America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by victor809. 244 replies replies.
5 Pages12345>
Russia Hoax, No Collusion, No Obstruction...but Damm Google!!!
delta1 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
TDS on over-drive...Trump now says Google stole 2.5mm to 16 million votes from him in 2016...


lol...what's the margin of error, smarty pants?
Gene363 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,680
This psychologist claims Google search results unfairly steer voters to the left. Conservatives love him



https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/13/google-big-tech-bias-hurts-democracy-not-just-conservatives-column/1265020002/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-google-search-bias-elections-20190322-story.html

delta1 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
and others say Facebook helped Trump win the election...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html


Facebook was named in the Mueller Report as part of the Russian effort to help Trump win...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-linkedin-to-dms-the-mueller-report-dives-deep-into-the-high-tech-back-channeling-behind-the-2016-campaign-2019-04-18
tailgater Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
If you desired to sway an entire republic, would you want a bias Google on your side?
Or $100k in ruples spent on facebook?


I'm not saying Google did anything.

But I haven't been crying about russia russia russia either.





Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,680
delta1 wrote:
and others say Facebook helped Trump win the election...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html


Facebook was named in the Mueller Report as part of the Russian effort to help Trump win...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-linkedin-to-dms-the-mueller-report-dives-deep-into-the-high-tech-back-channeling-behind-the-2016-campaign-2019-04-18



Making a bunch of FB posts or launching some bots is nothing compared to shifting Google search results, set aside any political lens and think about how dangerous the power to change an election could be. Like cheating lover, if they'll do it for you, they'll do it to you.

This video has Ted Cruz talking to an inside guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvgl38TLvI

victor809 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This is not likely true.... For more than the simple reason trump claimed it.

The first problem is how someone could try to claim that Google search results would translate to votes. That's a real stretch and is based completely off a study done on elections in India... Which we can all agree is a completely different environment than the us...

The second problem is they threw out all data collected from Gmail users... That's a serious bias to their sample population ... They're essentially sampling people over 50 only.

The author also barely touches on how search bias impacts results... Which is actually very important, and a significant aspect of how our searches will usually give us the answer we're looking for.... Not the truth.

But they don't adequately show how that would translate to votes in a US presidential election.
teedubbya Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
It was debunked before the orange walking conspiracy idiot even mentioned it.
frankj1 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
as of the other day, still looking for busloads of MAHoles voting in NH
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I do think it is important we all recognize the negative impact search algorithms have on ALL our lives.

A search engine which finds what you are looking for (this is literally the function of a search engine) combined with humans natural tendency towards confirmation bias can lead to people believing some frankly dumb ideas.

It's been well understood for a while now that there is a problem in searching for positive confirmation of just about anything on the internet. If you phrase your search in a manner that seeks confirmation, you will get it. Whether it's correct or not. Because the internet is a collection of everything, accurate and inaccurate. If some idiot asks google "how many people have the clinton's had killed" at least a few of your top search results will be websites which agree with you.

This provides a serious dilemma for a search engine company. Is it their responsibility to simply link people to sites they are looking for, regardless of accuracy? Or are they responsible for providing accurate information, and correcting their clients? I would argue that this answer is really between the searcher and the search engine.... and may change based on the search. Sometimes I want to know what idiotic thing people are talking about on here (such as this thread where our moron president resurrected old, bad studies) and in those cases, I wouldn't want my search engine to give me correct results, I would want to be linked to the false information on the internet so I can read what gene is reading....
victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Facebook algorithms do similar things, showing links and suggesting things based on items you've already posted, or other things you have looked at. Without any intervention to see whether you are improving your actual knowledge or not, these algorithms will take people down rabbit holes. "I see you like 'Obama is a Kenyan', can I interest you in the "Donald Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ" site as well?".

There was some very interesting studies about Youtube's algorithms and methodology. It appears that Youtube actually pushes people towards more and more fringey videos to meet their internal metrics. So one second you're just innocently watching a pragerU video, and the next one will auto-run will be a flat-earther video.

But to stretch any of this to "votes" is one bridge too far.

