they were finally going to do what they really wanted to. That obviously backfired, but the real problem is that what they really wanted to do, the "single payer system" they wanted to create was going to be just as corrupt and inefficient as the ACA.

      Note that I'm not defending the Republicans. The Republicans have the virtue of giving lip service to one of the three feasible solutions (3), but they are as impotent and unwilling as Democrats to actually make it happen. Fortunately, McCain is finally gone, so maybe they'll be able to pass some real reform after November, in particular if more jerks like McCain get the boot from voters.

    454. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits.

      No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all. It did purport to lower health care costs, which neither of us has data to confirm or deny. We're just complaining that it is still too high, although my data shows that it has only gone up relatively in step with other costs. You'll have to provide data showing that it has gone up more than it did prior to ACA. It shouldn't be hard if it's rampantly out of control as you claim. (In fact, I think you'll find that exercise pretty interesting, provided your mind isn't closed to facts)

      There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through free markets.

      You do understand that 1 & 2 are effectively the same thing, and that we had 3 which is the cause of the current problems? So 3 is a proven failure.

      Note that I'm not defending the Republicans. The Republicans have the virtue of giving lip service to one of the three feasible solutions (3), but they are as impotent and unwilling as Democrats to actually make it happen. Fortunately, McCain is finally gone, so maybe they'll be able to pass some real reform after November, in particular if more jerks like McCain get the boot from voters.

      You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in? Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more. There'd be a whole bunch of people tossed out based on "prior conditions", like pregnancy (one of many ridiculous "prior conditions" you could be denied coverage for). The non-resigning/retiring remainder of the Republican sycophant cesspool club are only likely to make the pharma and insurance companies even richer, given the only legislative "success" they've had, the tax plan, as a roadmap. And guess who'll be paying for that? It'll make you long for ACA like you long for W.

      I wish for a veto proof non-republican majority in both houses that would be able to actually push through some responsible legislation. But that's merely a wish. much like my wish for an additional 2 or 3 active parties. At this point I also wish the Republicans would just complete their swing to the right, expose themselves as fascist nationalistic xenophobic racist aristocrats they are and marginalizing themselves to less than 5% of the population so the rest of us move on with reality.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    455. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.

      Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.

      There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through free markets.

      You do understand that 1 & 2 are effectively the same thing, and that we had 3 which is the cause of the current problems? So 3 is a proven failure.

      The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century. What we have had was an attempt at (2) but it failed again and again, with the ACA just being the latest instance of that failure. So, (1) and (3) are the only options; good luck selling voters and the AMA on (1).

      At this point I also wish the Republicans would just complete their swing to the right, expose themselves as fascist nationalistic xenophobic racist aristocrats they are and marginalizing themselves to less than 5% of the population so the rest of us move on with reality.

      Well, you certainly give an excellent example of the kind of beliefs and vitriol that are so common on the left these days. And that's why people like me (classical liberal, gay immigrant) have left the Democratic party and the progressive movement, and we won't be coming back.

      And, no, you don't live in the real world, you live in an economic fantasy world that inevitably will come crashing down around you; the question is only whether it's a little sooner or a little later.

    456. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in?

      True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

      Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more

      Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!

    457. Re:Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one

      Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.

      Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.

      I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    458. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one

      Peaceful protestor yeah
      https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...

      Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.

      Dylan Roof was certifiably insane

      Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.

      The BLM acted illegally http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

      Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words "flagrant" and "reckless" to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying "that the universal sense of justice has been violated" and dismissing the charges.

      It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen.

      I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.

      Sure you don't

    459. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in?

      True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

      He was arguably good as a senator. He was a terrible candidate in 2008, especially after 8 years of W and other Republican BS. Had he chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of Palin, things would have been different, then and today. Palin indicated the bad side of the conservative movement, and I believe he regretted it as evidenced by the fact that he excluded her from his memorial.

      Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more

      Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!

      I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    460. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.

      Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.

      Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.

      The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.

      Interesting, because the first real attempt at US laws on any form of healthcare were in the 1930s with the New Deal, and the AMA forced the removal of universal health care.

      What we have had was an attempt at (2) but it failed again and again, with the ACA just being the latest instance of that failure. So, (1) and (3) are the only options; good luck selling voters and the AMA on (1).

      The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.

      Well, you certainly give an excellent example of the kind of beliefs and vitriol that are so common on the left these days. And that's why people like me (classical liberal, gay immigrant) have left the Democratic party and the progressive movement, and we won't be coming back.

      I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left, although I hold some opinions in common with them. I also hold some opinions in common with the current right. Being a realist and seeing what's happening in the world today and where it's going in the near future, I see that our past course is no longer sustainable and that different things need to be tried here.

      And, no, you don't live in the real world, you live in an economic fantasy world that inevitably will come crashing down around you; the question is only whether it's a little sooner or a little later.

      And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures. What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    461. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.

      No, I made fun of your naivite.

      First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026, not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.

      What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.

      People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.

    462. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.

      The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.

      I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left,

      Well, you might also be very far to the right; the left and the right become indistinguishable. After all, the extreme right also wanted nationalized healthcare and kept railing against "unchecked rampant capital enterprise".

      And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures.

      Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.

      Furthermore, US healthcare started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's, just as the effects of the war on poverty and a massive expansion of federal regulations and programs kicked in.

      What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?

      You tell me, because it's you who keeps supporting the idea that a regulated system of public insurance and private providers somehow can be made to work. We have such a system already and it performs very poorly, yet you want more of it.

      As I was saying: the two realistic choices are (1) nationalized healthcare with a fully government run healthcare system (like the UK and France) or (2) a fully privatized system (like we haven't had in over a century). What you want instead is doubling down on failed corporate cronyism on a massive scale.

    463. Re:Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Peaceful protestor yeah
      https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [thegatewaypundit.com"

      Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd

      "Dylan Roof was certifiably insane"

      And steaped in far right thought. The Left isn't known for sporting the Confederate flag

      "It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen."

      Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.

      "Sure you don't"

      Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    464. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd

      Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life.

      Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.

      And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.

      Well unlike you, I am not lying about them. I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like.

    465. Re: Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.

      I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook.". Clearly you're an intelligent person who wouldn't just make shit up because your ideology says you should not like something, right?

      "Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"?"

      Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty. Meanwhile encouraging people to participate in our Democratic process is about as American as you can get and doing so with the people least likely to participate even more so.

      "We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not."

      Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.

      "We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that."

      Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.

      Even if we ignore your ridiculous claim of per American and look at per user it's actually pretty impressive how low that $11,000 is given that by design medicare exclusively serves our highest cost demographics.

      "There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those."

      Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    466. Re:Occam's Razor by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."

      Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.

      "And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."

      More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.

      "Well unlike you, I am not lying about them.

      DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?

      "I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like."

      Jesus you're dumb. As I told you, comparing two numbers that no one debates is not part of the modern problem with the replication in results modern science is having. This has nothing to do with "what I like" and everything to do with incredibly easily observed things. If you're saying there is debate on the validity of these numbers then the burden of proof is on you. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    467. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I'm asking for evidence on your claim "he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook."

      Here and here.

      Poverty is a tricky issue. Ask the government of literally any red state except for Texas. Their economies are all garbage and their state's packed full of poverty.

      Using correlations between state level political choices and poverty to try to make arguments about causation is utterly silly. Try again.

      Oh geez, this is embarrassing for you https://www.factcheck.org/2017... [factcheck.org] . We gained a lot of jobs under him. Maybe you are the type to just make things up.

      No, you're simply the type not to understand statistics. Let's take the first number: "The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs." Sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the US population grew by about 20 million people during Obama's presidency, so this is below what was needed simply to keep the labor participation rate the same.

      Yup, it's really looking like you're the type to make shit up. Medicare costs us less than $11,000 per user ( https://www.kff.org/medicare/s... [kff.org] , https://www.healthaffairs.org/... [healthaffairs.org] ) and currently covers about 15% of the population ( https://assets.aarp.org/rgcent... [aarp.org] ). Per American that comes out to 1,600 per person so no it does not cost more per American than any socialized system. In fact, it's not even close.

      The Medicare budget is $1055 billion and the Medicaid budget is $579 billion. There are 326 million Americans. When you do the math, you get $5000/American.

      Well I don't think being "fully privatized" would get us healthcare coverage for our poorest as we're already pretty privatized and can't do that but we can certainly agree Obama Care isn't great.

      You're right: I was imprecise. We have a fully privatized system, albeit a corrupt one. What I meant was that our two realistic alternatives are a fully nationalized system (like the UK and France) or a minimally regulated free market system. And a minimally regulated free market system would lower costs so much that even the poorest Americans could afford it.

    468. Re:Occam's Razor by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      ure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.

      Running for your own life

      More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.

      http://www.ushistory.org/decla...

      Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?

      DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
      . Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".

      Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate
      I showed
      1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down
      2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime
      3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time
      4. Between extremes of gun control regimes across countries there is no correlation.

      Your response is DURRR People that know more than you say otherwise despite the evidence to the contrary. This while referring to a science well known for being driven by politics.

      https://www.scientificamerican...

      You're either a liar or an idiot either way my points stand on their own.

    469. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.

      No, I made fun of your naivite.

      First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026, not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.

      First, that's 32 million additional uninsured, added to the current 28 million, and gee, I don't know, basic math comes out to 60M.

      Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA and was actively working to deny coverage to an increasing percentage of people applying, what makes you think it would miraculously now start providing insurance for those people?

      What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.

      People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.

      You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker. And yes, not being insured under ACA means they're "uninsured". You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    470. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.

      The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.

      So you agree I'm right about ACA's goals. Great.

      Now you're focusing on my AMA support of ACA statement. The only thing the AMA is concerned about is the general pay of their membership. They've seen that pay go down under the current insurance industry dominated care system that's developed over the past few decades. I would subscribe that that particular fact drove their change of heart more than anything else. It's also the reason I stated that their creation got away from them, since Blue Cross and Blue Shield were started by hospital groups and doctors, respectively. You'll have to provide proof of your assertions, because they're not borne out by the facts and understanding as currently stated.

      And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures.

      Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.

      Amazingly, I can't find anything that prohibits real or even fake medical drugs prior to 1938's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was limited in scope and only applied to purity and quality of items sold, and until 1912's amendment adding "false and fraudulent claims" to the definition of misbranded. Even so, the powers enabled by the Act were limited to after the fact, meaning that no one was prevented from producing and marketing anything to the people, only that after having done so and claims of fraud or other violations were made did anything happen. Much like liability law today. That continued until 1951's Durham-Humphrey amendment requiring efficacy testing. Even then, regulation was mostly after the fact until 1962's Kefauver-Harris Amendment.

      For health insurance, the first time a law proposed anything in this area was for an optional universal coverage by Truman in 1949. Obviously it failed. Not until 1965's Medicaid and Medicare expansion of Social Security did anything happen on the federal front. So I submit that healthcare was unfettered until then, and was free to operate however they chose, with state laws affecting them like any other business.

      I'm not aware of any limitations on the number or locations of medical providers. I consider this a red herring.

      So we've had a completely free market in health care until at least 1938, and arguably not until 1962. Even then, nothing in the regulatory situation affects medical care in the way you imply. Providers are free to operate where they're licensed by state, and those licenses are not regulated by number. Insurance is free to operate as regulated by state laws, however, that doesn't stop someone in one state from buying insurance through another state's licensed organization, however your protections are limited by state. So in what way are providers and insurance not running in a free market? Oh, you want a national free market place. Well, for that you have to go against several centuries of states having the right to regulate businesses inside their borders and open a business to consumer protections across state borders (which is regulation that you apparently think is so unnecessary in free markets)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    471. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That is just a total revisionist view of history. US healthcare started to diverge from Europe's in the early 1900

      I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.

      Single payer does not necessarily mean nationalized health care, nor does it mean no private insurance industry.

      Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.

      Single payer will work.

      Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.

      I've also stated a fully privatized system won't work, and state that's largely what we have now. Fully privatized does not mean unregulated.

      Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.

    472. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA

      The market did provide insurance, but they chose not to buy it. Most of them chose not to buy it because they were young and healthy and had better things to do with their money.

      You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.

      Correct: there is no alternative form of coverage because the ACA makes such alternative forms of coverage impossible. That is the problem. That's why we shouldrepeal the ACA, let insurance companies offer whatever plans they want to offer, and let people buy whatever plans they want to buy.

      You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker.

      I didn't "buy" anything, I speak from experience. I have seen the US healthcare system deteriorate before my eyes since the 1970's, and I have lived in several countries that have done better, both with private insurance and with nationalized healthcare. It's you who is ignorant and gullible and supports making the massively corrupt US healthcare system even more corrupt instead of insisting on reasonable cost controls and supporting the adoption of solutions that we know work.

    473. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, number of privately insured people probably has gone down; the main reason the number of covered people has gone up is because of massive Medicare/Medicaid expansion. Calling that an increase in the number of "insured" people is deceptive. Furthermore, it's not clear to what degree even those numbers are accurate, since the Obama administration changed the criteria for counting people just as ACA was being implemented, inflating the numbers. And that increased coverage doesn't seem to have done much good either: age adjusted death rates have gone up after ACA implementation, in particular in states with increased coverage. In fact, studies suggest that putting people on Medicare/Medicaid doesn't make them any healthier. That's the crappy, ineffective system you are defending.

    474. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.

      First, US healthcare costs were what they were because really only moderately healthy people were insured. Once you fell out of a job, you were done. That generally happened once you got sick. Very convenient. Also, for many of the currently expensive diseases to treat, there were no treatments then. It was hospice. You forget that open heart surgery didn't occur until the 50s, and certainly wasn't standardized for a decade, at least.

      You are correct that they didn't switch to a free market system. But you glibly ignore the fact that up through the early to mid 70s, healthcare didn't really have a whole lot of options on care other than new medicines. New techniques only started being applied on a large scale in the late 60s early 70s, and those are when healthcare costs started going up, because those were "new" things that didn't have customary and regularly accepted prices attached to them.

      Single payer does not necessarily mean nationalized health care, nor does it mean no private insurance industry.

      Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.

      Medicare is actually a perfect example. There is a single payer for Medicare. The doctors in the system are not privatized. There's also doctors that charge more, and patients pay more, or have supplemental insurance. That sounds a lot like free market on the provider side.

      Single payer will work.

      Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.

      Based on the above.

      I've also stated a fully privatized system won't work, and state that's largely what we have now. Fully privatized does not mean unregulated.

      Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.

      You still don't get it - we have, or until recently had, a free market system. It failed, even when regulations tried to rein in the worst portions of the free market abuses. It wasn't working for anyone but the young and healthy. Until you understand that, you won't comprehend why the current US system is an utter and abject failure. Yelling "free market" isn't a real solution because it was the problem.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    475. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      I'll summarize my thoughts here:
      • 1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing.
      • 2) you don't have a clue, and I seriously doubt you have dealt with health care in other countries. I have. 4.
      • 3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole.
      • 4) US healthcare is better than most in the world. However, an increasing group of poor and sick were being dropped from the rolls and falling through the cracks of that wonderful free market health care you keep touting (btw, you never gave any evidence for anything that would indicate the free market wasn't in operation as recently as 2010)
      • 5) I'm not sure what "alternatives" you're looking for. You have health insurance, health care co-operatives (HMOs) and self-insurance. There are no other alternatives, unless you're looking for things that don't cover you.

      Finally, you are incapable of understanding that I don't support the way the US healthcare system as it runs, even today. Posted rates need to be law. Insurance needs to be out of the medical care decisions. They cover things, or they don't. There's a litany of other things I could say, but they'd be wasted on you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    476. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Once you fell out of a job, you were done.

      Bullshit.

      Medicare is actually a perfect example. There is a single payer for Medicare.

      Yes, and they are also astronomically expensive and inefficient.

      You still don't get it - we have, or until recently had, a free market system.

      You just keep lying through your teeth.

    477. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing

      That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.

    478. Re: Occam's Razor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing

      ...

      3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole...

      That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.

      And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all. That was a last simple example to enable you to prove me wrong. You failed. Again.

      Bye

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    479. Re: Occam's Razor by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all.

      Well, as I was saying, I'm not advocating "private insurance", I'm advocating a free market; you keep mixing up the two. And in a free market the concept of "universal insurance coverage" makes no sense because people will choose a wide variety of different forms of medical care, including "no care". You're starting from premises and assumptions that apply to you but don't apply to a lot of other people.

      Economically, the question isn't whether we can cover more people anyway, but rather when Medicare/Medicaid and the rest of the social safety net are going to collapse; they are completely unsustainable. We're going to get a free market in healthcare one way or another.

      (And, since you ask, both Germany and Switzerland have private insurance and universal coverage, but neither have a free market in healthcare.)

    480. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it surprise you that a Nazi site claimed that a Nazi report demonstrated that google has an anti-Nazi bias? You've cited a right-wing site that cites a 'media bias chart' that puts InfoWars just right of center. I think we can safely assume you have no concept of actual bias because you're so blinded by your own.

    481. Re:Occam's Razor by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      It doesn't surprise me that an Anon coward completely misrepresents what was cited.

      Perhaps you're genuinely just unable to read a chart, but the media bias chart linked puts InfoWars under the "Most Extreme Right" category, labeled "Contains inaccurate/fabricated info" and "Nonsense damaging to public discourse".

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    482. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being President of the United States is the worlds most thankless job.

      They don't do it for the "thanks". They do it for the money and power. Duh.

      From the Clinton News Network, even:
      "$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented"
      https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html

  2. Hey Trump by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like your new invisible suit.

    1. Re:Hey Trump by Calydor · · Score: 2

      I can't get that mental image out of my head. Curse you, olsmeister! Curse you to a hell full of naked Trump lookalikes!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  3. Donald... just one thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOBODY SEARCH "trump news" ON GOOGLE!!!

  4. Re:Some truth by omnichad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First item I see is their web site. You're the one making up fake news.

  5. Well Known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think Google's machinations of the search results are well known.

    A simple survey of different search engines show a rather dramatic difference.

    1. Re: Well Known by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Yes, we know they tend to promote their own services ahead of their competition. So if Google owned their own news site and were pushing their own Trump is Crap content ahead of the Trump is Crap content from every other site, you might have a point.

  6. Re:Some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't mean the system is rigged, just that the results returned are more popular...

  7. Only bad news? by Vorl · · Score: 2

    You mean there are bits of good news out there? Besides the impending impeachment that is..

    1. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is never going to happen

    2. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, the impending impeachment is only in your wet dreams.

    3. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impeachment for what crime, again? I think you and most the other commenters here are going to be a bunch of disappointed sad pandas.

    4. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly. However, Trump's family, cronies, and companies are not so easy to shield.

    5. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice to start...look at all the folks who have flipped. its the entire list of folks who buried his bodies.

    6. Re:Only bad news? by gtall · · Score: 0

      Impeachment only if the Democrats take the House and are stupid enough to fall into that trap. El Presidente Tweetie would have a field day with it. And the Democrats probably are that stupid.

      And the Senate is not going to turn enough Democrat (assuming it even does) to convict.

      I'd rather that ePT gets thrown out on his ass in the next election.

    7. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not seen any. One gas station even promised "Free gas any day Trump does not say something stupid". The station is still in business..

    8. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can only impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that occurred during his administration. The events prior would be handled after he leaves office.

      I assumed most people understood the legal framework of their own government. But I sense many Americans simply do not, or do not care any longer. Too bad because your Constitution is far better than most others. Oh well, your loss.

    9. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High crimes refers to crimes committed by people in public offices as understood in contemporary terms when the constitution was written - not some form of worse than normal crime. There are numerious crimes including obstruction of justice, emoluments violations, serious campaign finance violations, each of which has multiple instances of crimes. Since those are public I'd bet money there are two dozen more we can't see. Add in purjury if he is ever forced to testify because he can't go two sentences without lying. Congress can impeach for the smallest of reasons, see Bill Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob.

    10. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Well done on kind of proving his point.

      There are multiple 'good news' stories relating to the work Trump is doing. That you can't reference any of them horrifically demonstrates the partisan echo chamber you occupy.

      Maybe you should seek a broader set of news sources that can offer you a more balanced view. You'll still hate Trump, but at least you'll be able to do it from an informed position.

    11. Re:Only bad news? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The fact that you think there are some good things coming from the current administration horrifically demonstrates the partisan echo chamber you occupy.

      Maybe you should seek a broader set of news sources that can offer you a more balanced view.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During his administration he has committed obstruction of justice in attempting to cover up "events prior", a high crime deserving of impeachment.

      Let's not even get started on emoluments.

    13. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The fact that you think there are some good things coming from the current administration horrifically demonstrates the partisan echo chamber you occupy.

      Holy fuck. You really think everything is bad? Nothing is good?

      You're so fucking isolated it's painful. Seek help.

      Maybe you should seek a broader set of news sources that can offer you a more balanced view.

      I know you're trying to be funny but really, when someone dares to acknowledge that sometimes people you don't like don't always get it completely wrong, that's not actually a bad thing. It's real life.

      There is plenty of shit Trump is doing that I don't like. There's some stuff he's doing that I agree with. There are some outcomes he's achieving that are good for the US.

      Who'd have thought. Well, those of us that actually access a broad spectrum of news, as it happens.

    14. Re:Only bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHA Trump doing "good" work?

      What kind of lunatic bullshit are you trying to spread?

    15. Re:Only bad news? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      There are multiple 'good news' stories relating to the work Trump is doing.

      Ok, list 3. What did we miss?

    16. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ooh, lets see.
      1 - Black unemployment under 7% for the first time in US history.
      2 - Diplomatic progress with North Korea including a commitment to denuclearise the peninsular
      3 - Reversed the horrific 'Dear Colleague' letter that led to so many miscarriages of justice under Title IX

      Other things that have been welcomed by his supporters would include withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, something considered to damage the US, his actions against sex trafficking (even if it did kill backpage), renegotiated the trade deal with Mexico, investments in US based energy production..

      But shit, I'm not American or in America. Do your own fucking research.

    17. Re:Only bad news? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Ok, list 3 that Trump actually did.

      For example, what specific actions taken by Trump lead to low African-American unemployment?

      Also, #2 is false. Despite the grandiose claims after the Singapore meeting, North Korea has actually taken steps towards building new nuclear and rocket facilities....and Trump himself just stopped negotiations with North Korea on this subject when he told Pompeo to not attend the next summit.

      Also, #3 is only good from your perspective. There's lots of people who will be hurt by it, and coverage of those is inherently negative.

      Also, "things that have been welcomed by his supporters" are not in-and-of-themselves positive. For example, his supporters would be happy with ending the ACA, but the resulting large pile of dead people would probably make most people consider that a negative.

      Also, being the only country on the planet with it's head so far up it's ass that we're going to lose Miami is not a positive.

      Also, he wasn't involved in the Congressional negotiations over FOSTA-SESTA (aka the bill that killed Backpage). Also there's lots of sex workers who were greatly harmed by this law, and the anti-trafficking benefits are not clear - driving the industry further underground is not the same as actually reducing it.

      Also, he has not negotiated any deal with Mexico yet. He's negotiated a deal with Mexico that is part of a US-Canda-Mexico trade agreement. Negotiations with Canada, and then follow-on negotiations with Mexico still have to be successful before there is a deal. Also, no one has disclosed anything in this not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA. So far the only disclosed difference is a formal schedule of renegotiations. But NAFTA did not preclude renegotiation.

      Also, those "investments in US based energy production" actually mean Trump's attempt to make everyone pay higher electricity rates in order to subsidize coal and nuclear. That was proposed, but hasn't been implemented yet.

      But shit, I'm not American or in America. Do your own fucking research.

      As you can see above, I did. It turns out everything you listed is false or not something Trump actually did.

    18. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So do your own fucking research. He's not my fucking president, I'm just not stupid enough to believe that everything he does is inherently wrong. You can't convince me of that unless you list absolutely fucking everything he's done and why it's wrong.

      Even then, you'd be wrong. E.g.

      Also, #3 is only good from your perspective. There's lots of people who will be hurt by it, and coverage of those is inherently negative.

      Nobody will be hurt by reverting Title IX back to assuring people receive equal treatment on campus irrespective of their gender. Nobody.

      Which is a vast improvement on the situation before Devos was appointed, with young men being railroaded out of college based on spurious and frequently provably false accusations.

      Rape and sexual assault are serious crimes. Don't fucking hide them with a flawed kangaroo court that fails miserably to dispense anything resembling justice, call the fucking police and let them investigate properly.

      Why is that so fucking hard to comprehend? Who the fuck loses out from that? Not a single fucking victim.

    19. Re:Only bad news? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice to start...look at all the folks who have flipped. its the entire list of folks who buried his bodies.

      A perfect example of why the people who penned the 4th amendment wanted to avoid general warrants, because in their wisdom and experience they knew how it could be abused.

      I'm pretty sure they never intended "salacious and unverified" information to be used in a secret court to launch a massive legal campaign to bring the full force of the entire federal statutes to crush everyone even associated with the target into making plea deals, or else face ruinous consequences.

      The same /. hive mind that protested the railroading of Aaron Swartz now seem happy to see people thrown into the woodchipper of 'justice' to sate their own political appetite.

    20. Re:Only bad news? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I like how upset you get when your own words are echoed back to you. Does it not occur to you that you could possibly suffer from the same affliction that you so happily label others with?

      Your base assumption was the the GP was uninformed and living in an echo chamber, and that seems like a rather dangerous assumption to make. Assuming that the only way that someone could be 100% against the current administration would be to be ignorant is, ignorant. It's very possible to be 100% against them and be well informed.

      Personally, I was against a large portion of what Obama's conservative administration did. Trump moving the administration away from conservative policies and into irrational and self-defeating ones does not make me more likely to like any of his policies.

      Tell me, what's the most liberal friendly policy that Trump has pushed, that liberals would be hypocritical not to like?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    21. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My favourite is overturning the Dear Colleague letter. I fucking hated the sexist bullshit that caused, and greatly welcome the equal protection Title IX can now provide.

      Mandating equal treatment irrespective of gender is surely something liberals must support, no?

    22. Re:Only bad news? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      So do your own fucking research

      You're the one making the claim that there is a large amount of positive stories that are being ignored. Back up your claim.

      Nobody will be hurt by reverting Title IX back to assuring people receive equal treatment on campus irrespective of their gender. Nobody.

      Trans people are now being harmed by this, because now there is nothing requiring schools to treat them as people. Are they Nobody? There are also women being harmed by this due to removing the requirements to investigate their real complaints. Are they Nobody?

      Which is a vast improvement on the situation before Devos was appointed, with young men being railroaded out of college based on spurious and frequently provably false accusations.

      If it's a provably false accusation, then that's a crime and the woman also faces civil liability. You don't need to fuck over every woman and trangender person to get revenge on the girl who didn't actually want to have sex with you.

    23. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You're the one making the claim that there is a large amount of positive stories that are being ignored. Back up your claim.

      No, I'm refuting the claim that there are no positive stories. I've also provided evidence that the claim is false.

      If you're standing by that claim then you're being obnoxiously and intentionally ignorant.

      Trans people are now being harmed by this, because now there is nothing requiring schools to treat them as people

      What the fuck sort of bullshit statement is that? There's nothing requiring schools to treat men or women as people either, by that logic. What part of this exclude trans people:

      No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

      Forgive me if I fail miserably to spot the part of that which says, "unless they're trans".

      There are also women being harmed by this due to removing the requirements to investigate their real complaints.

      If a woman has a real complaint and her school isn't investigating it, she still has options. She may well have a title IX complaint against the school, and if the complaint is relating to sexual assault or rape then the justice system is also available and supportive to her.

      Curious though that you're worried about women here. The whole point of Title IX is to assure equal treatment of people irrespective of their sex. Men have exactly the same requirements to investigate their real complaints too.

      So no, nobody is being harmed.

      If it's a provably false accusation, then that's a crime and the woman also faces civil liability.

      This is why there are multiple Title IX related cases against women and institutions by men that were false accused and received no justice at all.

      You don't need to fuck over every woman and trangender person to get revenge on the girl who didn't actually want to have sex with you.

      No woman or transgender person is getting fucked over. They're being treated exactly the same as men, which is hopefully with care, compassion and full access to the police.

      If a girl doesn't want to sleep with me, I sleep alone. This is easy. It doesn't however stop me showing empathy to the men thrown out of college following a petulant false accusation by the girl that they didn't want to sleep with.

    24. Re:Only bad news? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'm unclear what your complaint about the Dear Colleague letter is. (I'm assuming it's this one? https://www2.ed.gov/about/offi...)

      It's gender-neutral, and lays out the need for schools to have a process to address sexual harassment. I'm unclear where you get 'sexist bullshit' from it. Could you identify where in that letter you see this?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    25. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, the distinction between the law and its application. Not only were Title IX investigations lacking in due process and not only were they also overwhelmingly used to target men and not women, but shit, look at the hypocrisy that flies when a woman is accused:
      https://jezebel.com/what-are-w...

      On top of that, you're telling me Amherst settled Doe vs Amherst because they felt they were in the right? Have you read page 18 of the lawsuit?
      http://s3.documentcloud.org/do...

      How the fuck was that a fair and balanced process? Shit, there are countless examples. E.g. one where two students were both drunk and had sex, but only the male was subjected to disciplinary proceedings:
      https://www.armstrongteasdale....

      I think that the changes offer substantially higher chances of actual justice: https://www.pandslaw.com/title...

    26. Re:Only bad news? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      So rather than fix the application of the guidance, your preference is to remove the guidance? I guess I can see that position, but upon first read, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the guidance, and it seems a legitimately fair and reasonable bit of guidance.

      In addition, you're just picking a handful of stories where it seems that the guidance was not followed to support that it was good to revoke it. That's a rather illogical position to take. "The person going 100 miles an hour wrecked and killed themselves. We need to get rid of the speed limit because it didn't work." The lawsuits are a consequence of not following the guidance, especially the parts about neutrality and equitable treatment.

      To be intellectually honest, rather than clamp onto a few inflammatory cases, you need to look at how cases were handled before and after it in aggregate, and see if it had an overall positive, neutral, or negative impact. I honestly don't know, but I do know that my preference would be to keep it and work on the application of it. Something the lawsuits were probably quickly resolving.

      Mandating equal treatment irrespective of gender is surely something liberals must support, no?

      No.

      Do you understand the difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes? If you give 3 kids bikes, that's equal treatment. If one of them is paralyzed from the waist down, that's not an equal outcome. Just treating or providing the same support to everyone equally only works if they are equal to start with. If they aren't equal to start with, the focus should be on equity to make them equal.

      I see a lot of neocon angst about this, and I honestly don't get it. Is it that hard to understand that the end goal for most liberals is equal outcomes? And to get equal outcomes, equal treatment won't work as different groups of people start from different places.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    27. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I want to give birth. Please provide me with an equal outcome to women.

      Or shut the fuck up about stupidity like equal outcomes, you utter imbecile.

    28. Re:Only bad news? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I like how you could only feign civility for so long.

      It's rather crazy to me that your worldview is such that everything not perfect needs to be put down. There's plenty of room for getting close and calling it done. That's how most of the world works.

      Consider having wheelchair ramps outside of buildings. No, someone wheelchair bound will never be able to get up and walk up the stairs for your perfect version of equality. But the outcome, getting into the building with a minimal amount of effort, is as close to equal as we can get.

      Likewise, you may not be able to give birth, but you can adopt an infant and raise it as a parent. That's about as equal as we can get, and other than the 9 months of carrying it, that's damn close to equality. If you have a surrogate mom and use IVF, the child can even biologically be half yours, just like as if you gave birth to it.

      Just because everyone can't have perfectly equal outcomes is not a reason to stop trying.

      Why does this make you so irrationally angry?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    29. Re:Only bad news? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      There are multiple 'good news' stories relating to the work Trump is doing.

      Let's hear them then.

      ........crickets

    30. Re:Only bad news? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Do you always reply before reading the other comments, or are you just being stupid on purpose?

      Scroll up.

  8. Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone, please put this toddler back to bed

    1. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did, and obviously a lot of others did, too. Speaking of toddlers, the insults against the majority does little but underscore the bias.

    2. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "majority"?

      This word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. Re: Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump was NOT elected by a majority.

    4. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the majority of people voted for Clinton, lol

    5. Re: Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump was NOT elected by a majority.

      Yes, but he'll be reelected by a landslide.

      Despite the name calling and the childish whining of a blatantly biased media, Trump's approval ratings are going up.

      I may be deplorable, but at least I'm not a fucking liberal.

    6. Re: Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well... He was elected by the majority of the electoral college... As defined in the Constitution.

    7. Re: Who voted for this retard by omnichad · · Score: 1

      name calling and the childish whining

      I thought that was his platform.

    8. Re: Who voted for this retard by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Majority of...?

      You still do not know how US Presidential elections work? Perhaps you could, oh I dunno, learn?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re: Who voted for this retard by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Actually, he was. By a ratio of 304 to 227.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Who voted for this retard by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The majority of the votes that count went to President Trump - 304 to 227.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of the votes that count went to President Trump - 304 to 227.

      Those aren't votes, they're just rubber-stamping what was already decided by the actual voters. This has been the case for the Electoral College almost since the very beginning. (Technically there was some shenanigans attempted by Aaron Burr, but that's the only case where the Electoral College came close, and the few times the House did anything was even worse). Otherwise? They never made informed decisions, but were actually following a previously established agenda that has only intermittently had the occasional protest vote that accomplished nothing. And in modern days, they don't even reserve it to the state legislatures, but universally have given it to the citizens who vote. It's still a broken system, for a variety of reasons, but it's still not electors, but voters making the call.

      Who didn't vote for Trump in a majority, and in fact, a plurality voted for Clinton.

      You know, despite Trump's desperate and fervent claims to the contrary. Remember, he actually claimed there were millions of illegal voters without ever producing a scintilla of evidence of numbers that excessive.

    12. Re:Who voted for this retard by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Electoral College. Read it and realize they are the ones who cast the only votes that matter, and each State determines their own means of electing and elector. A State can decide to choose their elector based on a flip of a coin, a cow patty drop, or popular election in their State. There is no Constitutional directive stating how an individual may vote, or even dictate, how an elector will vote. As a result, there are only 535 votes that matter - the electoral college. And President Trump won a strong majority of those.

      People talking about the popular vote don't get it; they are showing their ignorance of the process. It's like talking about which team had the most yards, or had the most hits. What matters at the end of the game is the score - and in the US Presidential election, the score is ONLY based on the electoral vote. Your football team may have had the most total yardage, but if it doesn't have a higher score - it lost.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

      Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

      I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

      At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

    14. Re:Who voted for this retard by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not a single link you provided had anything to do with the Constitution. National Popular Vote movement? Opinion pieces about what it should be? Stop dealing in fantasies, AC - deal in facts. The electoral college votes for the President, and every State may decide how they want to decide who their electors will vote for. There is NO individual vote for the President - that's per the Constitution.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    15. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a single link you provided had anything to do with the Constitution.

      Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.

      I did neglect to bring up the one incident that arguably did occur in the Electoral College, but you can look it up if you want.

      Otherwise, there's two cases where it was in Congress, both of them were quite shameful.

      Sorry man, that you don't like the fact that the Electoral College is roundly and soundly derided as the abomination it is, doesn't make it any less a fact that it happens, and justifiably show.

      If a foreign country sought to impose the Electoral College upon our nation, we'd be in revolution.

      The electoral college votes for the President, and every State may decide how they want to decide who their electors will vote for. There is NO individual vote for the President - that's per the Constitution.

