Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike! said:
Don't take my word for it, or The_Animus, or Wildcat ether.
Do this yourself.
Go to Google.com
Try typing in, crooked Hillary Clinton, slowly, and simply pay attention to what suggestions are offered as you go through typing in crooked Hillary Clinton.
Honestly report back the results of what you see.
I, for one, was genuinely surprised at what was suggested.
Click to expand...
I, personally, don't make a habit of searching for blatantly dishonest descriptions of candidates, so not seeing Trumpisms as the suggestion isn't the end of the world, for me. You may depend on Trump for your political worldview, in which case not being spoonfed Trump's idioticlly simple-minded insults may be more important to you.

If that is the case, my condolences.
The_Animus said:
Never. This was the first time.

Oddly enough doing the same thing 15 minutes later and now I need "lyi" for lying ted to come up, and "little ma" for little marco.

In other words searching for those same things 15 minutes later and googles results changed.
Click to expand...
 
wareyin said:
I, personally, don't make a habit of searching for blatantly dishonest descriptions of candidates, so not seeing Trumpisms as the suggestion isn't the end of the world, for me. You may depend on Trump for your political worldview, in which case not being spoonfed Trump's idioticlly simple-minded insults may be more important to you.

If that is the case, my condolences.
Click to expand...

I want one thing perfectly clear, I'm NOT a Trump supporter, so don't try throwing that label at me, thanks very much.

So you didn't even bother to try it then?
I see.
Here, I've done it for you...
picture.php

What, there's no possible suggestions?
Unless you hit enter, then there are plenty.
Yep, something's up with the Google.
Don't take our word, TRY it yourself.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I, personally, don't make a habit of searching for blatantly dishonest descriptions of candidates, so not seeing Trumpisms as the suggestion isn't the end of the world, for me. You may depend on Trump for your political worldview, in which case not being spoonfed Trump's idioticlly simple-minded insults may be more important to you.

If that is the case, my condolences.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous response. No one suggested it was the end of the world. No one said they make a habit of searching for Trumpisms, or that they depend on Trump for their worldview.

The point is censorship is bad and it looks as though google may be censoring their predictive search results.

This is a great example of why I typically have you on ignore, and why you're going right back on it.
 
It could just be that searching for lying Ted was a lot more popular search that crooked Hillary. Honestly this is no more than a stupid CT at this point. Wrong forum.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It could just be that searching for lying Ted was a lot more popular search that crooked Hillary. Honestly this is no more than a stupid CT at this point. Wrong forum.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Crooked highway

Not enough search volume to show graphs.
Click to expand...

That shows up before Crooked Hillary does.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Crooked Hillary

So no. Not CT

ETA* Correction, it did show up before Crooked Hillary. It no longer does. As far as I know this was only discovered a few hours ago and it looks like the interest in searching these things is starting to affect the search results.
 
Last edited:
Funny though that the predictive search still only shows "Crooked Hillary Bernie" and "Crooked Hillary" doesn't come up at all
 
The_Animus said:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Crooked highway



That shows up before Crooked Hillary does.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Crooked Hillary

So no. Not CT

ETA* Correction, it did show up before Crooked Hillary. It no longer does. As far as I know this was only discovered a few hours ago and it looks like the interest in searching these things is starting to affect the search results.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a CT!!! You got nothing but some nonsense going around the blogosphere.

I get a suggestion at "crooked hill". If you Google-fight 'lying Ted' vs 'crooked Hillary' you get zero hits on either one. They are using different data bases and/or algorithms.
 
5 Times 'Crooked Hillary' Tried to Hornswoggle Us with a Fraudulent Scam

You’ve gotta love Crooked Hillary Clinton talking about 'fraudulent schemes' when she’s about to give a national security speech selling America a bill of goods regarding her experience and competence on the world stage.

<snip>

Read more:
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/5-times-crooked-hillary-tried-hornswoggle-us-fraudulent-scam (June 2, 2016)
Click to expand...


CBS News 3 minute video: "Hillary Clinton Under 'Sniper Fire' In Bosnia"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 4. Do not post large excerpts of copyrighted material.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes it's a CT!!! You got nothing but some nonsense going around the blogosphere.

I get a suggestion at "crooked hill". If you Google-fight 'lying Ted' vs 'crooked Hillary' you get zero hits on either one. They are using different data bases and/or algorithms.
Click to expand...

Again the suggestion you get is "Crooked Hillary Bernie".

Why is there no "Crooked Hillary" by itself?

Why when I earlier searched "Crooked Hi" it brought up "Crooked Highway" which is searched so little that google trends doesn't even have it graphed, but it doesn't bring up "Crooked Hillary" which has significantly more searches?

The same is true of other search terms
 
The_Animus said:
The point is censorship is bad and it looks as though google may be censoring their predictive search results.
Click to expand...
The conspiracy section is found this way --->. :boggled:

This is a great example of why I typically have you on ignore, and why you're going right back on it.
Click to expand...
Your infantile histrionics are off-topic and best kept to yourself, in the interest of signal to noise.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you can't see or can't admit to the double standard, that seems to me to be the ultimate in confirmation bias...
Click to expand...

How about this one (from a PBS report)?

In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted, which was considered by some to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act. Link
Click to expand...

Were there emails sent on the private domain that contained classified information? I don't think anyone knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom