Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 1:34:23 PM

So says a study by a Hillary supporting professor.  He estimates that between 2.6 and 10.4M undecided voters swung Hillary's direction as a result of the overt search engine bias at Google.  To be fair, Hillary has criticized the study, but as usual with easily refuted lies.  So Hillary's ill advised an utterly meaningless run up of votes in California netted her 2.86M more votes than our beloved leader of the free world and most benefdicient ruler of the planet (except Greenland) Donald Trump.  But had Google not hacked the election, and just taking the mid point in his range, Hillary would have lost the popular vote by millions and of course we all know what happened in the electoral college.  So when left wing nuts whine about the electoral college and the popular vote, remind them that Google hacking the election made that happen.  Had it been a level playing field in the media and with Google the kingly and omniscient and very stable genius Donald Trump would ahve smoked her on the populat vote as well.  Leftists have to cheat to win because their ideas are just kiind of dumb and pointless.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 3:10:45 PM

Kinda like how your Gov stole the election in Georgia. As Sec of State, he removed minority voters from the list of registered voters and implemented rules on new registration forms that the courts overruled. Only way he won and you know it.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 3:19:16 PM

We're almost up on another election sans Hilary, so it is really irrelevent.  Liberals can analyze and speculate and claim the election was stolen for the next century.  But the bottom line is that Trump is/was President and he achieved that by the electoral college, a system that has served us throughout the centuries, that Democrats now want to change.  That is, until the popular vote they are advocating fails them and then they'll want to change back.  

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 3:55:38 PM

"So says a study by a Hillary supporting professor." 

Lemme make sure I get this straight: you're saying that he is more credible because he supported Hillary? Hmmm again....

Here's some real information about the professor and the "study:

"That was the study Epstein described in his Senate committee testimony, where he didn’t mention that his huge claim is based on monitoring the search results of just 21 undecided voters out of 95 voters for a 2017 white paper. In his submitted testimony, Epstein did provide seven pages of citations—but all of them are papers or op-eds he wrote or co-wrote himself. Only one of them....was peer-reviewed. Even that study didn’t demonstrate that this has actually happened.

This is not even junk science; it is wild, statistically invalid, speculation.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say you believe the "study's" conclusions. That means you believe that biased search results influence votes. By logical extension, you must also believe that false information presented as truth in highly-targeted social media advertisements that were paid for by a hostile foreign power would also influence votes.

So, to summarize: you're directly promoting three speculative, unsupported allegations - that search engine results are biased, that that bias is in favor of a Democratic presidential candidate, and that such bias can provably change millions of votes. In doing so, you're saying just as directly that proven, intentional false advertising by a hostile foreign power could potentially alter votes.

Good job, MM. You just dug yourself a deep enough hole that you can't climb out.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 4:44:19 PM (updated 8/21/2019 4:45:11 PM)

which the author has already debunked your Hillary talking points.

you're directly promoting three speculative, unsupported allegations

Let me just remind you "Russia Russia Russia"  Bwhahahahahah

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Let me guess what johndouche wrote
Date:	8/21/2019 5:10:49 PM

I am betting he quoted the critique from Hillary right?  Best not to attempt to debunk something with something that has been debunked. It's why I don't read his stupidity. Critical thinking and left wing nuts are mutually exclusive. 

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 5:11:40 PM

Doe boy, you no more are an articulator of tried and true research methodology than a rhesus monkey.  Don't even try to sound intelligent while attempting to describe shortfalls in a research design.  You could no more define a double blind, randomized, controlled, counterbalanced research method with appropriate cohorts and a null hypothesis than Archie without a google search.  but you sure can copy and paste.  Your 21 out of 95 " statement" was so inaccurate that I would not know even where to start.  Let me offer you some suggestions:

When commenting on subjects you know very little about, don't cut and paste sordid, biased commentary.  It makes you look foolish.

Read his entire testimony, and then offer your own commentary.  I am sure your PhD from Harvard, over 15 written textbooks and over 300 scientific articles will add credibility to your analysis.  

Reveal the data that you have collected since 2016 that would assist in your defense of your position.  For crying out loud, this scholar had his SEME (search engine manipulation effect)  research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  You have absoutely NO EARTHLY IDEA, how much scientific scrutiny is applied to a submitted paper in order to get it accepted for publication in that journal. Any yet you label his work:

Junk science?  Wild, statistically invalid speculation?  Again, wild, statistically invalid speculation can be proven with valid statistical application.  Show us that statistical analysis Doe.  No copy and paste allowed.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 5:36:19 PM (updated 8/21/2019 5:43:09 PM)

If the "study's" results are valid and defensible, then the "study" will eventually appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So far, it's a "white paper."

And sometimes reality may appear to have a liberal bias. Talk to God about that....

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 5:53:18 PM

So tell us what statistical metric you utilized to single out his results as "unsupported".  There are a multitude out there, but I am sure you have one in particular that is your "go to" metric.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 6:04:35 PM

Not really Doe.  If you read his written testimony before the Senate, you will note that he has not only published his work in referred Journals, but has also presented his work orally at prestigous scientific meetings.  I will not list the Journals here, but if you challenge me, I will oblige.  