Someone who's watching a PragerU video isn't going to ever vote for Clinton, whether YouTube convinces them the earth is also flat or not.

similarly, someone who recognizes that PragerU is a terrible set of videos with poorly constructed arguments on facts that are frequently misrepresented, if present at all, is not going to vote for Trump... whether google algorithms push them away from trump or whatever.
delta1 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
let me get this straight...Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ?

huh.....I thought that was Obama...googled it...
tailgater Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Victor,
I think you're ignoring the obvious.
Go ahead and google "Trump".

I just did and the first three "Top Stories" are all negative.
NYT claiming Trump rollback of auto pollution rules show signs of dissarray.
Politico talking about the Obama's first big anti-Trump statement of 2020.
CNN explaining Why Anthony Scaramucci's rebellion bothers Donald Trump so much.


Or maybe that's just coincidence...







victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Victor,
I think you're ignoring the obvious.
Go ahead and google "Trump".

I just did and the first three "Top Stories" are all negative.
NYT claiming Trump rollback of auto pollution rules show signs of dissarray.
Politico talking about the Obama's first big anti-Trump statement of 2020.
CNN explaining Why Anthony Scaramucci's rebellion bothers Donald Trump so much.


Or maybe that's just coincidence...


not coincidence.... also not bias.

go to google and type Ted Bundy... I bet the first top 3 stories are about him being a kller
dstieger Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
tailgater wrote:
Victor,
I think you're ignoring the obvious.
Go ahead and google "Trump".

I just did and the first three "Top Stories" are all negative.
NYT claiming Trump rollback of auto pollution rules show signs of dissarray.
Politico talking about the Obama's first big anti-Trump statement of 2020.
CNN explaining Why Anthony Scaramucci's rebellion bothers Donald Trump so much.



I got two of those three stories and one other that is essentially 'negative'.

However, the 'stories' are, I think, news feeds...may not be Google's fault if vast majority of "news" releases are negative towards Trump.

After the 'Stories' and Twits, the first three internet links are donaldjtrump.com, Trump wiki page, and a CNN Trump news page which, when clicked leads with a couple neutral headlines before listing the hit jobs

So....maybe Google is mostly representing what is out there to find when you go searching....I'm not even convinced myself, but I sure hope so
Speyside Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Easy to explain Tail. Trump does nothing positive, hence there are no positive stories about Trump except those propagated by the extreme alt right. On the other hand saint Obama would have already been canonized except he still lives.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This is something I really don't understand.

News is supposed to be neutral, reporting what is happening. Now I don't think our news does a great job of this right now. But I also don't see how "reporting the facts" would result in trump having positive search results.

In the past day he has:
- accused a congressperson of violence and of hating all jewish people
- threatened the "lamestream media"
- called his former director of communications a "disgruntled former employee" (which of course brings up his promise to only hire the best people)
- claimed CNN and MSNBC ratings are "way down" and called it "beautiful"
- used a debunked study to claim he should have had more votes

That's literally in 24 hours. Where do you expect any positive news to get any air? He literally did nothing else yesterday, but generated potentially 5 negative stories.
You cannot do that and then whine that the news only reports negative stories.
tailgater Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
This is something I really don't understand.

News is supposed to be neutral, reporting what is happening. Now I don't think our news does a great job of this right now. But I also don't see how "reporting the facts" would result in trump having positive search results.

In the past day he has:
- accused a congressperson of violence and of hating all jewish people
- threatened the "lamestream media"
- called his former director of communications a "disgruntled former employee" (which of course brings up his promise to only hire the best people)
- claimed CNN and MSNBC ratings are "way down" and called it "beautiful"
- used a debunked study to claim he should have had more votes

That's literally in 24 hours. Where do you expect any positive news to get any air? He literally did nothing else yesterday, but generated potentially 5 negative stories.
You cannot do that and then whine that the news only reports negative stories.


Your bias shows. Or maybe it's simply your willingness to accept the bias presented by MSM.

Last week the economic world was ending. Markets crashing. Recession imminent.
Yesterday (Monday) the market rose over 1%.
Trump said we're not in a recession and the market seemed to follow suit.

Seems to me this would be more important "news" to garner a "top stories" segment then what Obama has to say or what CNN perceives as a slight from the Mooch.

