Real Collusion: Google Gave Hillary 2.6M Votes!

Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Billco -
Pedro Navaja - 

Hill-dawg with the KO


He won, Hill Dawg. Get over it.


Hell, Trump can't even get over it.



Hard to when dems embrace conspiracy witch hunts :)



How does that make any sense?



Your party didn't get over it which is evident by the conspiracies coming out of the dnc about trump.


Not shocked you couldn't make sense of it :)



No, I meant how does it makes sense that Trump can't get over it because dems can't? Try to keep up.



Hard to get over something when the other team keeps making up conspiracies to discredit the win. 


 


Dude, come on, please tell me.you're just trolling and actually understand this



Lol that's lamest excuse I've ever heard. Obama handled the birther stuff without bringing it up every chance he got, but I understand Trump is very fragile. 


 


I mean is there anything stupid Trump does that you guys don't blame the dems for?

1 Like
ksacs revenge -
Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Junnk -
ksacs revenge -
Billco -
Pedro Navaja - 

Hill-dawg with the KO


He won, Hill Dawg. Get over it.


Hell, Trump can't even get over it.



Hard to when dems embrace conspiracy witch hunts :)



How does that make any sense?



Your party didn't get over it which is evident by the conspiracies coming out of the dnc about trump.


Not shocked you couldn't make sense of it :)



No, I meant how does it makes sense that Trump can't get over it because dems can't? Try to keep up.



Hard to get over something when the other team keeps making up conspiracies to discredit the win. 


 


Dude, come on, please tell me.you're just trolling and actually understand this



Lol that's lamest excuse I've ever heard. Obama handled the birther stuff without bringing it up every chance he got, but I understand Trump is very fragile. 


 


I mean is there anything stupid Trump does that you guys don't blame the dems for?



You're comparing clinton, trump and some dummies on the right believing he's a muslim to multi year long investigation into trump russia collusion conspiracy, all while the politicians on your team yell collusion? 


 


Come on. Your partisanship is showing again 

1 Like

#Hillary: If you examine my work carefully, you will find that it adheres to the very highest standards of scientific integrity. You will also conclude, I believe, that #Google poses a serious threat to the free-&-fair election & to human autonomy. See https://t.co/T2coTfZt5m

-- Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hillary?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hillary?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hillary?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The study -- which was based on 95 participants in 24 US states -- stated, in part, that when extrapolating from a 2015 study also authored by Epstein, at least 2.6 million votes might be "shifted" in favor of Clinton because of bias in Google's search results.

But the 2015 study's findings were based on asking US residents to cast hypothetical votes for candidates in Australia's 2010 prime ministerial election based on information they saw in Google search results.

Dr. Michael McDonald, an associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, expressed skepticism to Business Insider that Epstein's 2015 findings regarding Google's search rankings influencing American decisions about elections in Australia -- a topic most American study participants would have little information about beforehand -- could be applied directly to the US presidential elections.

"I'm not sure if this really applies to US elections where we have partisan politics going on and lots of other information that people have," McDonald said. "You don't need to look at the top of Google search results for your information about how you're going to cast your vote for president."...

https://www.businessinsider.com/red-flags-in-trump-google-bias-millions-votes-report-2019-8

1 Like
LieDetector -
Res ipsa loquitar -

Up at ten, I googled trump and somehow ended up a Hilary supporter. 

 

 

This x9000

 

Russian ads/memes = Fake news. Nobody changes their mind off of something they see on the internet!

 

Google helping Clinton conspiracy  theory  = ZOMG! 2.6 million votes AT LEAST!!!


That sword is double edged, asshole.


You had no problem screaming at the sky and claiming it was Russian bots got Trump elected and now when faced with a counter claim you all of a sudden mock people for not believing in the Russian conspiracy theory as a response to this one, all the while not believing this one. 


Moron.

1 Like

Any day now!

LieDetector - 
Res ipsa loquitar -

Up at ten, I googled trump and somehow ended up a Hilary supporter. 

 

 

This x9000

 

Russian ads/memes = Fake news. Nobody changes their mind off of something they see on the internet!

 

Google helping Clinton conspiracy  theory  = ZOMG! 2.6 million votes AT LEAST!!!




Propaganda has always been influential, and literally no-one has denied that. But the difference is that we have years of evidence that there was no large scale Russian influence or interference in the US election or anywhere else in the west. But we do have well documented and proven interference from Google and the other big tech companies across the west on a regular and massive basis.

Trump's new laws forcing social media and big tech companies not to censor news or promote their political favourites will be like a bombshell when it hits, and it can't come soon enough.

1 Like
Junnk -

In for spin!

I'm not in for spin but for data.

If this isn't the delusional ramblings of a politically motivated psychopath then I would like to see the statistical modeling that led to this conclusion. When I google this man, all I can find are his claims, and past conflicts of interest that would have introduced biases into his assesment.