      The Electoral College does nothing more than rubberstamp what was decided on Election Day, that's per the actual reality of the Constitution's completely deficient means of effecting a means or purpose to the Electoral College. It's even completely partisan now, thus destroying all the supposed nobility that certain persons might have claimed it possessed, if they were as foolish as you are about the Electoral College.

      Again, just because you're troubled by that fact, doesn't make it any less true.

      Just like Trump, being troubled by the fact of his losing the Popular Vote, can't change it by wringing his hands and complaining about supposed "illegal" votes.

      You should just own up to it, show some integrity, and abandon the desperate defense you're forced to undertake for the Electoral College. It's not worth it. You only discredit yourself.

      Which is fine by me, I grant, because I'm glad you're contorting yourself into such nonsense, as it just serves to highlight your incompetence, but still, it's worth pointing out how foolish you are.

      PS, just like when Trump boast about his Electoral College victory. Sorry, it wasn't as big as so many others. It was smaller than many if not most. Foolish of him to boast falsely.

    16. Re:Who voted for this retard by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.

      You just confirmed my position. Thank you. People don't like how it operates, so they want to change it. As it operates today - the only votes that matter are the electoral college. You might not like it - but that's the fact.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Who voted for this retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there you go, exaggerating again. Actually, many of them specifically analyze the defects in the Electoral College that arise due to the fundamentally flawed coverage in the Constitution, and demonstrate the fallacies that go along with the fantasies of the various apologists by pointing out the actual reality of affairs.

      You just confirmed my position. Thank you. People don't like how it operates, so they want to change it. As it operates today - the only votes that matter are the electoral college. You might not like it - but that's the fact.

      Yep, it's a fact, people are smart enough to recognize that the Electoral College is nothing more than useless theater and its electors do nothing except rubber-stamp what they were told to do, that's a fact, even though you foolishly continue to dogmatically assert that the electors votes somehow matter when actually, they are nothing but a useless sacramental gesture.

      That's why anybody with intelligence and good sense would seek to remove it. It has no legitimacy whatsoever, and debases the whole system.

      Sadly, of course, lacking either, you posture over it. Sad. Very sad for you, that you just can't escape your partisan bis.

  9. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a Slashdot post that does nothing but quotes Trump is "for Trump haters"?

    You're pretty touchy and sensitive, aren't you?

  10. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you don't read much Slashdot. There are plenty of Trump supporters who are simply waiting for the undeniably good news to start rolling in. They're currently singing the praises of the low unemployment rate (mostly because so many people have simply dropped out of the labor force and those left are mostly doing fast food jobs).

  11. waaaah Trumps been triggered again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a snowflake!

  12. Darn that Drumpf anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know, if he spent his time actually doing good things instead of bad things he could spend a lot less time lying and going on and on about "fake" news. I mean if he didn't spend all of his time denying that he ever said or did the things he is on tape saying and doing he might have time to learn why you don't just get an economic advisor by searching on Amazon and figure out that his tariffs and trade wars are bad. Then, he wouldn't have to read about how stupid his policies are.

    1. Re:Darn that Drumpf anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But good things take effort and skill!

      *waaaaaaaa* -Drumpf

      captcha: archival

  13. Re:trumpdot by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Shit-for-brains, Trump-feltching Russophiles.

    Their skins are as gossamer-thin as their orange messiah's.

  14. Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Probably because the media is so blatantly biased against Trump. I saw the TV news last night mocking Trump because he couldn't figure out the phone system on his desk. Never mind those things are notoriously unfriendly to use, or the fact that he just reached a new trade agreement with Mexico. No...it's all about Trump being an idiot and nothing more. The news media has been an axe-griding disaster. Google's search results are merely reflecting that.

    1. Re:Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mocking Trump because he couldn't figure out the phone system on his desk. Never mind those things are notoriously unfriendly to use,

      If Obama had had any difficulty with the phone system (which he didn't), you would be sobbing like a schoolgirl.

    2. Re: Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering he's almost a year in and he hasn't figured out the phone system..m

    3. Re: Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have a better argument if you weren't guilty of attacking Obama over an alleged fingerbowl incident in the UK, Clinton over ordering Big Macs to eat in the Oval Office, or Carter for filling the Kitchens with Peanuts.

    4. Re: Because it's biased. by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      He is PRESIDENT. Yes, I expect him to be able to figure out how to use a phone. Dear G-d, how low will you set your standards? They actually have training for WH personnel on how to use their phones, so unless he was playing on Twitter during the session he was already brought up to speed. Also, itâ(TM)s not his first month, so I do expect heâ(TM)s had to use it before now.

      So, yeah, if he doesnâ(TM)t know by now heâ(TM)s never going to, or heâ(TM)s forgotten (which is scarier by far).

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    5. Re: Because it's biased. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      while I do expect him to know how to use the phone, I prefer to know that he has a call patch over. and your point is valid.

      what I find funny is that you might recall that the phones in the white house had to be patched to handle the volume of incoming calls back in the 90's, wire still works lol

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    6. Re:Because it's biased. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Probably because the truth is so blatantly biased against Trump.

      Fixed it for you.

    7. Re:Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He _could_ have skipped a round of golf to ensure he could operate the phone (that's been on his desk for the whole time he's been in office, presumably) before going on TV to do a piece where the phone plays an important part. That's the sort of thing a president would do. Or anyone with any interest in appearing competent for the task of going on TV to make an announcement, would do.

      The news are reflecting the fact that he's the most incompetent president in the history of the nation, and only stratospherically high levels of denial can make anyone believe otherwise.

      Regarding the trade agreement, it seems pertinent to mention that there was already a trade agreement in place, which Trump decided to say "fuck it" to and impose tariffs anyway, causing the US a lot of pain. So now he's trying to spin a normalization, to alleviate the pain he himself inflicted, as something very clever only he could do, and the before mentioned stratospheric floaters are somehow unable to understand what just happened.

    8. Re:Because it's biased. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "If Obama had had any difficulty with the phone system (which he didn't), you would be sobbing like a schoolgirl."

      No, I wouldn't consider it significant, unless it became known that it impeded his performance of his duties... Then actually I would question either his choice of staff, or their competence in providing him with training or expertise. Wait, is that the same thing?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re: Because it's biased. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "You'd have a better argument if you weren't guilty of attacking Obama over an alleged fingerbowl incident in the UK"

      - Huh. I didn't pay much attention to this. I forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of his fallibility.

      "Clinton over ordering Big Macs to eat in the Oval Office"

      - Cool. But I didn't actually remember that either. If I were President, I would expect that Big Mac to be hot and fresh, much as former President Clinton expected, I'm sure.

      "Carter for filling the Kitchens with Peanuts."

      - Huh? Is this a trivia contest?

      I'm arguing, and these would not and have not occurred to me as being pertinent.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Because it's biased. by hey! · · Score: 2

      The media isn't Trump's enemy, they're his enabler. He'll tweet something inflammatory, and they get to fill their pages and airtime with cheap and obvious reaction. Trump on the other hand thrives on the attention; that's why he does it.

      Take the hiring and firing of Omarosa -- a woman who's whole schtick is creating shitstorms for her coworkers. It's not like they didn't know that about her when they brought in into the White House. So what can you conclude from that? That bullshit drama is what they wanted her for.

      Trump doesn't see negative public publicity as bad; in fact he courts it. And the press goes along because unlike serious news it's a cost effective way to collect eyeballs.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Because it's biased. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      or the fact that he just reached a new trade agreement with Mexico

      Here's an example of the actual problem. Trump didn't reach a new trade agreement with Mexico.

      His administration completed the main negotiations of the Mexico-US part of a trade agreement between Mexico, the US and Canada. The agreement isn't done yet, because they haven't started talking to Canada yet, and negotiations with Canada are going to affect the US-Mexico part of the agreement. If Canada says "No", then there is no trade agreement with Mexico because that's what Mexico negotiated.

      So while it's a step forward, claiming it is done is actually "fake news". Kinda like the trip to Singapore didn't actually result in a new denuclearization agreement between the US and North Korea, despite widespread claims to the contrary.

    12. Re: Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm arguing, and these would not and have not occurred to me as being pertinent.

      That speaks poorly of yourself, as they're just the sort of thing the original post ranted about, but suddenly now that it's a Pumpkin in the White House, well, that's just too undignified.

    13. Re: Because it's biased. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      What? Those things would have been important to me no matter who president was. can't you just let go of the idea that whatever everybody else is thinking is wrong?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re:Because it's biased. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Probably because the truth is so blatantly biased against Trump.

      Fixed it for you.

      Can you fix my irony meter? I think it just broke.

    15. Re: Because it's biased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Those things would have been important to me no matter who president was.

      That's not established. Sorry, you are beholden to your lack of provenance. And of course, it's the OP who started in on it, you know, not you.

      Remember that?

      can't you just let go of the idea that whatever everybody else is thinking is wrong?

      Can't you let go of the idea that people are necessarily thinking about you? Of course, this speaks poorly of you. Sorry, you are beholden to your lack of perception.

      Remember that.

  15. News for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a joke.

  16. These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Evolution, global warming, the facts about Trump... All these aspects of reality that mainstream media is willing to embrace, conservative media largely rejects. The result of these processes is that, to the conservative eye, reality appears to have a liberal bias. Is it such a bad thing that Google reflects that reality?

    1. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "the facts about Trump... All these aspects of reality that mainstream media is willing to embrace, conservative media largely rejects."

      Oh, dear. The mainstream media focuses not on the "the facts about Trump" but on their opinions, analyses, and actually start with reporting that is based not on fact but on provably false statements and assumptions.

      And I'm not at all surprised this "the facts about Trump" meme is presented so quickly. This mantra is repeated by the mainstream media as if it is true, because, after all, they want it to be true.

      If you're unable to find salient examples of my assertion that the mainstream media relies on "provably false statements and assumptions.", you are not, no, you are not even trying. And I cannot change that. There is no lack of sources for this, credible sources, some even nonpartisan. Go and look.

      Complaining that I'm not making my point is actually a result of the mainstream media successfully burying, subverting, and discrediting such facts, and they are factual, based on Congressional testimony and federal agency data. Oh, there, a clue. Follow it or not.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if reality has a liberal bias then GMOs are the devil, vaccines cause autism and there are no biological differences between males and females? Oh, and a new one I found out yesterday is that apparently race isn't based on biology either.

      Idiot.

    3. Re: These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, it's fair play.

      A large contingent of people believed Obama wasn't born an American citizen (even after releasing his birth certificate). Then there was the stupid Pizzagate. Then there was...

      I could keep going on, but these same people and companies kept it going with fake news about non right politicians.

      Turnabout is fair play, especially when you're stupid enough to use left leaning platforms that can easily censor you. Maybe you should make your own platform?

    4. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember truth isn't truth and news I don't like is fake.

    5. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if reality has a liberal bias then GMOs are the devil, vaccines cause autism and there are no biological differences between males and females? Oh, and a new one I found out yesterday is that apparently race isn't based on biology either.

      Idiot.

      There are certainly falsehoods believed by groups on both sides of the political spectrum, and in the recent past it could be argued the crazies on both sides were fairly equal. But unfortunately today the far right has went so far off the deep end there is no comparison. Lets look at some of your examples.

      Liberals do tend to have unfounded anti-GMO biases, which while misguided are still based on some solid scientific concerns. Compare that to Conservatives and their antagonistic views on global climate change, which go against an effectively unanimous backing from the scientific community.

      Anti-vaccination concerns started out with a tiny section of liberals, but today these concerns are roughly equally shared by the far left and far right. Even here, one side is merely anti-corporation where the other is more generally anti-science. Both are misguided, but the far right is driven as usual from its anti-intellectual beliefs.

      No liberals I have ever read about believe there are no biological differences between men and women. They simply follow the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society. Compare that to conservatives who still believe gender is a binary condition, and the far right is clearly less educated in their beliefs here as well.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      If you are so eager to have some one "find salient examples of my assertion that the mainstream media relies on "provably false statements and assumptions.", you are not, no, you are not even trying. And I cannot change that. There is no lack of sources for this, credible sources, some even nonpartisan. Go and look." maybe you should just post a link to said proof? It couldn't be that "you are not, no, you are not even trying".

      Complaining that I'm not making my point is actually a result of the mainstream media successfully burying, subverting, and discrediting such facts, and they are factual, based on Congressional testimony and federal agency data.

      So are the facts easy to find or is the "mainstream media successfully burying" it?

    7. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took less than 10 seconds to prove you completely wrong, using Trump himself as a source. QED.

    8. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race really isn't based on biology. Ethnicity is, but race is a social construct. This is proven by the inclusion/exclusion of ethnicities into the "white" race over time.

    9. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare that to conservatives who still believe gender is a binary condition

      Not sure that's true.

      I've met quite a lot of conservatives who identify as attack helicopters.

    10. Re: These days reality has a liberal bias by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 1

      This. In Australia on our govt news site ABC there would be an average DAILY analysis or opinion piece on Trump (never favourable or explanatory on any of his positions) since he was elected. I have never seen anything like it.

    11. Re: These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be favourable to Trump,they would have to find something good he has done, which is impossible, and explain what he has done, also impossible.
      The ABC publishes no more about Trump than ant other media outlet.
      Meanwhile newscorpse never ending conga line of far right blowhards push Trumpism none stop.
      Take your blinkers off and face reality.

    12. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender

      what kind of fucking bullshit is this?

    13. Re:These days reality has a liberal bias by ranton · · Score: 1

      > the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society

      what kind of fucking bullshit is this?

      Just try reading to the end of the sentence next time.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  17. I don't know if it's rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But most google news about trump is negative.

  18. Obi Wan says by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."

    And trump clings onto his not-so-humble point of view as firmly as he shakes those hands with his trademark OTT handshake. He just has to tell himself there's no greater point of view that that of donald j trump and the rest of the world can just bend and twist and distort itself around the imaginary pedestal on which he puts himself.

    1. Re:Obi Wan says by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Running for President of the United States requires an outsized ego. It cannot be any other way.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  19. Google has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube and Google suck compared to the way it used to be. Now results are censored. And beyond bad search results, the outright censorship is the worst. Searches on controversial topics will now artificially skew the results to favor one side. And Youtube has delted thousands of "controversial" videos because they didn't understand the content or didn't agree with the viewpoint.

    The Golden Age of the Internet is now gone. Libertarian ideals of free exchange of information has had a stake driven through it's heart. You can blame the SJWs and snowflakes who have no clue as to the meaning of liberty or free speech. They scream like babies who need a diaper changed when they don't get their way.

    1. Re:Google has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, blame the greedy for commercializing the internet, and providing platforms for the extremists on all sides to spout their stupidity. once again humanity has shown it lacks the wisdom to deal with the technology it creates.

  20. Re:Clinton's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFY

  21. It doesn't matter whether it's true by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This statement is probably bullshit, but it serves its purpose: His die hard fans will simply believe it and any bad news is simply propaganda against him. What is or what isn't doesn't really matter either way.

    In a way, it's genius. What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.

    I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

      Occam's razor tho’

    2. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Churches are still doing fine. We've lived in a world where you don't need actual evidence for what you believe for a long, long time.

    3. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by sinij · · Score: 1

      I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

      They are not, as many bought into Putin's propaganda machine after he consolidated control of the Russia's public media through a group of allied oligarchs.

      What at play here is timescales. It took Russian people couple generations and insurmountable evidence to stop believing in future communism. If USSR's central planning wasn't quite as mismanaging and stagnant, if the overall system wasn't quite as stifling it is likely that USSR would still exist as a country today. Communist Party of China still going strong, and they are rooted in the same idea and form of governance.

    4. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by gDLL · · Score: 1

      "What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies."

      Because, unlike the old days, your media are just spreading lies.
      Thank god we broke free in the meantime.

    5. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So ... the Pravda did report the truth, as its name would suggest? I'm kinda confused.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      CNBC and Harvard pretty much agree with the President, and I don't think those are two right-leaning organizations...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Pravda was like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who famously denied that US troops were even close to, let alone in, Baghdad, even as you can hear the US tanks and military in the background of his press briefing. Pravda never admitted what was obvious to anyone who lived there (Great News! Chocolate rations have been increased to 22 grams from 40 grams!) and saw what was happening in the USSR, and learned - easily enough - what life was like outside.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans."
      Self deceit and illusion are tricks the mind plays on itself - the ego defends itself when faced with potentially scary truths.

    9. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I just want to reference 1 topic : you said "I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans"

      I will agree to a certain degree, but when Russians are given profit motive, they perform as good or better. I know too many ex-USSR people that now highly paid engineers in most fields here in the USA.

      Also, I will say this, we are ( or I think we are ) behind the general population ball in science education.

      I think that one of the best Russian skill set's is the ability to make something work in a harsh environment, the best example is the landing gear for the military jet's, built on the basis that it has to land on dirt roads. Sadly I can not cite an article to validate my statement.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    10. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Who cares?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies."

      Because, unlike the old days, your media are just spreading lies.

      Thank god we broke free in the meantime.

      Some media is spreading lies but definitely not all of it. It's not exactly difficult to tell the difference either. The problem is people have become used to reading bullshit on the internet. Social media is not news. Memes are not news. Opinion pieces are not news. There's nothing wrong with any of these but believing them to be the factual truth is just plan stupid.

      I'm not sure who "we" is but if you mean Russia, they've hardly broken free. Their last election was more of sham then the US, which is impressive.

    12. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      I will agree to a certain degree, but when Russians are given profit motive, they perform as good or better. I know too many ex-USSR people that now highly paid engineers in most fields here in the USA.

      I'm thinking of a quote from Cryptonomicon, which I suspect was based on some actual quote from the setting of that part of the story (WWII).

      "Ask a Russian to design a shoe, and the box it came in will make a better shoe. But ask a Russian to make something to kill Germans, and suddenly they're Thomas <deleted> Edison."

      Motivation matters.

    13. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't say that, so either you're lying or a moron. They said that 80% of the coverage was negative. He's saying that Google rigs it so that only the negative coverage shows up. That's not the same thing.

    14. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      First, if you actually think CNBC is liberal, you really should take that hood off.

      Second, positive coverage comes from positive things being accomplished. Trump hasn't been able to actually get much done, much less positive things done.

    15. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the navy submariner that Trump pardoned. Tell that to the three North Korean hostages which were US citizens who were released leading up to the Singapore meeting.

      I know, it is just saving a few lives; hardly worth a break from the breathless coverage of reds under the bed.

    16. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of those were covered extensively in the news. They are also lost in the endless reports of tweets coming from the White House.

    17. Re:It doesn't matter whether it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more than rallying the base. Trump may be trying to bait Google, Twitter et al into a situation where they perjure themselves. That would take this issue out of the realm of free speech, where they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

      Disagree with Trump, but don't ridicule him. That easily becomes underestimation, and it's something the left has repeatedly done.

  22. Surprised by the results by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 2

    As much as I dislike 46's tactics, I figured the search results would be pretty much negative. I just searched Trump on Google and went through the first 50 hits. I would say about 60% negative and 40% just reporting something with no obvious bias.

    1. Re:Surprised by the results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't Trump #45?

    2. Re:Surprised by the results by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      45 - the favorite President of Billy Dee Williams.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Surprised by the results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gave Google the chance to quickly change the algorithm so that a bunch of conservative media suddenly started to appear. This is so everyone can now go look and say "See, Trump is obviously wrong!".

    4. Re:Surprised by the results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember it by TRE45ON.

    5. Re:Surprised by the results by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      Did you do it logged out, and from an IP no one has ever used with Google before?

    6. Re:Surprised by the results by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

      Did it in incognito mode.

    7. Re: Surprised by the results by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      So, no. Incognito mode can easily be detected and requests targeted similarly to those from your other windows. Even requests from other devices on the same LAN can be tied to you with a high degree of acuracy. Itâ(TM)s very difficult to make a request to Google that isnâ(TM)t correlated with past requests in some way.

  23. Re:trumpdot by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. This is just more alternative facts... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the record doesn't reflect what you want, toss it out and supply your own "facts". Trump is mad that he's forced to face criticism and not allowed to make up his own facts.

    And beyond all that, Google ranks pages essentially based on their popularity. If a lot of sites---especially popular sites---link to your content, then it gets ranked more highly regardless of how "good" or "true" it is. In that sense, Google's rankings simply reflect an unfavorable opinion of Trump.

    This is more of the same attitude on the part of the President, and I scarcely see it as newsworthy. He's been at war with the media practically since his campaign started.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:This is just more alternative facts... by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Sure, and that's how Trump gets criticized for saying everyone coming across the southern border are rapists, criminals, and 'animals'. Because the criticism leveled at him is always fair, without lies of omission, and never completely disingenuous smear tactics.

      There's every reason not to trust Google's page ranking, just as there no reason to have faith in the actual popularity of what is 'trending' on Youtube, or how keywords in autocomplete are generated. There is no transparency that allows confidence, only the tattered motto of 'don't be evil'.

      There is however the evidence that Google, or namely Eric Schmidt, remains an ally of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

  25. Google=Left Wing tax evaders by WCMI92 · · Score: 0

    And purveyors of fake news.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Google=Left Wing tax evaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy gets it. ^

    2. Re:Google=Left Wing tax evaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’d be surprise if he does, women don’t like Incel crypto fascists.

  26. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
    To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
    To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

      Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

    1. Re:Anyone who is capable of getting themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the quote was about Zaphod Beeblebox, but the more I think about it - the similarities are uncanny!

    2. Re:Anyone who is capable of getting themselves... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This is not the first time I've thought of Donald Trump as Zaphod. It is absolutely the closest we've ever come.

  27. All trump has to do is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop being a shortsighted, cruel, idiot and the bad headlines will be good.

  28. Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.

    Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is bias. Believing all news sources are biased against you is indistinguishable from believing in a conspiracy. The simple explanation here is just that Trump doesn't like news that isn't flattering to him and that there is a LOT of factual news that makes him objectively look bad. His own behavior is the simplest explanation, not bias. Some people like his behavior - many many more do not. Ergo a lot of of news isn't favorable to Trump.

    1. Re:Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.

      Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is bias

      Didn't say that it did. (Doesn't mean that it isn't, either.)

      All I said is: bias is simple. And invisible, to those similarly biased. No conspiracy needed.

    2. Re:Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama kicks reporter out for asking questions Obama didn't like. All the media people in the room literally start chanting Obama's name.

      Trump kicks reporter out for asking questions Trump didn't like. Media: OMG HITLER IS ATTACKING THE MEDIEA!!!!!111!1!

      If that kind of bias doesn't lead to skewed reporting what will?

    3. Re:Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail on the head...some people do not like his behavior. It's not that he's doing anything wrong, it's that the people who write and aggregate these stories hate him.

    4. Re:Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Obama didn't do that, nor did the media chant his name. Obama also didn't spend all his time railing against the media because frankly most of what he did wasn't controversial. He ended up being Bush light.

    5. Re:Trumps behavior is the simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.

      Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is bias. Believing all news sources are biased against you is indistinguishable from believing in a conspiracy. The simple explanation here is just that Trump doesn't like news that isn't flattering to him and that there is a LOT of factual news that makes him objectively look bad. His own behavior is the simplest explanation, not bias. Some people like his behavior - many many more do not. Ergo a lot of of news isn't favorable to Trump.

      You summed it up quite well here:
      "His own behavior is the simplest explanation, not bias. Some people like his behavior - many many more do not. Ergo a lot of of news isn't favorable to Trump."

      "News" organizations simply don't like his behavior, as in they are biased against him. Not biased against him because he is white, male, or has horrible hair. No, they don't like his and his supporter's positions. "News" in the US doesn't primarily report on objective facts. They report on whatever their owners (who by the way take a loss on ownership in many cases) tell them to report on. If you want to know why the "news" here hates Trump look at why the owners of these organizations hate him. Its no global conspiracy to realize that these organizations are generally owned and represented by people of like thought and ideals. Its no surprise that they generally all agree on most issues and did so before Trump was on the scene. Go to a BLM march and I guarantee you most will have an similar opinion on MLK. Thats because they generally come from the same backgrounds and world views. The same goes for the owners of most "news" outlets in the US.

  29. There's no conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be. Those are overwhelmingly anti-Trump, such that my top results on Google news were such "news" as Trump pushing the wrong buttons on his speakerphone. This goes in with other such "news" as him feeding fish with Shinzo Abe, getting two scoops of ice cream, etc. all of which Google thinks it's vital that I know about for some reason, because I guess people really care about that kind of triviality?

    Meanwhile, they don't give a crap about independent blogs like TCT, no matter how deeply it has investigated the Russian collusion with Oleg Deripaska, and despite it being a great source for original documents on, e.g., the FISA warrant for Carter Page.

    So yeah, there's no conspiracy. Google simply promotes the fluffy mainstream news that's very popular and not very informative.

    1. Re:There's no conspiracy by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be.

      As they should. They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites. Giving equal weight to a random conspiracy theorist web site with 5 followers makes no sense for very good reason.

    2. Re:There's no conspiracy by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.

      If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read. Just claiming that something is not factual without actually trying to look into it at all is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.

    3. Re:There's no conspiracy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.

      MSNBC, CNN, and similar outfits publish so much garbage because it gets people angry and results in clickthroughs, and that's the same reason Google puts them at the top of search results. None of the corporate media, or Google, are interested in truth or good politics or rational debate, they want to maximize profit, and they will say and do whatever it takes.

      If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read

      No, what Axios claims is that "Democrats are more likely to take additional steps to verify what they’ve read than Republicans". Since Republicans already assume or know at a much greater rate than Democrats that news stories are fake, they have less to verify.

    4. Re:There's no conspiracy by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Well, 66% of millenials think the Earth is not round. As such, forgive me for not taking people's opinions on what they think as fake or false news as incontrovertible fact.

    5. Re:There's no conspiracy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      As such, forgive me for not taking people's opinions on what they think as fake or false news as incontrovertible fact.

      Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.

      Well, 66% of millenials think the Earth is not round. [forbes.com]

      That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?

    6. Re:There's no conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As they should. They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites. Giving equal weight to a random conspiracy theorist web site with 5 followers makes no sense for very good reason.

      And the public is terrible at this! Instead of people looking at actual evidence, we have people trusting the big names who constantly blow smoke up our asses.

      Look, I don't have all the answers for everything, but I'll be damned sure to listen to someone who can back up their statements with real information and verifiable facts than over outlets who use anonymous sources, then have the same source come on the air to deny having made any comments, who later get outed as the source and forced to recant the things they lied about earlier as said anonymous source. Or when you have said sources that leak stuff to the media and then pretend, in court, that it's corroboration of the material they leaked, only to get caught.

      CNN & Buzzfeed, I'm looking at you here.

    7. Re:There's no conspiracy by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to take your opinion because your reading comprehension is terrible. You misquoted your own article. 66% of 18-24 year olds have always believed the earth is round. Not only is the percentage reversed, most of them aren't even Millennials. Millennials are aged 22-37 (a 2 year overlap). Of 25-34 year olds (100% millennials), only 7% believe the world is flat. 93% either believe the world is round or are unsure of the answer. This is assuming a trustworthy poll and participants not just clicking at random or intentionally skewing results.

    8. Re:There's no conspiracy by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.

      I made no such claim.

      That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?

      1) If you are asking me to seriously consider the weight of the 72% of people that see news as fake, or whatever, it has everything to do with the discussion
      2) The rest is a bunch of flamebait I have no interest in responding to, which is funny considering you're accusing me of launching a non-sequitur

    9. Re:There's no conspiracy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      1) If you are asking me to seriously consider the weight of the 72% of people that see news as fake

      I'm not asking you to consider anything. I responded to the claim "They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites." I pointed out that if they "analyzed the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites", they wouldn't be selecting those web sites.

      Obviously, Google either selects those web sites because they believe that they are credible despite what the public believes, or they simply are trying to create controversy to maximize revenue.

      I made no such claim.

      Then don't butt in other people's discussions, in particular if you can't be bothered to read the context.

    10. Re:There's no conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need for context when all you are doing is making laughably false claims, and pushing a ranting RWNJ post truth agenda.

    11. Re:There's no conspiracy by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Actually, your link says that 66% of millennials have always thought the Earth was round. Only 4% of millenials have always thought the earth was flat, the other 30% are apparently unsure. Those are not great numbers, but the questions in the survey aren't great either. There is a trend that older people are more sure that the earth is round, but I do wonder if millenials, being younger, might be actually considering what they believed when they were very young children.

      I'd want to see some corroboration and a more in depth look into why the answers differ according to age and income, before drawing any real conclusions from that survey.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    12. Re:There's no conspiracy by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      The poll results also showed that Flat Earthers were also more likely to consider themselves "very religious" (52%).

    13. Re:There's no conspiracy by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      This is assuming a trustworthy poll and participants not just clicking at random or intentionally skewing results.

      https://www.cnet.com/news/flat...

      From a different article regarding the poll:

      Could it be that at least some of these young people are tempted by these inducements and don't actually take the surveys seriously?

      Also, only 84% of all Americans have "always believed" it was round. We're not much better than the millennials.

    14. Re:There's no conspiracy by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Whether it's 66% for or against, the point is: trust facts over people's opinions. I'd think on Slashdot that would be kind of an obvious point. Perhaps I'm wrong.

    15. Re:There's no conspiracy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps one should not read too much into poll results. Every time a pollster calls me, I’m having fun with them.

    16. Re:There's no conspiracy by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I got that and I agree with you, I was adding a note of "don't believe everything you read"... Even when well intentioned and trying to be factual, it's possible to get things wrong. Instances of errors in the news, just means the news media is fallible, like everything else. It doesn't mean they're corrupt or untrustworthy like some people seem to think. No one is correct 100% of the time.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  30. PLEASE build your own then, culture warriors!! by Somervillain · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OK Trump supporters, if you think Google is in with every other media outlet, but Fox, and rigged against you, PLEASE, build your own search engine. Rig it however you want. If you are so paranoid and delusional that you think algorithms are against your cause and refuse to consider that maybe just the majority of the world doesn't like or respect your president, then put that energy to good use and show us how it is done.

    I personally look forward to the upcoming war between the Trump administration and the tech establishment. I think the Trump base has no idea who they are messing with or who holds the real power if they want to go to war with Google, Apple, and Amazon.

    1. Re:PLEASE build your own then, culture warriors!! by nnet · · Score: 1

      Right, because those companies, whose top priorities are making money, won't make a stand against trump supporters AND LOSE MONEY. There is no war. At the longest trump will be in office til 2024, at the shortest next year. These companies are in it for the long haul, presidents come and go. Companies don't hurt their customer base. That base thats FAR bigger, and FAR more important than trumps base.

  31. Simple shallow man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a simple, shallow man! Despite his self-proclamations of greatness it's obvious that Trump is driven by deep feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. (Justified too because he's unqualified for just about anything in life, a brutal truth he would have long ago learned if he weren't isolated by his money.) Who else spends the wee hours of the morning searching for good news about themselves? Who does that? And what kind of wacko would blame the world rather than themselves for the reporting on what they do?

  32. Makes sense by nwaack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Even the most fanatical sjw liberal can see that the liberal media HATES Donald Trump. So much so that they'll go out of their way to make him look bad (HuffPo, Vox, i'm looking at you) and bury anything good that happens - and of course Trump isn't exactly doing himself any favors in this department. Since the liberal media outnumbers everyone else, it would make perfect sense that the search results reflect this.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I honestly cannot comprehend where this sort of comment comes from. There is no need to "make Trump look bad," he does that job entirely on his own, all the media has to do is directly quote him. And that they have been doing. Think something stupid he's quoted as saying was taken out of context? Go find the original context and watch/read the whole thing. I have yet to do that and find that the context does anything to help him look better. On the contrary, often the context turns out to be nearly incoherent rambling.

      Even if every single policy he signs into effect is pure gold for the entire world, it takes a special kind of denial to watch a single one of his speeches and not come to the conclusion that the man has issues of a kind not compatible with being president. He will, literally, directly contradict himself within a single speech/conversation, and then sometimes even follow that up by denying having said anything on the topic at all. I doesn't matter if gold comes out his arse, he clearly does not have the presence of mind for any position of power.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone, regardless of whether he has voted for him or not, who doesn't HATE Donald Trump for all the dispecable, disgusting things he has done all his life, MUST also be a ruthless, heartless, evil piece-of-shit psychopath.

    3. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the most fanatical sjw liberal can see that the liberal media HATES Donald Trump

      Because he's a pathological liar.

      See, the news media mostly try to report the truth. The reality is, when you fact check a Trump speech, about half of what he says in complete bullshit, with the rest being exaggerated, and taken out of context. If Obama or any other president had lied this much, the press would have called them on it too.

      When you have a POTUS who mostly says untrue things, and talks about doing stuff he has no legal authority to do ... someone needs to be fact checking him and pointing out he's a lying sack of shit.

      Trump lies, he's appointed his kids to positions of power that they are abusing, he's surrounded himself with other billionaire crooks who spend public money like they're modern princes, and has consistently demonstrated he feels like the law doesn't apply to him and he can do anything he wants.

      People who have decided that every bit of bullshit which he utters or tweets is gospel truth are the ones who seem to think it's OK for the president to make shit up as he goes, and want to believe his narrative. Idiots believing him doesn't make it true.

      That half of everything he says is completely false or inaccurate should scare people, but they're so invested in the lies they want them to be true. Which means a lot of Americans have decided that facts and truth are secondary to what they want to believe, and are therefore completely irrational by their own choice.

      The media hate Trump because he lies about everything, and attacks anybody who doesn't agree with him ... the the point he wants to revoke press credentials of organisations he doesn't like.

      Maybe in North Korea the media can all pretend that the lies the Dear Leader utters are all true, but for Americans to accept this is truly terrifying.

  33. I see a business opportunity here... by supremebob · · Score: 2

    Someone should really build a "conservative alternative" to Google, which only has nice things to say about him and his Republican buddies. It seems that there is now a market for such a site.

    Maybe they can call it "Redsearch.com" or something like that... although that URL might be a bit too close to some other web sites that conservatives wouldn't approve of :)

    1. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone should really build a "conservative alternative" to Google, which only has nice things to say about him and his Republican buddies. It seems that there is now a market for such a site.

      Maybe they can call it "Redsearch.com" or something like that... although that URL might be a bit too close to some other web sites that conservatives wouldn't approve of :)

      What if they already did and nobody cares?

      It’s like the Twitter/Gab situation. Having a right-friendly alternative is never enough.

      First, because it inevitably fails to compare in terms of popularity and makes it impossible to maintain the “silenced majority” conspiracy theory.

      Second, because 100% of the fun is acting like a brat and annoying “libs”. They would rather troll people who aren’t interested in anything they have to say. IOW even they don’t want to listen to each other’s BS.

    2. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately "just build your own" doesn't work as the whole infrastructure is susceptible to censorship.

      The left goes after payment processors, registrars, hosters, etc to have them kick out sites that don't bow to their demands for censorship. Doesn't even have to be conservative sites, being pro-free speech is enough.

    3. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You asked, you get: https://www.conservapedia.com/...
      Extract:

      https://www.conservapedia.com/...
      "The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the atheistic Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity, both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder."
      Mild stuff.

      Let's try https://www.conservapedia.com/...
      "Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist?"
      You can read the rest yourself.