Most news sources lean left. We all acknowledge this to be true, and it is.
So Google is just the messenger. Fine.
But with all their algorithms you'd think they could quantify or qualify a level of importance rather than just the left minded drivel doled out by Trump hating media.

And yes. Trump has made this bed. I'm not crying for him. But neither can the resultant bias (be it from google or just the media in general) be ignored.

Yet we'll still hear about russia russia russia and their world changing influence on a free election due to a few adds to bored housewives on their facebook feed.



victor809 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Your bias shows. Or maybe it's simply your willingness to accept the bias presented by MSM.

Last week the economic world was ending. Markets crashing. Recession imminent.
Yesterday (Monday) the market rose over 1%.
Trump said we're not in a recession and the market seemed to follow suit.

Seems to me this would be more important "news" to garner a "top stories" segment then what Obama has to say or what CNN perceives as a slight from the Mooch.

Most news sources lean left. We all acknowledge this to be true, and it is.
So Google is just the messenger. Fine.
But with all their algorithms you'd think they could quantify or qualify a level of importance rather than just the left minded drivel doled out by Trump hating media.

And yes. Trump has made this bed. I'm not crying for him. But neither can the resultant bias (be it from google or just the media in general) be ignored.

Yet we'll still hear about russia russia russia and their world changing influence on a free election due to a few adds to bored housewives on their facebook feed.


Well... not the dumbest post of the year 2019. But maybe top 10.

1 - Last week the economic world was ending. Markets crashing. Recession imminent.
Yesterday (Monday) the market rose over 1%
- You want the news to give him credit for a 300pt bounce on an 800 pt drop in the market that is largely believed to be due to his dumb trade wars?

2 - Trump said we're not in a recession and the market seemed to follow suit.
- The market had that 300pt bounce by Sat/Sun before he made his statement. I checked it myself on my phone because I was curious what the market was going to do Mon. It did not respond to his statement. And recovering 300 pts on a 800pt drop is NOT digging itself out of recession range anyway.

3 - Seems to me this would be more important "news" to garner a "top stories" segment then what Obama has to say or what CNN perceives as a slight from the Mooch.
- Yes. It should be news. The news should have been "Market makes slight recovery from trump caused plummet on Friday"... and you would have complained about it being negative to trump as well. Because you can't help but whine.

4 - "Yet we'll still hear about russia russia russia and their world changing influence on a free election due to a few adds to bored housewives on their facebook feed."
- Seriously? The entire post.... the entire reason we're having this conversation on this thread is because your tiny handed president just made that same whine about google. And you're upset because you hear people complain about russia's influence? Why aren't you complaining when the orange sh$tgibbon daily claims the MSM is unfairly influencing bored housewives? Or when he complains google and twitter are silencing him?

Face it. You have TDS.
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Well... not the dumbest post of the year 2019. But maybe top 10.

1 - Last week the economic world was ending. Markets crashing. Recession imminent.
Yesterday (Monday) the market rose over 1%
- You want the news to give him credit for a 300pt bounce on an 800 pt drop in the market that is largely believed to be due to his dumb trade wars?

2 - Trump said we're not in a recession and the market seemed to follow suit.
- The market had that 300pt bounce by Sat/Sun before he made his statement. I checked it myself on my phone because I was curious what the market was going to do Mon. It did not respond to his statement. And recovering 300 pts on a 800pt drop is NOT digging itself out of recession range anyway.

3 - Seems to me this would be more important "news" to garner a "top stories" segment then what Obama has to say or what CNN perceives as a slight from the Mooch.
- Yes. It should be news. The news should have been "Market makes slight recovery from trump caused plummet on Friday"... and you would have complained about it being negative to trump as well. Because you can't help but whine.

4 - "Yet we'll still hear about russia russia russia and their world changing influence on a free election due to a few adds to bored housewives on their facebook feed."
- Seriously? The entire post.... the entire reason we're having this conversation on this thread is because your tiny handed president just made that same whine about google. And you're upset because you hear people complain about russia's influence? Why aren't you complaining when the orange sh$tgibbon daily claims the MSM is unfairly influencing bored housewives? Or when he complains google and twitter are silencing him?