I know the OG automatically believes or disbelieves shit depenidng on how politicall convenient it is, but if this man and his claims are anything but utter bullshit than he must have some type of model to support his assertions...

Could someone provide it becasue I've found nothing as of yet.

Edit: Found the links in the business insider article. Thanks, I can read em now.

SalaciousCrumb -
HULC -
LieDetector - 
Res ipsa loquitar -

Up at ten, I googled trump and somehow ended up a Hilary supporter. 

 

 

This x9000

 

Russian ads/memes = Fake news. Nobody changes their mind off of something they see on the internet!

 

Google helping Clinton conspiracy  theory  = ZOMG! 2.6 million votes AT LEAST!!!


Propaganda has always been influential, and literally no-one has denied that. But the difference is that we have years of evidence that there was no large scale Russian influence or interference in the US election or anywhere else in the west. But we do have well documented and proven interference from Google and the other big tech companies across the west on a regular and massive basis.

Trump's new laws forcing social media and big tech companies not to censor news or promote their political favourites will be like a bombshell when it hits, and it can't come soon enough.

CIA, FBI, and orher foreign governments testify about Russian attempts to influence elections. Nope. No evidence. 

 

One guy says Google bad. Yup. It's a fact. 


You can't just keep repeating a lie as if it's an argument. That ship has sailed and everyone knows it was crap.


 


Google and big tech getting regulated for their interference however, that will br amazing.

 

1 Like

This is a complete joke, lmao that people think google had anything to do with this election, people hate Trump, and people hate Hillary, what part of that do you have a problem understanding, some people hated both of them like me.

Do you think the people are going to come around and start liking Trump?

I haven't met anyone who has changed there attitude towards either of them, except I have known some people who have said they have seen enough of his tweeter rants and the only way they will still support him is if he keeps the economy strong.

1 Like

I wonder if any of this was as effective as Hillary Clintons superPAC funded correct the record?

 

Correct the Record was a hybrid PAC/super PAC founded by David Brock. It supported Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. The PAC aimed to find and confront social media users who posted unflattering messages about Clinton and paid anonymous tipsters for unflattering scoops about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, including audio and video recordings and internal documents.

 

The organization was created in May 2015 when it spun off from American Bridge 21st Century, another Democratic Super PAC. It coordinated with Clinton's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign via a loophole in campaign finance law that it says permits coordination with digital campaigns.[1][2]

yabadaba -


 



Saying you don't like the website something was posted on is not "debunking" it. Jesus wept, you lot are desperate.

HULC -
yabadaba -


 



Saying you don't like the website something was posted on is not "debunking" it. Jesus wept, you lot are desperate.



He pointed out that this is just something Epstein posted on his website (i.e. Epstein did not submit his claim to peer-review). 


Somehow you conclude from this that he doesn't like Epstein's website?


Jesus wept indeed.

yabadaba - 
HULC -
yabadaba -


 



Saying you don't like the website something was posted on is not "debunking" it. Jesus wept, you lot are desperate.



He pointed out that this is just something Epstein posted on his website (i.e. Epstein did not submit his claim to peer-review). 


Somehow you conclude from this that he doesn't like Epstein's website?


Jesus wept indeed.




Lol! Are all your posts retarded? He literally equates posting his own research on his own website to it being debunked:

"And u published on your website, not in a peer-reviewed journal. So yeah, debunked 100%, sorry."

and all that your pea brain can come up with is "durr, how do you know he doesn't like that site, durr"

Try not being so stupid, it hurts my eyes to read your stupidity.

Also, if you had read your own link, you would see the very first reply to this guys tweet links evidence to show that actually it was peer reviewed. Womp womp

HULC -
yabadaba - 
HULC -
yabadaba -


 



Saying you don't like the website something was posted on is not "debunking" it. Jesus wept, you lot are desperate.



He pointed out that this is just something Epstein posted on his website (i.e. Epstein did not submit his claim to peer-review). 


Somehow you conclude from this that he doesn't like Epstein's website?


Jesus wept indeed.




Lol! Are all your posts retarded? He literally equates posting his own research on his own website to it being debunked:

"And u published on your website, not in a peer-reviewed journal. So yeah, debunked 100%, sorry."

and all that your pea brain can come up with is "durr, how do you know he doesn't like that site, durr"

Try not being so stupid, it hurts my eyes to read your stupidity.

Also, if you had read your own link, you would see the very first reply to this guys tweet links evidence to show that actually it was peer reviewed. Womp womp

"He literally equates posting his own research on his own website to it being debunked"


Nonsense. Here's what he wrote:


"From less than 95 subjects over the course of only 25 days. And you threw out data that would've likely made your results non-significant. And u published on your website, not in a peer-reviewed journal. So yeah, debunked 100%, sorry."

Trump knows he won the popular vote. He wants credit for it.

 

I would advise Trump to pay attention to voter fraud because he will get more votes stolen in the next election. There is always DNC meddling in elections but next time there will be massive Chinese meddling.