      How about https://www.conservapedia.com/...
      "Gun control is a term used by liberals when advocating unconstitutional laws designed to disarm people by restricting the lawful purchase, ownership, or carrying of guns, under the guise of "public safety." Studies show that increasing lawful access to guns results in less crime,[1] but, despite the fact that gun ownership is a Constitutional right, Leftists push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection while disarming citizens from any self-defense against violent crime or tyranny such as genocide. "

      Why not https://www.conservapedia.com/...
      "The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples." which leads to counterexample #1 "Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, which originated before any human to view them. "

      His stuff on homosexuality is hilarious too. He really gets hung up on it. Honestly there's more common sense in encylopedia dramatica than this.
      As a brit I love and sometimes (ok, regularly) even admire you yanks but you do extremes frightningly well.

    4. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by supremebob · · Score: 1

      That's only an alternative to Wikipedia, though. I'm thinking more ambitious... like creating something like Republimail to replace the "obviously liberal biased" GMail and something like ConserviDocs to replace Google Docs. It can have prebuilt templates for sending hate mail to your Democratic congressmen!

      You know that there are people out there in red states would pay money for this stuff... why not cash in on it?

    5. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Same poster here).
      > why not cash in on it?
      Because it's divisive and (further polarising) of the political landscape which the US has far too much of?
      Because politics at that level becomes dangerous?
      And people will get hurt?
      Because it's plain immoral?
      Maybe?
      What do you think?

    6. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by pointbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...Maybe they can call it "Redsearch.com" or something like that... although that URL might be a bit too close to some other web sites that conservatives wouldn't approve of :)

      1. Buys domain.
      2. Redirect users to redtube.com
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    7. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just tweak the Google search engine to make it more patriotic?

      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/28/171249/rights-groups-are-demanding-that-google-doesnt-release-a-censored-search-engine-in-china /s

    8. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I spent 20 minutes on that site and couldn't decide whether it was truly serious or a really good parody.

    9. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Redirect to Trumps inauguration speech on pornhub?

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    10. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's serious, sadly. Sometimes entertaining though.

    11. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some more ideas:
      Fascistbook
      Whitter (White + Twitter)
      Jesusgram
      Gunchat

    12. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You know the worst part about Conservapedia? The guy who runs it also does homeschooling.

    13. Re:I see a business opportunity here... by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      As a brit I love and sometimes (ok, regularly) even admire you yanks but you do extremes frightningly well.

      So do you (Jeremy Corbyn)

  34. the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I was just talking to a friend from the U.K. this morning. His take on the state of London is a little different than yours, seeing as he no longer feels safe going to large parts of the city.

      I see you reference Sagan. You do realize he faked the Nuclear Winter research to drive a political agenda which if it had of prevailed would have left the world in considerably worse shape than it is now. Something to think about the next time you wish to substitute your biases for facts of reasoning.

    2. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.

      My apologies for Fox news on behalf of the less conservative peoples of the US.

    3. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News says something important about who American “conservatives” really are. Fox is doing the rest of us a great service. It’s time to stop appealing to the “reason” of Fox viewers and figure out a way to route around their failures.

    4. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So both you and your friend are avid readers/watchers of Fox and conservative biased fictional terror reporting. Perhaps you should get your news from facts of reasoning instead of obviously biased sources that have a political agenda.

    5. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are pockets of not nice areas in London, but that is true in most cities.

      People are easily swayed by fears that are completely out of line of the reality. I live in a very low crime area in the SF Bay, with, for example, a homicide rate ~10% of the national average. Yet my elderly NRA-member neighbors felt compelled to get a great BIG dog for protection, and told me they were worried about crime -- something that has saddled them with endless unnecessary hassle. (Mind you, they are really lovely neighbors. But their judgement is quite fuzzy on certain topics.)

    6. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Nice circumstantial bullshit. My friends in London think our right wing conspiratorial "no-go" zones are retarded but just like your post that's not proof of anything except their opinions,

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    7. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      OK riddle me this how does London with much stricter gun laws than anywhere in the U.S. have a higher crime rate and murder rate than NYC ?

    8. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Do you carry homeowner's insurance* ? What do you think the chances are of the things you are insured against actually happening ?

      *Seeing as it's SF that would more likely be renters either way

    9. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I think the odds of my mortgage company noticing that I did not pay for home insurance quite high, and the result will be that they will happily add charges to my note for poor insurance coverage at a premium price.. So I am 99% certain of bad consequences for failing to pay for insurance. Insurance looks like a sure thing. ;)

      To try to address the question in the spirit you seem to be trying to ask it: I tend to hedge towards less insurance, as seems practical.

    10. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I love this. Some idiot can name one city in one country that has strict gun control that is experiencing a spike in crime and they think they've proven that gun control doesn't work. Never mind the fact that every single first world country with stricter gun control has a homicide rate that is on average 5 times lower then ours.

      Spikes in crime happen in major urban areas for quite a lot of reasons and you're an idiot.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oops, not one of the gun control threads I'm talking in. Ignore that last post.

      How about you are far more likely to be murdered in New York then you are in London for you https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    12. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1
    13. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      And if you had looked at the article I had posted you'd have seen that aside from a few recent months New York generally has a homicide rate that is at least twice that of London and it has been like that or more so for decades.

      A couple of months is a statistical blip. I'm back to calling you an idiot.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    14. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the Jacksonville shooting were in a NO GUN ZONE.

      Chicago, DC, Baltimore have some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet have amongst the highest gun crime rates.

      So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate.

      First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    15. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'll be the first to tell you American no-gun zones are stupid. They just come in over the border.

      "So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."

      No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.

      "First world countries with guns ? Switzerland which has universal gun ownership for males up to the age of 30, and the lowest crime rate in the world, destroys the idea that guns cause crime."

      Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.

      Basically, you're peddling a tiny nation against the statistical trends of the entire first world. Even though I don't use my degree professionally I'm glad I got it if it prevents me from making glaring errors like this. It's amazing to me how ignorant people are in regards to the social sciences that they think a single data point proves something.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    16. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      "So it seems when you control within the same society gun control laws do not correlate with gun crime rate."

      No, they do. That's why every single first world country with strict gun control laws has a vastly lower homicide rate than we do.

      What is it you don't understand about the words "SAME SOCIETY" ?

      Norway's society is not America's and despite having very strict gun control laws, it did little to stop Anders Brevik.

      Good for Switzerland (although you're not telling me anything I didn't know. That's why I phrased what I said the way I did). Small countries are often able to buck the statistical trends. In the social sciences they're typically where you find you're outliers.

      So you understood what the words "Same Society" meant you just deliberately ignored the meaning.

      If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that have higher correlation.

    17. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.

      "If you want to make your point, you have to show that gun ownership rates and degree of restriction on owning guns (NOTE THE AND) have a high correlation to the crime rate and (NOTE THAT AND AGAIN) there aren't other factors that have higher correlation."

      No that's not true at all. The vast majority of the first world who have strict gun control laws have a similar crime rate to our own while having vastly lower homicide and gun violence rates. This very strongly suggests that while the rest of the first world is equally crime prone their lack of fire arms drastically reduces their murders and general gun violence rate.

      It's really a case of ideology before practical thought that brings pro gun conservatives to the conclusions that more guns leads to less gun violence. There's certainly no meaningful statistical support for that in the first world.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    18. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.

      In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

      Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person

      https://www.statista.com/stati...

      https://www.bozemandailychroni...

      So are you an idiot or just not as well educated as you think you are ?

      Oh just going back to the within the same society

      Maryland has a violent crime rate of 457/100k
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But has much stricter gun laws.

      Geee It seems the predictive power of your proposition is near zero.

    19. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well in this case you are choosing to have none, while your neighbors have a dog.

    20. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?
      New York Murder Rate is Much Higher Than London's

      In March it looked like the London rate was higher, but it seems that several of the murder investigations in London were closed with results that concluded they weren't actually murders (accidental stabbings maybe?). So the final figures for those months actually have London (47) lower than New York (54), and the first six months is even more lopsided (London: 80, New York: 141). In the end, there was a single month (February) in 2018 (so far) where there were more murders in London than New York.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    21. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.

    22. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.

      Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.

      Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.

    23. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I have answered this repeatedly allready but what the hell lets take your point as given

      London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's that it can exceed it in reporting periods, London has incredibly strict controls on weapons as does the the whole of the country, NY and the USA does not => weapon laws really don't prevent crime

    24. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by tbannist · · Score: 1

      That's a moronic argument, and it's not supported by the evidence you provided, but my point was just to fact check your false claims.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    25. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.

      Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.

      Even worse than an interfering scold are crybaby scolds. Yes, that seems to be the majority of libertarians, now that you mention it. But there will always be crybabies, I suppose, as you succeeded in reminding me.

      Did I tell anyone they cannot get a dog of their choice? No.

      What's up with bawling, dude?

    26. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      What's up with bawling, dude?

      Swing and a miss

      But please keep on deciding what's best for everyone else.

    27. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I never told anyone else what to do. Why you feel the compulsion to perceive victimhood, I will leave to you to figure out.

    28. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I never told anyone else what to do. Why you feel the compulsion to perceive victimhood, I will leave to you to figure out.

      Sorry calling you out as self righteous and interfering isn't me claiming victimhood.

    29. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.

      As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.

    30. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.

      Why ? Are you actually asserting you are responsive to input ? Or that you actually comprehend the concept ?

      As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.

      I'm not the guy who is trying to use his old neighbors fear of crime and their reasonable security measure to prove them insane.

      Also my replies have a bit more depth than your "I know you are, but what am I", but I doubt you will be able see that no matter how many mirrors, or other optical devices you may be provided with.

    31. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.

      "In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated"

      Every field of science is having this problem right now. Meanwhile you're using this as a means of placing doubt on easily comparable statistics no one questions. Stupid.

      "Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person"

      Comparing a major urban area to a mostly rural one. Talk about comparing completely different demographics. Stupid.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    32. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "London's murder rate is close enough to NYC's"

      No, it's not. I'm sorry but you're clearly getting your info from Right Wing shit holes. For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century.

      Stupid.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    33. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.

      You're referring to the spike in London that clearly has nothing to do with their gun laws?

      Maybe get your information from sources other than right wing news and you might look less stupid.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    34. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You mean how London briefly has had a higher homicide rate than New York, a US city that has been experiencing record lows in that category https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... [csmonitor.com] ? London, in a country that has had strict gun laws for over a half century.

      Record lows despite a 50 year trend of liberalizing gun laws in the us from their most restrictive points in the 60s and 70s

      Keep going.

    35. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yes Bloomberg news is a right wing shit hole,

      Get outside your echo chamber or at least your moms basement.

    36. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you're calling me an idiot with this stuff.

      I can't believe you haven't come to expect just about everyone calling you an idiot.

    37. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You don't appear to have any grasp on how statistics work. One city does not make a trend, plenty of other American cities are currently seeing spikes in crime.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    38. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Nothing that you just said refutes "For the last several decades it has been at least half as much and that's the minimum aside from a spike in violence in the first few months of 2018 where it did exceed New York's (which has not been the worst American city for that type of thing for a couple of decades). The UK has had strict gun control laws for well over half a century." which is what this whole conversation has been about.

      Nice try at deflection though.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    39. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by skam240 · · Score: 1

      And that's what I thought. All you have left is name calling.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    40. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh I am pretty certain you actually don't think.

    41. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Nice try at ignoring the fact that over the time period it became easier to own guns legally in NYC yet the crime rate went down.

    42. Re:the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You seem to be completely unable to comprehend that the counter examples are too numerous to list.

  35. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're currently singing the praises of the low unemployment rate (mostly because so many people have simply dropped out of the labor force and those left are mostly doing fast food jobs).

    Sorry, you have the wrong president here. Obama's Unemployment gains in the headline number was due to this. His labor participation rate kept falling, taking numbers out of "unemployment" and shoving them into "not looking/long term unemployed" so not counted as unemployed. The number of jobs created wasn't enough to cover the natural rise in able bodied workers becoming available during his administration.

    Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate and low unemployment numbers. This means that the "not looking" folks are now getting jobs and re-entering the workforce. So the number of new jobs is growing faster than the available population to take them, this pulls folks off of welfare, out of retirement and gets the young off their parents couches and into work.

  36. Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is just exercising it's right to prioritize based on the recent repeal of net neutrality rules :-)

  37. You believe liars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Story about Lanny Davis.

    Davis is Cohen's lawyer, and CNN's "anonymous" source saying that Cohen has all the details that will impeach Trump. Davis admits he has been lying for the last month. Yep, single anonymous source used all over media, got caught lying. And you fell for it.

    You must be a moron to believe unnamed sources without evidence, but then again you are probably a liberal so that makes sense.

  38. Or maybe... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Or maybe there just isn't any positive news about Trump that doesn't come from sketchy wastelands like Infowars and Breitbart?

    1. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you certainly won't hear any positive reporting about things like the economy on CNN, CBS, or NBC. If Trump had run as a democrat, all those news outlets would be screaming good news in their headlines and telling everyone how glad they should feel that they voted a liberal into office.

  39. Preaching to the choir by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.

    It works (on some) because he's saying it to his tribe who are already predisposed to believe it is true. Trump is basically preaching to the choir. That's why his ratings have bottomed out - his supporters don't care what he says and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

    I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

    Hard to tell if electing Trump or Putin is the dumber move so you're probably right. Technically Trump lost the popular vote which makes it harder to pick a "winner".

    1. Re:Preaching to the choir by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Trump is basically preaching to the choir. That's why his ratings have bottomed out - his supporters don't care what he says and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

      But I thought Trump's approval ratings are going up.

    2. Re:Preaching to the choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically Trump lost the popular vote which makes it harder to pick a "winner".

      How is it hard? The winner is the person currently in office, who won by getting the popular vote in enough states to win the electoral college. You can't change the rules of the game after you lose, if the election would have been decided by a popular vote then Trump's campaign strategy (and Hillary's) would have changed accordingly, and he may or may not have won, but you can't say he would have lost.

    3. Re:Preaching to the choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fuck's sake, are all you trumptards always that thick ?

      He wasn't talking about who won the presidential election, but who wins as the dumber people between americans and russians for electing Trump and Putin, respectively.

      Do you even read the posts your reply to ?

    4. Re:Preaching to the choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preaching to the choir.... yep. Just like the preachers and ministers of the 90's who wanted v-chips installed in TV's to protect people from 'immoral filth' instead of just changing the channel, Trump apparently has no idea search engine and news aggregators other than Google exist.

    5. Re:Preaching to the choir by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Personally I think Trump has found the core number of racists in the US. They are the only people that have such a narrow requirement for president. As long as the president doesn't like colored people, he can say and do anything.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re: Preaching to the choir by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Widely hated anti-freedom candidate Hillary Clinton, after stealing the primary from popular and upstanding candidate Bernie Sanders, "won" the popular vote entirely due to widespread election fraud.

      Fortunately the hubris of Clinton and her minions led them to neglect entirely the majority working class, whom she called deplorable. There still remain enough honest men in the public service that all Clinton's millions in bribes came to nought, and America was saved from a warlike and corrupt adminstration.

      Thus the perfidious tragedy of Hillary Clinton ends on a comic note. Inherited aristocrat, capitalist dog, and former reality TV host Donald Trump was raised up as tribune of the people. Perhaps God does have a sense of humor.

    7. Re:Preaching to the choir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, stop it with the 'nearly half of the US' are a bunch of racists tripe. He won because he was going against a crap candidate that was forced onto everyone, the manufacturing parts of the US were pissed about everything going to China and all those "savings" going into the hands of the CEOs that made the decision, etc. He played off anger and won.

      The pendulum will keep swinging each election season. By calling his supporters a bunch of dumb inbred racist assholes you'll ensure the election after next we'll get someone that makes Trump look like Bush.

    8. Re:Preaching to the choir by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      How do you explain the 41% that seem to support him no matter what? A lot of these people are fundamentalist Christians. People who are supposed to care somewhat about morality.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Preaching to the choir by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Probably due to such a strawman becoming less effective from over use. Sure, race baiting still works, but eventually people do learn. Especially when those leveling the accusations are revealed to be such disingenuous hypocritical racists themselves.

    10. Re:Preaching to the choir by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understood the question. I asked for any other reason why religious fundamentalists continue to support him. No reason was given.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Well, Duh! by silvergeek · · Score: 1

    Well duh, by far, most of the news relating to Trump and his appointees *IS* bad. So, it doesn't surprise me that most hits are related to bad news about Trump and crew. (Just my opinion. The narcissist in question and followers may perceive it differently.)

    1. Re:Well, Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh, by far, most of the news relating to Trump and his appointees *IS* bad.

      It is if you get your news from Google.

  42. Liberals have bedome bigots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same racists tech establishment that attempts to censor Demand and Silk along with Candice Owens?

    Yea, we need to follow bigots that believe preventing black women from expressing their opinions publically is a bad thing. I'm sure you, like other liberals, also think such censorship is a good thing as well. Go back to your Robert Byrd KKK monument you are probably working on.

    1. Re:Liberals have bedome bigots by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well. Diamond and Silk and Candice Owens are racist and misogynist because they support President Trump, so...

      /s

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  43. Re: There's no conspiracy/where there is smoke the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

  44. Orwellian Douche Company of the highest order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course. Everyone knows Google is a political douche and that they prop up left leaning agendas while oppressing/censoring right agenda.

    Google is an Orwellian Douche Company of the highest order.

    1. Re:Orwellian Douche Company of the highest order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is the principle of free market and free enterprise so dear to you right-wingers should not apply to left-wing businesses ?

      I lost count of how many times I asked this simple question to all the right-wingers bitching about google, facebook, twitter, etc. I'm still waiting for an answer.

      Or will you just do like all the others and, instead of manning-up and actually trying to formulate a decent justification for you point of view, will you simply downmod this post to hell, doing exactly to me what you always complain about liberals doing to you, and proving once again that you cowardness is only rivaled by your hypocricy ?

  45. Narcissistic Egomaniac by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    Typical Trump, thinks the world has it out for him and things are so unfair for him. When in reality he's just a complete dipshit dumbass moron who can't do anything right. Google isn't biased there's just a lot of bad news about you Donnie, because you suuuuuuuuuuuuuck at being president. Its pretty simple.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  46. Not being fluff in your favor doesn't make it fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be easier to actually do something favorable to the country than to bitch about them reporting on what you actually are doing?

  47. Point of view does not mean OPINION ! by gDLL · · Score: 1

    What does a humble point of view mean ? Looking from below ? There are better points of view and wrong points of view. Look at a house from 1 cm away and tell me what you think of it....

    Just because Trump puts himself on a pedestal doesn't automatically make him wrong. And objectively a president talks from a pedestal.

    1. Re:Point of view does not mean OPINION ! by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

      www.thesaurus.com lists opinion as a synonym for 'point of view'. This makes sense because it is referring to how an individual makes sense of the world around him given the information he has access to at that moment be it sensory or from memory.

      Different people have been exposed to different experiences throughout their lives and it affects the way they view the world. If you come from a privileged background and you are in a position pick and choose your entourage and lean toward sycophants, it can cause you to grossly overestimate yourself. The brain is not a perfect recording device, and memories are changed every time they are accessed. There is also selection bias in the memories we choose to access. It is very easy through these mechanisms for self assessment to diverge comically from the assessments of others.

      A 'humble point of view' would refer to how the world appears from inside the mind of someone who does not overestimate himself.

      Of course believing in yourself does not imply you are incorrect, but a lack of self scrutiny increases the chances of falsehoods slipping through the net and onto twitter.

  48. Fun times on /. by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    A bunch of comments from Russian Trolls and Nazis. Mostly anonymous. The days, they are a changing. Shouldn't we be fighting about improper use of static variables and quationable research papers. This is absolutely nauseating.

  49. with a 1000000:1 bad vs good articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the probability of getting a good article inst high.

    Trump just has to face facts, he is a horrid little man that has no idea what he is doing. The media is reporting this correctly where trump isnt manipulating thing in his favor. Now he is aiming to manipulate google.

    1. Re:with a 1000000:1 bad vs good articles by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      the probability of getting a good article inst high.

      Trump just has to face facts, he is a horrid little man that has no idea what he is doing. The media is reporting this correctly where trump isnt manipulating thing in his favor. Now he is aiming to manipulate google.

      Google: president dumb f***
      That way or with the letters.

  50. Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Am in London, have traveled through 63 countries and 42 of US states (+DC & PR); Iâ(TM)m less afraid for my safety here than many places, and Iâ(TM)ve had more dicey situations in the US (once in a mall during shooting for instance) than almost anywhere else.

    Aside from war zones, the world is in general reasonably safe. The US isnâ(TM)t as developed in that regard as those who live there and never leave would think.

  51. Trump's gift for stating the obvious by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Once again, Trump is stating the obvious. He is absolutely correct and his detractors are only mad, because they've long made it a rule, that certain giant pink elephants are not to be talked about.

    Eventually, his truths will set us all free.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  52. Re:MSNBC & CNN beat Fox in ratings by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    This may trigger you. Hug your therapy dog in your safe space and maybe close your eyes

    May 2018 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable News Network for 197 Straight Months
    https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

    Didn't you think it a little pathetic to crow about one day ?

  53. Can we get this loon declared mentally incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a paranoid narcissist sitting on a massive nuclear arsenal is the definition of insanity. This charade has run it's course long enough, it's time to clean up the mess.

  54. Is anyone else surprised? by Fr05t · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else surprised it took Trump this long to guess the net-nanny password his aids put on his internet access. Whoops, looks like he got to google his own name for the first time in 2 years.

  55. Re:trumpdot by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate

    Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.

    and low unemployment numbers.

    Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.

    But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.

  56. They should sue for defamation by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This could damage their stock price. I'd sue for defamation - he is making a factual claim as the POTUS on an official communication channel.

    1. Re:They should sue for defamation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      almost all stories & news is BAD

      This is the crux of the argument. Reminds me of the 400 year old saying no news is good news.

      Pretty hard to refute when four centuries of people have believed it.

  57. Clinical disorder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Trump is really good at manipulating the idiots who believe everything he says (even when provably false), or POTUS is really unhinged with something which needs to be diagnosed.

    This is paranoia and thinking the world is out to get you on a scary scale.

    If he truly thinks there is a grand conspiracy by search engines to only cast him in a negative light, then he's a delusional idiot.

    This is a man who said he always liked Omarosa because she always had 'great' things to say about him. This is literally a president who likes people solely on the basis of them saying nice things about him. That's about the emotional equivalent of a fucking 4 year old.

    You know who attacks the media for not saying nice things about them? Piss-pot dictators and other autocrats. But since everything he says is riddled with lies and falsehoods, when the media points this out, they're doing their fucking job. Democracy works when you have a free press, and falls apart when you don't.

    The problem is, Trump doesn't want democracy, he wants to have limitless power like Putin and the other dictators on the planet.

  58. go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if the mainstream media didn't give constant coverage to the controversial oral flatulence of some self-promoting reality TV star and actually covered the ISSUES we wouldn't be where we are today.
    But ratings = money, who cares about Democracy. Or rationality.

  59. News Feed by QuadEddie · · Score: 2

    My news feed is Google-driven and every single day includes negative Trump news right at the top in the 'Headlines' section. There is absolutely an anti-Trump slant to the major media outlets (Fox excluded). The media money is overwhelmingly producing anti-Trump material, so that's what Google indexes. However, I don't believe Google is as impartial as they claim. James Damore's saga illuminated the internals of Google politics. Google is bearing partial responsibility for Trump. This is why they started their fake news initiative.

    1. Re:News Feed by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      In my experience, none of the negative things said about Trump are false. Most of them quote something he just said, then demonstrate why it is a lie in a completely factual way. Maybe if Trump didn't do so many detestable things, news organizations would have less ammunition.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:News Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe in Russian collusion even though there is no evidence. Holy crap man, talk about being brain washed. Here's some hints :

      From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

      A Grand Jury had been impanelled.

      Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

      Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared. Now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

      Look who took over this investigation in 2005: None other than James Comey; Coincidence? Guess who was transferred into the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other than, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner. Isn’t that interesting?

      But this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

      Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?

      No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States,

      Rod Rosenstein.

      Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?

      Another coincidence (just an anomaly in statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.

      What do all four casting characters have in common?

      They all were briefed and/or were front-line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

      Another coincidence, right?

      Fast forward to 2009....

      James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

      Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, official government business, on her own personal email server.

      The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.

      Like all good public servants do, supposedly looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

      Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, America got absolutely nothing out of it.

      However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech; then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

      Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

      Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

      Who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland?

      None other than, Rod Rosenstein. And what happened to the informant?

      The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

      How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

      Very soon after; the sale was approved!~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

      Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, - Lois Lerner.

      Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?

      Let’s fast forward to 2015.

      Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret info

    3. Re:News Feed by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I have no idea if any of this is remotely true, or even if it is if it really matters.

      However, I tip my tinfoil hat to you sir!

  60. You bigot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is, Trump doesn't want democracy

    Says the guy who wants a legally elected president removed from office without evidence of any crimes.

    You just mad because blacks are getting out of poverty and have jobs now? You bigot.

    1. Re:You bigot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being mentally incompetent is not a crime, but a completely valid reason for removing him from office. If the American people is incapable of or unwilling to elect someone sane and fully mentally competent for the office, then the only conclusion would be that democracy for the moment isn't a viable regime.

      Also, note that the US isn't a democracy as it is, and being ruled by a loon also doesn't make it a democracy even if he managed to get voted into office.

  61. evolution and global warming are not liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evolution, global warming, .. All these aspects of reality that mainstream media is willing to embrace, conservative media largely rejects.

    What?! Since when is Scientific American not conservative media?

    Are you saying they're liberal media?

    1. Re: evolution and global warming are not liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed, Scientific American is liberal media. From today's front page: "Honest Liars: Dishonest Leaders May Be Perceived as Authentic". Who do you think that's referring to if not Trump?

      Try this from "sustainability"
      The Flood is Coming
      Keeping citizens safe is an essential responsibility of government, but when it comes to the dangers of climate change, the Trump administration just doesnâ(TM)t care
       

      Do you even read Scientific American? It certainly doesn't seem that way.

    2. Re: evolution and global warming are not liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting if you criticize the cheeto you are automatically liberal....

    3. Re: evolution and global warming are not liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are catching on. That is exactly the syllogism that led Trump to complain about his page rank situation on Google.

  62. Euro-perspective by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

    No, it's the relentless nonsensical bullshit coming from US conservative media that is US conservative media's own enemy across the rest of the world.

    If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire.

    When I look out of my window, that's not what I see.

    Hence, their bullshit isn't informative, we outside the US might as well skip it.

    (Yes, I know, we're all evil depraved euro-communists over here...)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Euro-perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all of those Youtube videos of theft in the UK such as people stealing motorcycles and Muslim rape groomers, are all lies? Hey let's ask Tommy?

    2. Re: Euro-perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you arenâ(TM)t following whatâ(TM)s going on in Sweden. The recent coordinated car burning something I would be worried about if it happened in my country.

    3. Re:Euro-perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Greece and the rest of the PIGS countries are doing just fine financially then?
      Please let Germany know.

      Oh and they aren't burning cars or rioting in Sweden or Germany over being swamped with refugees? Funny, the news coming from THOSE countries says they are bankrupt, overrun by refugees and on fire in many places because of it...

    4. Re:Euro-perspective by dargaud · · Score: 1

      For every car fire in France there's about 5 mass murders in the US...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re: Euro-perspective by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      This year, New Year's Eve 2018, over 1,000 card were burned in celebration of something. Are you claiming there have been even 1,000 'mass murders' in the US this year?

      Or are you just being provocative?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Euro-perspective by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      If even 1/10th of all the bullshit spewed by US conservative media was true, the whole European continent would be utterly bankrupt, over run by barbarians and on fire

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://www.independent.co.uk/...

      Overrun by barbarians is in progress, how long you think it will be before bankrupt and on fire ? (don't answer that's rhetorical)

    7. Re: Euro-perspective by dargaud · · Score: 1

      The latter, obviously; but still, I'd take car burnings over mass murders any day. PS: many car burnings are actually people who just want the insurance on old cars.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re: Euro-perspective by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Hey you're right, there's like 5 car burnings in France for every 1 mass murder victim in the U.S each year.

      Now the question is, do you think that's a good exchange rate? Because a lot of those cars were pretty old, so you're probably looking at around $20,000-$40,000 of property damage for every mass murder victim. Personally, I think I'd stick with the car fires... Especially, if you figure out that for every death in a mass shooting, there are an average of 5 people injured so now you're looking at 1 person injured and 1/5 of a death per car fire... I bet those medical bills are a lot more than $4000-$8000 per person. It's the U.S. after all, so you could probably afford to replace all of those cars with brand new ones for less than the medical bills of the survivors...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  63. In search of fairness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So search engines need to give equal time to conservatives? Sounds like he's arguing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Is he sure that's what he wants? To kneecap Rush (the blowhard, not the band)?

  64. Nixon, Anybody? by Dripdry · · Score: 2

    The man sounds like Nixon. He may not actually BE paranoid, but with media making reality in TrumpWorld, the man sounds as paranoid and off the rails as Nixon (or more-so).

    --
    -
    1. Re:Nixon, Anybody? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      There's a difference. Nixon famously recorded himself. Trump famously gets recorded by everyone covering their own arse when around him.

    2. Re:Nixon, Anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man sounds like Nixon. He may not actually BE paranoid, but with media making reality in TrumpWorld, the man sounds as paranoid and off the rails as Nixon (or more-so).

      Actually, Nixon seems like a paragon of level-headedness in comparison to Trump. I can only imagine Nixon, if he were alive today, telling Trump to suck it up and get a life.

    3. Re:Nixon, Anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nixon was actually fairly liberal. He started the whole give the money back to the states thing with strings attached so he could force the states to do the bidding of the central govt. He recognized China. He is the only POTUS to spend more money on drug treatment and rehabilitation than enforcement.

      On the other hand JFK was fairly conservative. He faced down the soviets in Cuba and authorized the Bay of Pigs. By today's standards he would be a right wing nut job.

      But dems love JFK and repubs stick up for Nixon not based on policies or ideals but pure tribal loyalty. Issues smisshues. Its all about tribes. Unless we come together the USA is going to tear itself apart over bullshit.

      Ask yourself why Liberals love Islam ,that teaches women to be subservient to men, while Republicans hate Islam, which is a conservative family oriented religion that supports gun rights. The reason is that we pick sides just like we pick sports teams. If you grow up in Idaho, you know you have to laugh at climate change and hate Muslims. If you grow up in New York you have to accept clmate change and really care about Muslims

  65. It's undeniable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is nowhere near the son of a bitch that Google search results gives on Trump.

    No one could be.

  66. McCain by nnet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anything to pull attention back to him from McCain's passing. RIP Sen. McCain.

  67. Re:Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Alex Jones, is that you?

  68. I have LIVED in one such area by aepervius · · Score: 2

    And yes I am "alpina white" Caucasian (as in pasty white & blond hair because the sun and me we ain't friends). Firstly there is the *perception* of feeling unsafe, and the reality. The reality is that those area (and the other one near Paris which were qualified the same way) are not "muslim" only I am the living proof (*touch self* yes still solid not a ghost). Look joke aside your friends sound like my old uncle, giving the *perception* of something but not knowing the *reality* of that thing, in other word your friend was not speaking of experience but out of the right wing perception of the fear the area attracts. Same with the perception of people having fear of muslim in general. I give up I doubt anything could convince you anyway.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:I have LIVED in one such area by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      And these two are dead proof you are wrong

      https://www.jpost.com/Middle-E...

      What's more the fact that london now has a higher crime rate and murder than NYC is further proof you are wrong.

      But I am one hundred percent certain you have the same standards of proof those poor stupid cyclists had.

    2. Re:I have LIVED in one such area by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's more the fact that london now has a higher crime rate and murder than NYC is further proof you are wrong.

      Fucking moron.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

      It was slightly above in Febuary and less every other month this year and the yearly rate is well under half.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:I have LIVED in one such area by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Apart from murder, crime has actually been moderately worse in England and Wales than in the U.S. for quite a while.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

      You really need to get your news from a service that makes its living off of being accurate.

    4. Re:I have LIVED in one such area by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You really need to get your news from a service that makes its living off of being accurate.

      Your post link exactly the same: the murder rate in London is way lower than new york.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:I have LIVED in one such area by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      really I am looking at the graph in that post and seeing New Yorks line go way down and London's have a slight uptrend on murder (which is not the whole of violent crime, NYC really doesn't have much in the way of acid attacks)

      That's despite gun rights being affirmed and expanded in the U.S. while in the U.K. you have people talking about tougher restrictions on knives.

  69. Re:Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess the only thing you don't blame 'the jews' for is you being a prick.

  70. So. Who does that? by Track07 · · Score: 1

    I don't see someone typing "Trump news" in a google search box as plausible. Who actually does that?

    Someone should teach him to type it in as: "Trump site:foxnews.com".

  71. News results are tailored to your viewing habits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at CNN a lot they will show you more articles from CNN. Wonder if they're going to release a statement clarifying that.

    Unfortunately this is not a great feature since it fosters the echo chamber we currently are seemingly stuck in.

  72. Is journalism dead or redefined? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News
    http://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/

  73. Re:Google and CNN are admittedly liberal-leaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "-1"? -- but its true!

  74. WH staffers have probably... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... tried to explain to him the reason why searching for "Trump" results in so many negative hits showing up. But... since he doesn't like being "lectured to" he wouldn't believe them anyway. Makes you wonder why he bothers to claim to have surrounded himself with "the best people" if he's not going to listen to what they say. [sigh]

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  75. Re:MSNBC & CNN beat Fox in ratings by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    But don't worry, Fox is still number one in the racist senior citizens demographic.

    Don't bet on it: According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.

    And given the amount of racism on CNN and MSNBC, I think it's fair to say, they are giving Fox a run for its money when it comes to the "racist senior citizen demographic".

  76. Do something then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is was illegal he would have actually done something about it, instead of literally shit posting to the world.

  77. Re:Jewgle in a nutshell in their own words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    be advised that he is using a hoax called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and many others.

    side note: I am an active user here on /. but I'm not in the mood to deal with doxing and other issues from white supremest and other non-sense

  78. No, Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't "get my news from Google". And Big Giant Orange Head is clearly the worst President in the last 100 years, quite possibly the worst President in history.

    Did BGOH demonstrate (for the millionth time) how deplorable he is? Why yes, he did, by managing to act like an immature and petulant baby when John McCain died. BGOH claims that the "liberal media" is responsible for this, but it's part and parcel of BGOH's narcissism. BGOH can no more stop being a deplorable asshole than the sea can stop being wet.

    Any factual reporting of the BGOH Presidency therefore, makes BGOH look bad. BGOH only likes boot lickers like Fox News, Fox & Friends, Hannity, etc. Having a spine, morals, and decency is antithetical to the BGOH brand.

  79. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their skins are as gossamer-thin as their orange messiah's.

    That's not what I heard in November 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  80. Worst POTUS ever in 242 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also the stupidest, most corrupt (even counting Nixon), and history will show he's also the POTUS that caused the most overall long-term harm to the United States. If I believed in a God I'd pray that He would send a suicide bomber to kill him. Can't wait for January and the impeachment proceedings to begin.

    1. Re:Worst POTUS ever in 242 years by tmshort · · Score: 1

      Harding's administration was pretty corrupt, too.

  81. EGO Much? by hduff · · Score: 1

    Well, of course he would say that.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  82. Re:Jewgle + JUDENTube explained by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Funny

    You're gonna have to keep your angry racist off-topic tirade down to 2 paragraphs max or I'm just not gonna even read it, ok?