Face it. You have TDS.


I see you still like to attack anyone with a different opinion.

I did not say, nor did I imply that Trump deserved credit for yesterday's market turnaround. I merely posted the facts, and they are certainly more of a "top story" than an Obama gripe. Try to follow the point, not your own rant. The market was used as an example of news that wouldn't be deemed negative.

As for the facebook thingy, you do realize that we've listened to that gripe for almost 3 years. Trump refutes it and you're slamming him before the sound stops echoing off his keypad.
Odd you would mention TDS in a post where you're so obviously salivating over everything Trump.

BTW, I like how you itemized 4 things yet had only two points.

You really are cute when you get all riled up, off point, and pontificate like the fool you prove to be time and again.
Or should I say when you:
1. get all all rile up.
2. go off point.
3. pontificate.
4. be yourself.










victor809 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
I see you still like to attack anyone with a different opinion.

You claimed I had a bias from MSM. When I provided a list of 5 things trump did taken straight from his twitter account and not from any news source. Of course I will mock you.

Quote:

I did not say, nor did I imply that Trump deserved credit for yesterday's market turnaround. I merely posted the facts, and they are certainly more of a "top story" than an Obama gripe. Try to follow the point, not your own rant. The market was used as an example of news that wouldn't be deemed negative.


Quote:
Trump said we're not in a recession and the market seemed to follow suit.

Yeah, you totally didn't imply he should get credit....
Liar

Quote:
As for the facebook thingy, you do realize that we've listened to that gripe for almost 3 years. Trump refutes it and you're slamming him before the sound stops echoing off his keypad.

It's the difference between someone talking about facts and someone re-tweeting fiction. Are you not able to tell the difference?
There are facts that there was a russian disinformation campaign on facebook. This isn't something that can be disputed. What impact it had, if any, can be discussed by rational people (so you don't have to get involved). But there is value in acknowledging that a foreign power attempted to meddle with our country.

Trump didn't say "hey, we should look at whether there is a bias in search engine results" (the study indicates there might be... but amusingly enough it doesn't actually have a "normal baseline" so who knows, maybe the bias is towards conservative media in yahoo and bing results?). No. He claimed these results led to "2.5 to 16Million votes"... or some nonsense like that. Which does not have any real basis in reality. And so yes, he got slammed for that. Because it was stupid. If someone told me that russian facebook interference led to 16million votes for trump I'd tell them they need to show their work on that. But no one has told me that.

Quote:

Odd you would mention TDS in a post where you're so obviously salivating over everything Trump.
the orange sh$tgibbon is our president. Aren't you concerned about everything he does?

Quote:
BTW, I like how you itemized 4 things yet had only two points.

You really are cute when you get all riled up, off point, and pontificate like the fool you prove to be time and again.
Or should I say when you:
1. get all all rile up.
2. go off point.
3. pontificate.
4. be yourself.

I addressed your specific statements individually. If you don't think there were more than 2 statements there, then maybe you were simply repeating yourself like an idiot?
teedubbya Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The claim has been debunked long ago, despite the anecdotal whining.
delta1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Google must REALLY be biased against Trump....just googled "positive Trump stories" : first was an archived story in Harper's Mag, from Jan 2019, a foreigner's perspective, second was an old story in USA Today, from Dec 2017, counting the ways Trump is a success, third was a May 2019 story in the Houston Press about 5 small good things Trump has done ...

YAY...lolol...

he needs a better Media and Communications Director...Kellyanne is too belligerently Trump-like to do anything except draw negative attention to herself...even Fox News is running negative Trump stories...so it's looking like it aint the media...

whose fault is it that there aren't more positive Trump pieces...


btw: even the WH is talking about plans to avoid a possible recession...
Mr. Jones Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
Cambridge Analytica...

And

Brittany Kaiser BLOWS WHISTLES AND OLD MENS C.O.C.K.
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
if Trump does not deserve credit for the market turnaround, why would it pop up as a positive on a google search of Trump?
sounds like the search engine acted appropriately
tailgater Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Nice deflection by Team Hate Trump.


A 1% change in the market is newsworthy.
Trump said last week wasn't to worry about and things would improve.
They did (for a day, at least).

This is not an opinion.
I am not commenting on whether I agree with him.
I previously did not say that I agree with him.

But you TDS brain dead MSM puppets can't comprehend things because you hate when somebody says something that isn't hateful against Trump.

Your collective intolerance is staggering.


The original point was NOT the economy. It was merely an example to show that there are news positive (or at least non-negative) stories about Trump that are more relevant than an Obama statement about Trump (for instance).

But you can't understand that.
You literally can not grasp that concept.
Because your myopic hatred of all things Trump clouds your viewpoint.
No wonder you allow the media to define your angst.






tailgater Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
For the record, Putin's facebook antics did not sway the election.
But we hear about it for 3 years.
Not because it's terrible that Obama allowed it to happen.
But because Russia Russia Russia! is a battle cry by the brain dead snowflakes who STILL need their serenity room because of the election results.

Then Trump, true to form, opens his yap and points out an actual media bias in the Google platform and suddenly we hear that social media didn't impact the election.
And I agree that it didn't. Of course it didn't. Google did not chase voters away from Trump. But neither did Facebook chase them away from Hilldog.

Seems logical and unbiased, right?
Nope.
TDS will make people misunderstand my statement as support for our sitting President.

To recap:
We hear about Russia! Facebook election conspiracy for 3 years.
We hear about Trumps Google election conspiracy for 3 days.
Push aside your bias just long enough to let that perspective soak in.




frankj1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I was quoting you, not msn or whatever it is (never seen).
Market rebound is good news, news which had nothing to do with Trump according to you.

So regarding the Google bias OP...why would the market rebound good news pop up when googling Trump?

izonfire Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,642
Absorbing

^ #26
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Debunked using data analysis rather than anecdotal whining. The academic studies done are good enough for me (and the chair of the FEC). It won’t be for the whiners but that’s what makes it fun. They think they are presenting a winning argument and don’t recognize it’s an injustice they want to exist rather than one that does exist. It’s cute to see them call others out when things are reversed.
Speyside Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
The only analytical facts show Google didn't happen. All our intelegence agencies and our ally agencies state Russia did happen. Tail states both happened and neither effected the election. The intelligence agencies stated Russia did effect the election. Tail states if you believe the analytical facts and the intelligence agencies you have TDS and are a brain dead snowflake.

Does that sum it up Tail? Such a strong and solid argument on your part. How could I believe anything else? I mean, I can't think for myself unless I let you think for me right? Also if I follow the facts instead of your assumptions my conclusion is no only inaccurate, but brain dead, right? And the logical assumption is illogical, right? And you are way more knowledgeable on these matters than the free worlds intelegence agencies, right?

Thank you Tail, I am fortunate to have you here to put me on the right path since I am lemming like and allow groups to make my decisions for me. It is way better to have one person other than myself make my decisions. Now back to reality and out of this bizzaro world called the world according to Garp, strike that, Tail.
Speyside Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Be a good boy and grab at another orange straw.
tailgater Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
The only analytical facts show Google didn't happen. All our intelegence agencies and our ally agencies state Russia did happen. Tail states both happened and neither effected the election. The intelligence agencies stated Russia did effect the election. Tail states if you believe the analytical facts and the intelligence agencies you have TDS and are a brain dead snowflake.

Does that sum it up Tail? Such a strong and solid argument on your part. How could I believe anything else? I mean, I can't think for myself unless I let you think for me right? Also if I follow the facts instead of your assumptions my conclusion is no only inaccurate, but brain dead, right? And the logical assumption is illogical, right? And you are way more knowledgeable on these matters than the free worlds intelegence agencies, right?

Thank you Tail, I am fortunate to have you here to put me on the right path since I am lemming like and allow groups to make my decisions for me. It is way better to have one person other than myself make my decisions. Now back to reality and out of this bizzaro world called the world according to Garp, strike that, Tail.



The intelligence agencies confirmed Russian meddling.
If they have confirmed that these shenanigans changed our election results then:
A. I have not seen that report
and
B. I'd like to know how they calculated that influence.