  83. Stop feeding the troll by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    We elected a professional internet troll - and a thin-skinned one at that - to the highest office. He's a total and indisputable failure at the job but we're stuck with him. He thrives on attention, why are we giving it to him? Internet trolls don't tend to go away when they get attention. There is plenty going on in the world that doesn't involve him, in spite of his own claims to the contrary.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Stop feeding the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not thin-skinned at all. He only acts thin skinned as part of his trolling. You have to admit, that he behaves like such a thin-skinned crybaby only gets his opponents more worked up.

      I'm sure he sits back and laughs at his epic triumph every day.

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    2. Re:Stop feeding the troll by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      He is not thin-skinned at all. He only acts thin skinned as part of his trolling.

      No, the thin skinned is real. It's the intelligence that is fake. He seems like someone of marginal intelligence when in reality he's even dumber. Similarly his hair is real but his height is not; he wears 3" elevator shoes so he can claim to be 6'3" when in reality he is less than 6' even.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Stop feeding the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a sick man. "professional internet troll" is just a symptom. The diagnosis is severe "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

  84. Breaking News! by W.+Justice+Black · · Score: 0

    Old white guy Googles himself; doesn't like what he sees. Film at 11.

    --
    "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
  85. Burying the lede by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    The really worrisome part is not that Trump believes Google's search results are somehow biased against him. I can understand how he might feel this way, because of all the things that are coming to light about him, and he's probably feeling under siege from every direction. All he sees is bad news.

    The problematic part is that he thinks it may be illegal for the news to be biased against him or for a company to be biased against him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  86. My all-time favorite president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    deserved 4 more years

  87. It's not rigging results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google isn't so much "rigging the results" as it is "giving more relevance to real-news websites" that are far more likely to publish bad news about Trump, because Trump actually does suck donkey balls like nobody's business.

    Google search results are all about what Google thinks is relevant, trustworthy, and dependable information. Google has made no secret of considering real news far more reliable than alt-right news like Faux News, Drudge, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Nazi Today, and so on...

  88. Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Group Think? Maybe?
    Identity Politics?

    Facebook, Twitter, Youtube (google) have all been actively censoring opinions differing from liberal orthodoxy. Libertarian, Conservative, etc. Need another example? How about PragerU (no hate speech, calls for violence, really anything) but they were Shadow Banned by Facebook for weeks by "mistake." Or how about what Google did to them on youtube.
    Google actively "adjusted" its algorithm to control negative search results against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
    I have yet to see a democrat/liberal congressional candidate, congressman, or senator, or state party called a Nazi in Google's search results for official information. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbq38d/google-is-listing-nazism-as-the-first-ideology-of-the-california-republican-party (left leaning, since "conservative" is clearly fake news all the time)

    Over 90% of the media is negative on President Trump. In what world is this acceptable? (I'm sure someone will try to justify this)
    Much of the media gloms on a single report and has almost identical talking points across channels. (Definitely no Group Think here)
    Russian Collusion...1 1/2 years later and none of the indictments have even a whiff of Trump colluding with Russia, but never mind the facts. And definitely do not investigate both sides. Personally, I would not have an issue with Mueller if he was checking both sides of the aisle, but of course he isn't and stacked his team with democrats.
    Most of the major/mainstream media is owned by about 6 companies (nothing to see here: https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 -- hint, it hasn't gotten any better)

    How about #WalkAway? I suppose that's just a Russian Bot Conspiracy.

    What is clearly missed by the OP is that people who support Trump do not see the attacks on Trump as isolated or targeted to the individual. They correctly see it as an attack on themselves, their beliefs, and right to exist.

  89. Trump should be grateful by SlowDancing · · Score: 1

    A full year before his election I was reading a fresh new screed against Trump on boingboing every day and realized... "He's going to win isn't he?" Because he's captured mindshare. His name is out there like a drumbeat, every day. The media are utterly obsessed with him, and he is unavoidable and unforgettable. And why is that? Because he's great entertainment for the masses.

  90. Re: Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a load of bullshit

  91. It's not bias - it's behavior by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All I said is: bias is simple.

    Bias is simple but Trump's behavior and dislike of unflattering news that results from it is a proven fact. Occam's razor only applies when it isn't clear what the answer is between two choices. While there are clearly a minority of news sources that are biased against (and for) Trump, many more are simply accurately relaying facts without any significant bias for or against. The fact that these facts make Trump look like an asshat is a second order effect. There is a reason his approval ratings are generally historically low - the majority of people don't approve of his actions and it should surprise no one that the news reflects that disapproval.

    Trump behaves like asshat = news reports asshattery is a FAR simpler explanation than assuming widespread and universally negative bias against Trump by google and news organizations.

  92. Trump can google? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    We *are* talking about the guy who had to fight to get a speakerphone working, so he could talk to the President of Mexico, right? And he knows how to specify search terms?

    Or, as the WaPo article that looked into this claim put it, he seems to be repeating a right-wing site's assertion that it was 96%.

    Of course, there's no possibility that he's a sexual predator, contract-breaking crook, who's destroying the US because the people he's been laundering billions for have a hold on him.

    Nope. Nahh...... Oh, and I've got a bridge for sale....

  93. Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am nowhere near as widely travelled as you, but I can say that the last time I was in the US, several years ago, I was within 100m of a German woman on holiday killed by a stray bullet in the middle of a city. Maybe this is normal in the US, it sure as hell isn't in most places.

  94. The press... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...has to PROVIDE good news before Google can publish it. If 95% of the stories written by the press are negative, then Google's gonna have 95% negative stories. Sorry, Don. Google can't manufacture good press if the press isn't willing to create it.

  95. Travel much, do you ? by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Actually, the PIGS, massive Middle Eastern immigration, and car fires in France and elsewhere in Europe make your point less than obvious.

    Have you actually *traveled* to "France and elsewhere in Europe" ?

    Oh, let me guess : Nope, you never left your house, because the media you've been watching has always been telling you that Europe is a scary communist place and too dangerous to travel to.

    I'm not saying that there has never ever been a single car on fire in the whole Europe ever.
    But it is extremely far from being any frequent thing to begin with, unlike what the media would like you to think.
    It's not a common part of the landscape, at all. Just stop believing everything you read on extremists forums.

    (Unlike strikes. Strikes seem to be some sort of national sport in France, and might be an explanation why it could be hard to travel there :-P )

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Travel much, do you ? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I have not been to Europe since the 70s. So I have to rely upon reporting.

      In 2013 this was a thing

      And in 2017, so was this

      And then this year...

      Imagine my surprise that this began in the 90s, around Strasbourg apparently...

      Reuters, reasonably reliable, offers some more insight. Many reasons, even insurance fraud. Apparently the term 'youths' isn't very precise.

      But they do not refute the reality that car burnings are a New Years' celebration in some areas of France, and even for general frivolity or riots. At least France doesn't seem to suffer from the Friday Night Fights so common in other parts of the world. And there are in fact incidents of car burnings in Sweden, who knew?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Travel much, do you ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      and car fires in France

      Car fires in France? That just means it's a day ending in "y". And it's mostly due to it being France.

      (Unlike strikes. Strikes seem to be some sort of national sport in France,

      Along with car fires during a strike.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  96. simple reason by dkman · · Score: 1

    If the majority of news about you is what you consider "negative" then the majority of 1st page links will be "bad".

    The news isn't what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it "fake".

    If you say a lie enough times it might seem true to you, but those outside can still detect the lie.

    --
    I refuse to sign
  97. Two-pump chump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    I think I may have figured out what "bad news" may have set off the President today.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  98. Just one word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loser!

  99. Re:Some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried it, troll. Fox News's own website foxnews.com is the first item returned.

  100. Freudian Slips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illegal?

    Yes it is, so stop what you're doing. Wait, are you suggesting that you might be?

  101. If he would stop generating bad news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he would stop //generating// bad news, nobody would have to report it.

    On Monday, He does something dumb. That fills the news cycle for that day.
    On Tuesday, he "Apologizes" in some way that insults the person he's "apologizing" to. That fills the news cycle for that day.
    On Wednesday, he Walks Back his apology. That fills the news cycle for that day.
    On Thursday, he tries to distract from this weeks controversy by (cozying up to an enemy|threatening an ally|making creepy sexual comments about his own daughter)
    On Friday, one of his "Best People" gets indicted. That fills the news cycle for that day.

    Its like he hasn't realized his own desperate narcissistic need to fill up every news cycle to bursting with news stories about himself is why every news cycle is filled to bursting with news stories about himself.

  102. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...

    I always find these comments strange. Why would anyone think it's funny? It shows a level of ignorant detachment in line with Trump himself. Trump may be a clown but it should be terrifying that a country with the influence and power of the US is run by someone as incompetent and insane as Trump. Choices made have long lasting global implications much as it would with many other super powers. The US can and appears to be moving toward severely damaging the world economy, destabilizing foreign governments, disrupting/undermining treaties, negatively influencing research, etc. And all of that is without going crazy with the military which is always a possibility. The last thing any country should want is the US becoming despotic. Think WWII but if Germany had a military 8 times the size of everyone else and were aligned with Russia. The better part of the US certainly doesn't think it's funny.

  103. This All Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's algorithms usually focus on what sources get the most interest (clicks). Liberal news sources almost certainly generate more articles about Trump and all the moves of his their audience doesn't like. Conservative news focus on problems they are seeing in the world. Most of the news being reported is about problems because that is what attracts their viewers' attention. I would expect Google's default algorithms would prefer conservative news sites for a future liberal president. That said I suspect Google will probably modify their algorithms in the future to tend towards more balanced (or perhaps just more positive) news on presidences because they want to appear unbiased even if to do that they have to bias their typical algorithms.

    So the info that Trump tweeted made sense. It also makes sense that Trump made that tweet even though he lacked evidence to back it up. He is exploiting the BS Asymmetry Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit), which states "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.". I expect more politicians on both sides will learn to better exploit it for awhile and then the pendulum of the human group think psyche will swing to correct it. However, Trump has benefitted so much from this I'm not sure why other politicians of low morals haven't followed his lead.

  104. ...too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Googling for 'miserable failure' still turns up the George Bush name.

  105. Carter's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Carter supported the Shah of Persia, who was sousted uder Ayatollah Khomeini. After U.S. embassy personnell in Tehran was taken hostage, he lost reelection against Ronald Reagan.

    1. Re: Carter's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who conspired with Iran to hold the hostages an extra few months until he took office, so he could look good.

      https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html

  106. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets not forget that the same office creating these statistics that he trumpets was the one doing it for Obama that he claimed were falsifying the numbers.

  107. Harry Reid and Mitt Romney's Taxes by huckamania · · Score: 1

    I would say that Dingy Harry started this mess. He used his position as majority leader of the Senate to smear the opposing party's presidential candidate. All of the major news outlets ran the story for several days using the same format:

    "Harry Reid says 'Mitt Romney has never paid income taxes'".

    Everyone new this was false, everyone. But it dominated news cycles for days and when Mitt did release his taxes, the news outlets barely covered it having moved on.

    This is beyond fake news and it has only gotten worse. Now it's all 'they said, he said, that he might' BS every day.

    1. Re:Harry Reid and Mitt Romney's Taxes by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Remember what Reid said about that when challenged ?

      Well it worked

      Or as I like to point out, Trump says the media is biased against him, 300 newspapers coordinate to write editorials attacking him to prove his point.

  108. Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, the USA is #87 out of 219

    The takeaway that you seemed to have missed: Don't go to shopping malls in Chicago or Detroit, those are liberal socialist shitholes.

    You obviously didn't spend much time in Venezuela, which used to be a socialist shithole. Now it's a fascist shithole.

    Keep cherry picking your travels and taking pot-shots at the US, and come on back anytime! You are free to spout whatever bullshit you want while you are here, cuz, we make certain sacrifices to be free to spout bullshit, and to protect ourselves. Gets messy sometimes, and we're still working on it. We've got a good foundation to keep building on.

    Ciao!

  109. I Find Myself Amazed by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    That this is the best distraction our Cheeto-N-Chief can come up with

  110. trumpgle searchengine by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    I can hardly wait until PhD students, diplomats, engineers and doctors can rely on a Trump approved search engine: Error : Your search - "Science" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords, e.g. "Chinese Hoax" Try more general keywords. e.g. "Creation Science" Error : Your search - "Russia" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords, e.g. "Crooked Hillary" Try more general keywords, e.g. "NO COLLUSION!" Error : Your search - "Stormy" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try premium version of this search engine for $140,000 Your search - "Fake News" returned 84 million results including: (Failing) New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Guardian, London Times, Irish Times, Independent, Reuters, AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, NHK, Der Spiegel, Scientific American, Economist, NASA, NOAA, WHO, CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, Omorosa's tapes, Cohen's tapes, Billy Bush tapes, pee pee tapes... Your search - "Real news" returned 5 results: FoxNews InfoWars Breitbart National Enquirer trumptwitterarchive.com

  111. reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reality has a left wing bias. Trump hates reality. EOF.

  112. Two Scoops! by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    Or maybe when you were seeing Trump's empty podium rather than hearing a speech by Sanders, it might have occurred to you that the corporate media's real job is to tell you what to think. I didn't see Sander name 'trending' on Google news either even when he was winning primary elections, but I did see one hit piece after another by the washington post that somehow always were in the list of top stories.

    After the way the google-media trust collectively shit on Sanders, why would anyone expect them to represent Trump fairly and honestly either?

  113. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low unemployment numbers since we don't count a lot of the unemployed.

  114. Are you stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like CNN saying Cohen has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

    A story by a single source that admits to lying to them. Yet they refuse to pull the story. When CNN runs a story for a month straight, that they know is false, and refuse to retract it and say it is incorrect, it is BIASED.

    Just because you are too stupid to realize CNN is lying doesn't mean it is telling the truth.
    Link

    1. Re:Are you stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that most of these "stories" have turned out to be true. CNN absolutely does recant when they get something wrong. I would think the main criticism is that they get it wrong a lot. Statically they are still way more accurate and correct than Fox News which is in turn way more accurate than Breitbart.

      I'm not sure why you have such an axe against CNN. Trump shouting fake news all the time should be ringing pretty hollow given the number of times he and his cohorts have been caught lying. In that aspect Trump is definitely breaking records and not in a good way.

      No news company is perfect which is why you should never limit yourself to one medium. The problem with Fox News is that they don't consider themselves news. Don't need to take my word for it.

      Then of course we have a disparity between stations telling the truth.

  115. Carter was a nuclear sub commander. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he was trained to be one. Not sure if he actually got a 'boat'. That always
    impressed me. Pretty good for a peanut farmer.

  116. CNN defines Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Story about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.

    You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.

    1. Re: CNN defines Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a citation, you too are a moron.

      It appears all leftists are complete imbicles these days.

    2. Re:CNN defines Fake News by onepoint · · Score: 1

      HI AC, my views will always count & let me put it clearly,
      you and your commie friends end game is clear.
      Like me there are others who can fight, and if anything has been proven, the USA will defeat your ugly ass once again.

      I've followed the money looking way out...

      While I don't know who or what is causing client change, we do know the co2 helps keep it warm. Who benefits from this at the end, Russia & Canada, polar shipping route and Russia's frozen tundra become the new bread basket and most of Canada's will too. the USA will have a lovely dust bowl.

      You guys are investing 50's millions per year to make that happen, for a long-term outcome of 20 billion to 80 billion of produce produced yearly, good bet I would say, risk a few billion for a net outcome of trillions for your people. He who has the food will control the game.

      But I am an American, we will find a way to get to universal peace and growth like that idea in Star-Trek, might still be another 100 years away, but we will sure try.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  117. All mainstream American media is right wing by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    on economic issues. So is Hollywood when you look into it. There's a slight bent to the left on social issues, mostly Abortion & Gun Control. Anything that touches the economy at large are media is hard right. This is why Bernie Sanders was buried by MSNBC during the primary. They got caught when the guy who runs The Young Turks Youtube show wouldn't play ball, for all the good it did.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  118. Another desperate cry for attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to a death in the senate, the clown got no attention for a day or two, and failing to lower the flag costs him votes.

    The only way to pump ratings was to cry conspiracy against _your_ gubmint.

    Personally, I no longer care what he says (it will be a lie) or does (it will break things). He will be gone one day, none too soon for me.

  119. Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can assure you I'm even less afraid for your safety anywhere in the world.

  120. Sane people would adjust their behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but when one person complains about anything opposing their viewpoint, they have mental health problems.

    Sane people (especially those over say age 25) would eventually relent and think about why people say the things about them that they say.

    Seriously, who is the last president of either party that had such problems to such an extreme? He doesn't exist!

    Example: Climate change. IT IS HAPPENING! Why debate whether or not it's caused by humans. Even if it's a 1% chance that we are the cause, shouldn't we atleast consider changing our ways? The risk in being wrong is so sever that it should be a HUGE concern. But putting on the blinders goes our president, even looking to erase laws to that are there to help combat climate change.

  121. Google is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One.....wouldn't surprise me as Google is evil!!

    Two.....Eric Schmidt was involved with the left wingers trying to cheat, wouldn't surprise me if they are fixing search results. Look how they took advantage of a bug in Safari on Google.com. Among many other things! Google is evil!

  122. I checked it out, and he's right. by hey! · · Score: 2

    Google search results make him sound like a moron.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  123. FFS! Re:Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FFS -- you're wearing out my scrolling fingers with this shit.

  124. Trump is correct - Google is not at all unbiased by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 1

    As reported by the Daily Wire:

    "In order to assess how fairly search engine results portray political candidates and controversial issues, we collected over 1,200 URLs ranking highly in Google.com for politically-charged keywords such as “gun control”, “abortion”, “TPP”, and “Black Lives Matter”. Each URL was then assessed for political slant by politically active individuals from both the left and right. Finally, we used CanIRank’s SEO software to analyze how each URL compared in dozens of different ranking factors to determine whether Google’s algorithm treated websites similarly regardless of their political slant.

    Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results."

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
  125. Superstition's razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a ...religious...