We're talking about $100k on facebook memes.
But I'll buy into Speyside's "facts" that US intelligence proved that the election results were altered because of these russian memes.
The premise is that would-be Hillary voters jumped ship and voted for Trump.
Yeah.
I can see Hillary voters being that stupid.

Oh, and I really would like to see that report.
Not a CNN summary, but a link to the report proving the memes had an effect on the final results.

Thank you.

tailgater Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
I was quoting you, not msn or whatever it is (never seen).
Market rebound is good news, news which had nothing to do with Trump according to you.

So regarding the Google bias OP...why would the market rebound good news pop up when googling Trump?



Because Trump predicted it prior to Monday.
You didn't quote me. You misquoted and made an assumption.

I'm truly sorry that I confused so many liberals with my example of a news story that wasn't anti-Trump.
The premise is obviously foreign to you all.

And it's telling how each of you jumped on the issue of the economy rather than the biased search results.
I don't blame Google. There is no evil plot by Google to thwart Trump.
But their search results rely heavily on a biased media, which skews the search results accordingly.
teedubbya Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
LOL
Speyside Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
There is the Mueller report and the Senate intelligence report. Though they certainly must be false news in your opinion. What report do you have to back up your unfounded claims? Oh, you just know it in your gut, because there are no reports by professionals. Just some 2 bit hacks trying to score their 15 minutes. Why don't you back your opinions with some facts. Everything I said is based in verifiable fact. So you wanna claim fake news? The cowardly orange lion would back you on this. It appears you as delusional, arrogant, and uninformed as he is. Plus you do the Twitter idiot thing well. But your baseless rants are here as opposed to Twitter. Though you do create the same level of laughter and mocking, so there is that. You BS about not being a Trump supporter is pathetic. You say so very little here that isn't an attempt at undermining anyone who doesn't bow at Trumps feet. Will you always speak in unfounded hyperbole, or will you some day base you opinion in verifiable facts? 98.2% you will continue playing Trumps court jester. You as conditioned as well as one of Pavloffs dogs.
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Nice deflection by Team Hate Trump.


A 1% change in the market is newsworthy.

is it?

It's really f-cking regular this past 2 years, so how can you possibly call it newsworthy?
Have you not been smart enough to notice the pattern? Trump does something stupid. Market tanks 500pts (or 800 or 300)... next day it corrects by about 1/2 of that it tanked by because everyone oversold on the dumb comment. 7 of the 20 largest 1 day market gains have happened in the past year. All of them over 1.7% 8 of the 20 largest negative market swings have also happened in the past year... all of them in excess of 2%.
So tell me... How is it news that the market made a small recovery on Friday's dump again? And please explain to me how it's positive news for trump if you don't think he deserves credit for it (per delta).

Quote:

Trump said last week wasn't to worry about and things would improve.
They did (for a day, at least).

Ah yes... a famous speech to make when markets are doing poorly.... it ranks right up there with kennedy... ghandi...
"The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election,”
"The problem they have is that the economy is way too strong and we will soon be winning big on Trade, and everyone knows that, including China!"

That speech definitely is what rallied the market to.... what's that?... 1/2 of the dump it took due to his poor choices?

Quote:

This is not an opinion.
I am not commenting on whether I agree with him.
I previously did not say that I agree with him.

But you TDS brain dead MSM puppets can't comprehend things because you hate when somebody says something that isn't hateful against Trump.

Your collective intolerance is staggering.

Yet you blame any and all criticism of him on the MSM. When I'm literally taking his quotes word for word, you think it's because of the MSM.

Maybe the problem is you're not actually paying attention. Maybe you need to go listen to the president's words, and read his tweets... instead of blaming the media on him saying and twittering crap. You're an apologist for a terrible person. You can say you don't agree with him all you want. But you continually apologize for him.

Quote:

The original point was NOT the economy. It was merely an example to show that there are news positive (or at least non-negative) stories about Trump that are more relevant than an Obama statement about Trump (for instance).

make up your mind. Is the economy a "positive" for trump or is it not because of him.
And is a 300pt gain on a 800 pt loss a "positive" anyway? F-ck if the media reported it honestly they would say "Market only recovered 300 points from the 800 point loss" and you would whine more.
Find another positive story for him then.

I'll even help you.
He offered to buy greenland. That's positive for the US right? He's looking to expand our territory.
And when Denmark said "no" he whined like a little b$tch and cancelled a previously scheduled trip to denmark. Because he's a very very big boy.

How's that for a positive media story about trump?
Quote:

But you can't understand that.
You literally can not grasp that concept.
Because your myopic hatred of all things Trump clouds your viewpoint.
No wonder you allow the media to define your angst.

No, you don't get it. When a sh$tty person does a sh$tty job for 98.2% of their tasks, you don't highlight the 1.8% of the things they may get right. That's NOT accurate news. That would be inaccurate news. That's what you're asking for. You want the news to give trumpenfurher a little gold star and a participation trophy every time he manages to not completely f$ck something up... but when he's constantly saying and twittering things that are absolute sh#t, when he's ensuring his trump properties are making bank off his constant golf trips, when he's changing tariffs to coincidentally favor his children's companies.... there is no room in the daily news cycle to congratulate the dumb f$ck for managing to put his pants on the right way the first time today.

I can't f%cking believe the party which used to be against snowflakes and participation trophies has become such a weak little "why isn't trump getting credit for not peeing himself today!!!??" group of b$tches.
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Because Trump predicted it prior to Monday.
You didn't quote me. You misquoted and made an assumption.

LOL

"predicted"

"The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election,”
"The problem they have is that the economy is way too strong and we will soon be winning big on Trade, and everyone knows that, including China!"

that's not "predicting".
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Victor, I realize you've moved recently and that may have impacted your social life, but it's sad when you treat a discussion like a term paper. And by sad, I mean pathetic.
But mostly it's boring.
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And hey.... a day after that fun little hissy fit he had with denmark he literally said: "I am the chosen one" in reference to taking on the trade war with china.

Tell me again, what "positive" news we should be reporting now?
tailgater Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
There is the Mueller report and the Senate intelligence report. Though they certainly must be false news in your opinion. What report do you have to back up your unfounded claims? Oh, you just know it in your gut, because there are no reports by professionals. Just some 2 bit hacks trying to score their 15 minutes. Why don't you back your opinions with some facts. Everything I said is based in verifiable fact. So you wanna claim fake news? The cowardly orange lion would back you on this. It appears you as delusional, arrogant, and uninformed as he is. Plus you do the Twitter idiot thing well. But your baseless rants are here as opposed to Twitter. Though you do create the same level of laughter and mocking, so there is that. You BS about not being a Trump supporter is pathetic. You say so very little here that isn't an attempt at undermining anyone who doesn't bow at Trumps feet. Will you always speak in unfounded hyperbole, or will you some day base you opinion in verifiable facts? 98.2% you will continue playing Trumps court jester. You as conditioned as well as one of Pavloffs dogs.


You have a lot of hate in you.

The reports you mention detail the Russian actions. their attempts to influence an election. But they do not state that they did "effect" it to any degree.
If I am wrong, please tell me what that influence was. How many votes. By count or by percentage. I'm easy.

And do something about that hate.

It's unbecoming.


ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Tail this is the price you pay for not joining the chorus.....

I hear they need a tenor and a bass
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hey.... CBO released a report today saying the 10 year federal deficit is now projected to be 1 Trillion more than they had estimated back in May...
And Trump is floating more tax cuts... so I'm sure that's going to help make that 1 Trillion deficit smaller.

Should that be the positive news we report on trump literally today?
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Or perhaps the positive news should be that trumpenfurher literally had this advice to Auto execs:

"My proposal to the politically correct Automobile Companies would lower the average price of a car to consumers by more than $3000, while at the same time making the cars substantially safer. Engines would run smoother. Very little impact on the environment! Foolish executives!"

He literally tried to say making a car cheaper and safer would have the effect of making an engine run smoother and reduce the environmental impact. And then called the executives foolish for not thinking of it themselves.
victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Victor, I realize you've moved recently and that may have impacted your social life, but it's sad when you treat a discussion like a term paper. And by sad, I mean pathetic.
But mostly it's boring.


I strive for accuracy.
That's frequently the difference between you and I.