    Well, no one's perfect.

  126. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  127. EC Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Territory cannot vote, you moron.

    The Electoral College disagrees with you. Hence, Trump.

    If it was population, you'd referring to "President Clinton" right now.

  128. Bias? by tmshort · · Score: 1

    If the world is biased against you, then of course, a neutral search algorithm will show that bias. Only a biased search algorithm would guarantee "fair and balanced" search results.

  129. News about Korean war bodies coming home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crickets. There was no news about how Trump's successes got our soldiers back home. It was a truly American story, but that wasn't important because Trump was involved.

    This is a commonplace occurrence. What about Trump's successes? If you listen to most media, he has none. Decimating ISIS? (News: He had sex with a stripper). Great economy? (News: Mueller found that some Russians posting facebook memes - must be tied to Trump) Unemployment at record lows? (News: Trump's ex- campaign chairman committed tax fraud years before dealing with Trump, but Trump is guilty somehow).

    I don't know about Google tweaking their search algorithm to hurt Trump. I think it's just biased media is so prevalent that any search algorithm will be forced to display the biased info.

  130. Given the tax cut he gave them by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and that it let them re-patriot billions of dollars of profits virtually tax free (all of which went into the pockets of the CEOs and top shareholders in the form or stock buy backs) I think they can let this one slide.

    Seriously, this is all just a distraction from the plundering of our nations commons that's been going on since Reagan declared "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  131. What Would a Fascist Dictator State? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    First it was media, and now it's the search engines. What's next?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:What Would a Fascist Dictator State? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next?

      Your own lying eyes.

    2. Re:What Would a Fascist Dictator State? by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      Guys in uniforms kicking in your door?

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  132. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  133. AT&T from the 1920s; Hayden; Snowden; Wu; Ajit by epine · · Score: 2

    363 meetings between White House officials and Google employees.

    Yeah, so what? You can't draw any conclusions from anything without first estimating the base rate.

    When you compare it to other tech companies, telecom companies like AT&T etc, all of them combined do not have this many visits.

    Not a bad baseline for comparison—not if you compare Google in the 2010s with AT&T from the 1920s.

    History of AT&T

    National long distance service reached San Francisco with the First transcontinental telephone call in 1915.

    Transatlantic services started in 1927 using two-way radio, but the first trans-Atlantic telephone cable did not arrive until Sept. 25, 1956, with TAT-1.

    Of course, you'll normalize your baseline for the 90-year difference taking into account the relative ability of people to visit Washington, and the pace at which the world now runs. You'll of course factor in the Snowden revelations of 2013 on Obama's rush for close contact with two central players in the larger drama—including technical staff to answer pointed questions about technical capabilities and postures. You'll also have read Michael Hayden's view of the momentous issues going on the behind the scenes between the intelligence community and the behemoths of modern social media (not as if they were actively reshaping the world, or anything like that; not as if they were principle driving engines of the lethargic post-Bush American recovery).

    Playing to the Edge, by Michael V. Hayden — 6 March 2016

    You'll take into account that Obama was one of the few technology-savvy president of living memory:

    OSTP Initiatives

    President Obama held the first-ever White House Maker Faire in June 2014 to celebrate the Maker Movement.

    He also issued a "call to action" to Federal agencies, mayors, companies, universities, schools, libraries, museums, foundations, and non-profit organizations to expand opportunities to participate in Making.

    The Maker Movement has the potential to inspire more young people to create and invent, and to promote entrepreneurship in hardware and manufacturing.

    Obama was an innovation junkie. Will Trump follow in his footsteps? — 16 November 2016

    There's no shortage of reminders of Obama's soft spot for tech.

    Upon being elected, he fought to keep his Blackberry. (Presidents traditionally hadn't been allowed to use email.) The Obama administration has hosted an annual global entrepreneurship summit since 2010.

    (Continue reading, the article soon partially supports your side of this.)

    You'll also take into account that pretty much the entirety of the net neutrality debate transpired during Obama's term. (I can't recommend Tim Wu's books highly enough.)

    And after considering all these base-rate factors, you'll decide whether you need to pile yet another agenda on top of this (subtype: nefarious) to explain the Obama White House visitor log.

    But only if you really give a shit about the coefficient of narrative baloney.

  134. Re: Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet all your proof links are to JEWtube!

    Plot twist: You are the jew!

  135. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  136. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  137. Oh dear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is silencing millions of his disciples and Google is deliberately not showing the millions of hugely positive stories about him!

  138. me again, with data by epine · · Score: 2

    site:slashdot.org "net neutrality"
    9,520 results

    site:slashdot.org "Snowden"
    8,340 results

    site:slashdot.org "NSA"
    7,070 results

    site:slashdot.org "Google"
    50,900 results

    site:slashdot.org "Facebook"
    61,700 results

    I suppose you still think a regular stream of lobbyists and geeks (counted in public view) and generals and policy wonks (not counted in public view) into Obama's White House was situation irregular during his eight-year tenure?

    Here's another seismic view of the Obama presidency:

    Global Apple iPhone sales from 3rd quarter 2007 to 3rd quarter 2018

    Odd that such a busy man would be paying more than normal attention to this sleepy industry.

  139. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  140. Post only what he does. et Voila... bad news by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    Not really rigging.
    Worse president ever? Perhaps... he is working hard at it.

  141. Re:trumpdot by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

    You may have missed it when the other leading candidate for POTUS joked and laughed maniacally about the gruesome death of Libya's leader after the US and its allies bombed and destabilized the country. This was even after providing jihadists weapons and support for the purpose of destabilizing and conducting war in another country called Syria.

    Now we have the usual suspects in the media that goaded the public into supporting a war with Iraq under false pretenses, (remember that one?) now also wanting to stir up shit with Russia for the sake of saving face for their own preferred political tribe. Somehow exposing the corruption and the financial hegemony that led to the choice of last election is of less actual concern than when Trump misspells words on Twitter posts.

    It isn't Trump that I'm worried about. It's the collusion of the media corporations, internet platforms and payment processors to control what we see and hear and who gets to have a voice on the internet that concerns me. Because if anything will lead us to despotism and tyranny and endless war it's that.

  142. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  143. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  144. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  145. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  146. Correlation is not causation by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Google's algorithms do not cause the majority of news about trump to be bad. Rather, the majority of news about trump is just bad. That in turn is the result of a bad man doing bad things.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  147. WTF ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:WTF ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      A story about cyclist killed in Tajikistan (not London/UK) reported by the some foreign journal (again not London/UK) , as a counter argument about some part of London NOT being "no-go" as conservative pretend ? And YOU wonder why people don't trust your handling at facts ?

      The story about the cyclists was to illustrate your idiocy about perceptions of safety. I should have realized I needed to explain in greater detail.

  148. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  149. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  150. Re:Post only what he does. et Voila... bad news by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  151. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  152. Re:Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are crazy

  153. Re:I never thought the day would come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should have expected it. When Ronald Reagan declared "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!" the demand for shared "me" time has been a fracas of political limelight.

    Well, to be fair, if Reagan was indeed paying for that microphone then it would be a bit much for Mr. Green to unilaterally decide it was his right to turn it off. Just sayin'.

  154. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  155. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.

    Because as we all know, once unemployment numbers start going down, they just keep going down by themselves.

  156. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  157. Re: trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama."

    This is propaganda. In the later years of Obama's presidency, the economy was stagnant and had no inertia. The largest gains can be seen after Trump's victory and the economy's expectation of tax cuts, reduction of various regulations, then again when the tax cuts actually happened.

  158. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  159. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  160. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  161. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  162. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  163. John Burroughs said it best by fgouget · · Score: 2

    A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.
    -- John Burroughs

  164. Re:trumpdot by diethelm · · Score: 1

    As a long-time Donald Duck fan, I am deeply hurt and offended by your post!

  165. Re: Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your post spamming does is tell us that the KhazadAKarak Jews or whatever are persecuted by an annoying fucker.
    FOADIAF

  166. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  167. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  168. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  169. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  170. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  171. Oh for fuck's sake by DeanOh · · Score: 1

    Trump being baffled by Google search results is a symptom of the same lack of insight into now-ubiquitous technology that led Orrin Hatch to ask this stupid fucking question:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    It's the same reason he retweets himself...too stupid to understand how to pin a tweet.

    He's an idiot who should take tutoring from Barron, who he claims already has mastered "the cyber".

    Unfortunately, his finger is also poised over Americal's nuclear triad. We could be doomed, and just not know it yetl

  172. What type of person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What type of person

    • - has an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    • - has a sense of entitlement and requires constant, excessive admiration
    • - expects to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    • - exaggerates achievements and talents
    • - is preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    • - believes they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
    • - monopolizes conversations and belittles or looks down on people they perceive as inferior
    • - expects special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
    • - takes advantage of others to get what they want
    • - has an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    • - is envious of others and believe others envy them
    • - behaves in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
    • - insists on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

    And what type of person has trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and:

    • - becomes impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment (like in the press)
    • - has significant interpersonal problems and often feels slighted
    • - reacts with rage or contempt and tries to belittle critics to make themselves appear superior
    • - has difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
    • - experiences major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
    • - has secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

    If you know the answer, then you also know to just stop feeding them. There is no other way.

    If the liberals had any real leadership, that leader would be coaching everybody to give no press at all to Trump, to simply fully ignore the POTUS, to not let the name cross their lips. Go around him in every way you can to do whatever you can for the good. Give up on anything that requires him. Don't engage in any attempt to fight him. Find ways outside of government to accomplish good.

  173. It's a classic case of - by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    shoot the messenger.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  174. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  175. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  176. Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

    Adam Schiff (gosh s

  177. WTF guys? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    If one person calls you an asshole you can probably just ignore that, but if everybody is calling you an asshole you might want to look at that a little more closely. WTF guys!?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  178. Re:MSNBC & CNN beat Fox in ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may trigger you. Hug your therapy dog in your safe space and maybe close your eyes

    May 2018 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable News Network for 197 Straight Months
    https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

    Didn't you think it a little pathetic to crow about one day ?

    This may trigger you but people capable of critical thinking, who understand what news actually is, typically don't watch ANY cable news. There are far better things to do and it's much faster and more reliable to get news from other sources.

    Here, you can borrow my "therapy dog".

  179. Re: Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy effing shit man! Your âoeresearchâ makes Ancient Aliens theorists look like Rhodes Scholars, Iâ(TM)m almost unable to believe that you actually read Slashdot, can we kick this guy off?

  180. Everbody's pickin on me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bwaaaaahaaaa

  181. Re:Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Good golly guy! Just take your meds. They really do work.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  182. Pure bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does Trump have to do with anything, in a thread ABOUT Trump!
    For fucks sake, do you even have a brain?

  183. Re: Jewgle and JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice Manifesto. When should we expect your "incident"?

  184. Trump as always is spot on here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Liberals will cry me a river but they have abandoned free speech and fairness for dogma and ideology. CNN is fake news, this is proven. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to go read some Chompsky.

  185. Re: Jewgle + JUDENTube explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look- trump is posting on /. Now.

  186. Trump is correct, Google is Leftist activitist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see Trump mentioning this.
    I often go to google to just search 'Trump Tweets'.
    I get:

    -- Top Stories: CNN, BBC, The Guardian

    -- Search result 2: CNN: Debunking Donald Trump's latest conspiracy theory on Google
    -- Search result 3: Washington Post: Trump's economic adviser: 'We're taking a look' at whether Google
    -- Search result 4: Washington Post: Trump's rage-tweets about Google reveal a frightening truth about the
    -- Search result 5: Wired.com : Everyone Donald Trump Has Blocked on Twitter: A Running List .

    This is exactly why Trump will continue to get more and more support.
    Because the 'silent majority', will not let the bunch of selective-outrage hypocrites
    to turn US into corruption-friendly, 'democracy-on-paper-only'.

  187. Re: the rightwing media self protrait as unreliabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every first world country with strict gun control laws has something else that the US doesnâ(TM)t, an almost homogenous population.

  188. funny thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not recall any Democrats complaining that Bill Clinton was illegitimate because he did not win a majority.

    If leftists did not have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

    1. Re:funny thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not recall any Democrats complaining that Bill Clinton was illegitimate because he did not win a majority.

      I don't recall any Democrats claiming that he had the support of a majority either. That type of dumb is a new thing.

    2. Re:funny thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not recall any Democrats complaining that Bill Clinton was illegitimate because he did not win a majority.

      Your lack of recollection is your own problem, because Bill Clinton actually won a plurality, which Trump did not(another lie of his, to go with his lies about winning a majority of the popular vote), and for what it's worth there were Democrats who during the 1990s, supported the NPVIC.

      Plus you know, a whole lot of wangsting over the Perot effect.

      If leftists did not have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

      If right-wingers bothered to have integrity, they wouldn't be able to rail at their enemies for their own offenses.

      Remember how many Republicans screamed about Clinton's lack of legitimacy due to Perot's spoiler effect? Remember how Trump screaming for a revolution when he was informed over Obama's victory in 2012. Now apparently, the shoe is on the other foot.

      Ooops, guess we won't have a Revolution, eh, Furious Loser of the Popular Vote?

  189. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're a bit late with that post. Obummer left office in early 2017 - as the only president in modern history to never have a year of at least 3% economic growth.

  190. ha, you're clearly in a bubble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black unemployment is at record low levels.
    Hispanic unemployment is at record low levels.
    Consumer confidence is at 18-year highs.
    The stock market is at its highest levels ever.
    The economy is doing so well that the federal government is collecting more taxes than ever before.
    Unlike most politicians, Trump has actually been keeping most of the promises he made. ... and yet you think there's no good news at all and all the negative Trump stories returned by a Google search are an accurate reflection of reality [facepalm]

    You need to get off of Facebook/Twitter/Google and spend a few hours in the real world.

  191. Trump Misses Foreign Meddling by NetFusion · · Score: 1

    So Google, Twitter, Facebook are now blocking foreign spies intentional interference on his behalf and Trump is missing his echo chamber...

  192. McCain, songbird of Hanoi Hilton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McCain sold his soul to the DEVIL and betrayed us Vets who fought valiantly in 'Nam !

    May John McCain ROT IN ETERNAL HELL !!!

  193. Re:trumpdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a conspiracy-tard.

  194. Re:trumpdot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You're on the Titanic and it's sinking. You run to the bridge, only to notice that Daffy Duck is the captain. There are now two things you can do: Cry in despair or laugh in despair.

    I prefer to laugh. It's about as productive, just with higher serotonin levels.

    Yes, it's horrible. And it's not like it could have been any better. When you have a two party system and both party field the equivalent of self destruction, there is nothing you can do. Quite frankly, if I had had to vote in the US in the last presidential election and someone asked me at gunpoint "Trump or Hillary", my answer would've been "shoot".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  195. Re:trumpdot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh, then you should not read the caricatures of Klaus Stuttmann.

    It's German, but even without Google translate most of it makes sense.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  196. It is beyond credible dispute by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

    Everyone knows. The cultists can vomit the party line until they dry heave talking points.

    The issue is not whether this is happening. It has.

    The issue is instead what to do about it now that it has happened and the assholes aren't being honest about it.

    Solutions include setting up alternative social networks, decentralizing power out of these compromised corporations, and as usual poking fun at the obvious liars if only to enjoy them squealing.

    That's it. That there is bias is not credibly deniable. The issue is instead how to address the problem now that it is established.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  197. Trump Is Right!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant find any good news of Trump apart from the âfake newsâ coming from the leftist media when I scroll for Trump News on Google. Why canâ(TM)t honesty prevail and Tech Gaints stay out of politics and be neutral without taking sides???

  198. Huh?.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the man is a walking living breathing shit show. What was he expecting?

  199. filter bubble by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    Does Donald Trump know that goggle results are biased by previous search history? Maybe Melania was using his browser recently.

    Please toss your cookies after using the official presidential browser!

  200. I'm Feeling Lucky! by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    I do seem to recall something a while back that everyone thought was the most hilarious thing ever. I can't remember what... but basically if you typed "idiot" or "moron" or whatever into google and clicked "I'm feeling lucky" it would take you to Trump's website or whatever.

  201. Google Canada? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Maybe he's switched to Google Canada because he's getting no love up here at the minute.

  202. Somebody get him a pacifier, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a guy who likes to call other people 'snowflakes', this guy sure is one whiny little baby.

    Hey Donald, if you are so tough and the liberals are such losers, why do you constantly portray yourself as being victimized by them? Shouldn't a tough guy like you be able to handle a bunch of sissy, tree-hugging socialists?

  203. Poor Pokus by akayani · · Score: 1

    What surprises me is that anyone that would vote for Trump is a SlashDot user. I thought we had them all contained in Twitter.

  204. For our crypto conservative friends by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Rudy said it best, so repeat after me:

    Truth isn't Truth, Truth isn't truth, Truth isn't truth........

    Repeat until the liberal media and Crooked Hillary disappear in a puff of smoke.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  205. Re:Jewgle + JUDENTube explained by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    You're gonna have to keep your angry racist off-topic tirade down to 2 paragraphs max or I'm just not gonna even read it, ok?

    Ironically, an angry, off-topic tirade might be just the thing to bait the press into distraction from its coverage of a scandal-ridden week or two for the POTUS.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  206. POINT OF ORDER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Point of order for the Damned Oregonian: "and then complained about lack of logic ?"
    Logic was the basis of the statement. You made a STUPID argument so he inferred that you are stupid as well. He posed it as a question so you would have time to rebuttle the claim. You did not refute nor prove the Oregonian incorrect. You did not clarify what your hyperbolic point meant.
    Oregonian's argument does not qualify as ad hominem because he did not state that your points are invalid because you're stupid. Point goes to the god Damned Oregonian

  207. liberal media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    honest journalism is dead

  208. Trump did act like a buffoon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect the news to do? Lie?

  209. Tell Us More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...about your tiny penis!