That and you don't actually bother responding to anything with substance... or intelligence.... occasionally you are able to muster some wit however....
tailgater Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
And hey.... a day after that fun little hissy fit he had with denmark he literally said: "I am the chosen one" in reference to taking on the trade war with china.

Tell me again, what "positive" news we should be reporting now?


I know you are difficult on purpose, but this time I think you really don't get it.

Google's search results are influenced by an overwhelmingly liberal media.

Trump offers up more "bad" than "good" on any given day. We all know this to be true.

But even when there is "good" (a relative term), the search engine doles out a disproportionate number of "bad" because their sources are biased.

I don't need to get into whether I think Trump accurately predicted a market spike or whether he'll be able to man-handle china in a trade war. I agree with a lot of his vision but recoil at his implementation methods.
With that said (for the umpteenth time) you and I both know there is enough "good" or neutral stories about the sitting President, yet Google lists a story about Obama badmouthing Trump as a "top" story.
Google may not be purposely biased, but their results reflect a bias perpetuated by the main stream.


tailgater Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
ZRX1200 wrote:
Tail this is the price you pay for not joining the chorus.....

I hear they need a tenor and a bass


I've got both ends covered.

Or uncovered, as it may be...

tailgater Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Hey.... CBO released a report today saying the 10 year federal deficit is now projected to be 1 Trillion more than they had estimated back in May...
And Trump is floating more tax cuts... so I'm sure that's going to help make that 1 Trillion deficit smaller.

Should that be the positive news we report on trump literally today?


smh
tailgater Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I strive for accuracy.
That's frequently the difference between you and I.

That and you don't actually bother responding to anything with substance... or intelligence.... occasionally you are able to muster some wit however....


Of course I muster up some wit.
This is an internet forum on a cigar site.

And you may think you offer up some wit, but you'd be only half right.

But don't feel bad.

I've tried similar banter with Speyside, but it's like having a battle of wits with the unarmed.

So there's that.



victor809 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
I know you are difficult on purpose, but this time I think you really don't get it.

Google's search results are influenced by an overwhelmingly liberal media.

Trump offers up more "bad" than "good" on any given day. We all know this to be true.

But even when there is "good" (a relative term), the search engine doles out a disproportionate number of "bad" because their sources are biased.

I don't need to get into whether I think Trump accurately predicted a market spike or whether he'll be able to man-handle china in a trade war. I agree with a lot of his vision but recoil at his implementation methods.
With that said (for the umpteenth time) you and I both know there is enough "good" or neutral stories about the sitting President, yet Google lists a story about Obama badmouthing Trump as a "top" story.
Google may not be purposely biased, but their results reflect a bias perpetuated by the main stream.




And now you've changed the statement.
So which do you want to discuss? That Google is biased (which is the thesis the study referenced by the 2.5mm votes is stating) or that the media is biased and that is resulting in biased search results?

They're both indefensible positions, but they are different.

The original study referenced here in this thread, which I'm sure you never bothered to read... because why actually have information to discuss these things... indicated it saw a disparity between Yahoo/Bing search engine results and google. This is NOT the same as what you are claiming. The study never bothered identifying what baseline should be, so it of course proved nothing other than that your claim the bias in the media is driving the bias in google.

Your statement, other than being proven wrong by the very study in this thread.... while an interesting theory, is completely unproven. Seriously... just because you "feel" like there is a disproportionate number of bad stories doesn't make it true. Provide evidence... create a framework for rating positive/negative stories. Rank all published stories.... or find a study that did this. This is really in line with this fantasy current republicans have that fox is no longer "conservative" and basically identify anything left of OANN as being "anti-trump". It's not based in reality, it's only their assessment of the news from their very right wing perspective. Find a study which assesses news stories without using a person's perspective/personal view of the news and then you can make that claim. Otherwise you sound unintelligent.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Of course I muster up some wit.
This is an internet forum on a cigar site.

And you may think you offer up some wit, but you'd be only half right.

But don't feel bad.

I've tried similar banter with Speyside, but it's like having a battle of wits with the unarmed.

So there's that.




There's that wit without substance or intelligence. You never fail to live up to exactly what is expected of you.




.... just like a remedial student.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages12345>