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 6:40:34 PM (updated 8/21/2019 7:11:00 PM)

The study in question has not only not been published  in a peer-reviewed journal, it is only possible to see a summary of its conclusions on the website. Search results that appear to be politically biased may be caused by factors unrelated to politics. The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation, and the standard that must be met is high. All variables other than politics must be eliminated.

It is a fact that what people read, see, and hear influences how they think. That's why so much money is spent on advertising. Given these facts, one must also conclude that lies told by politicians and their supporters, in speeches, ads, and tweets, also influence votes. #45 played on the racial anxietites and animosities of a group of people, and doing so - even though the entire message is a lie - garnered him many millions of votes. If Google "hacked" the election, then so did #45. In either case, individuals who voted cast their votes voluntarily.

Of much greater significance are things like the 70,000 votes that went uncounted in Detroit, as many as 160,000 uncounted in Florida, voter suppression through draconian ID laws, closing polling places in predominantly minority districts, etc. #45 won by a total of fewer than 80,000 votes, distributed conveniently - too conveniently - among three states. Uncounted votes in those states alone could have made the difference.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/21/2019 8:52:42 PM

What individuals read, hear and see is THEIR choice.  SEME is bias interjected by tech companies without you even knowing about it.  THAT is the difference Doe, and you burying your head in the sand complaining about uncounted votes and voter suppression and closed polling centers is just what they want you to believe.  You are a puppet, I and many in this Forum choose to keep our eyes wide open and understand that all things are not as they appear.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Let me guess what johndouche wrote
Date:	8/22/2019 8:30:23 AM

and you did it blindfolded as well.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/22/2019 8:32:06 AM

MSM / Hillary talking points cut and paste.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/22/2019 8:41:50 AM (updated 8/22/2019 8:43:03 AM)

One individual publishes one "white paper" about an allegation, and, because it fits your narrative, you take it as gospel.

 At the same time, thousands of peer-reviewed studies by climate scientists establish that an existential threat to our continued existence on this planet is due to human activity, and you and others like you suddenly become more knowledgeable than all those scientists.

You're the one with the closed mind. The right wing in this country has been engaged in an overt campaign of voter suppression for more than a decade, with tangible results, yet you're prepared to believe, with no hard evidence, that one search engine managed to "hack" the election and skew the results.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/22/2019 10:22:34 AM

If you want clear science regarding millenia of global warming/cooling cycles and documented extinctions, may I suggest that you reference some award winning papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science journal.  I base many of my conclusions regarding climate on many of these papers, not right wing talking points.  Your insults are amusing, but taken from the source, not surprising.  

I have been a part of many white papers.  They are not a product of sitting around a table and hashing out random thoughts, without scientific or other merit.  In order for a white paper to be taken seriously, it must be appropriately referenced and composed by respected leaders in that particular field.  Your belittling of white papers is simply a continuation of your imagined expertise.  Those of us who have decades of experience in this arena chuckle at your conclusions.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Yawn
Date:	8/22/2019 12:40:01 PM (updated 8/22/2019 12:45:42 PM)

Goofy, you would know this if you actually were interested in the truth.  Turnout was a record high for Democrat voters in Georgia in 2016.  So if there was an attempt to suppress the vote it failed....miserably.  And sadly for Sore Loser Abrams, GOP voters turned out in even higher numbers.  Ya see Goofy, correlation is not causation and in fact there isn't even a correlation between purging the voter rolls and turnout.  But it does eliminate the easy ability to illegally vote using another person's name......although not so much in Georgia since you have to show a picture ID, you know, like you do when you buy alcohol.

Interesting article in Science below.  I would note that they quoted the author of this study which will be presented in Vienna soon.  Peer reviewed research by a very respected PhD....until now anyway.  Suddenly he is a piece of garbage hack because he hasn't toed the leftist line.  He is fighting back and quite effectively I might add.  And as for Hillary's lie, he did this with almost 5,000 undecided voters using five separate double blind experiments with people from diverse geographic, socioeconomic backgrounds.  But I've actually read the study so I would know that.....the left believes whatever Hillary says as long as they like the lie.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/could-google-influence-presidential-election

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	For you gullible leftists..not to mention dumb
Date:	8/22/2019 1:07:46 PM

Lest you believe the stupidity written by jd above, I will provide a link to the actual study if you care to see the truth.  Unlike Hillary's lie, they performed double blind experiments on almost 5,000 undecided voters across a broad range of geograchic and socioeconomic categories.  So Hillary said it was twenty some subjects?  Hmmmmm....interesting since the study included over 100 subjects in San Diego alone.  The authors also used five separate experiments so not only did they have a broad range of study participants but they used different methodologies which accounts for the 2.6M to over 10M estimate range of the impact.

But if you like to live in the lie-filled emotional world of the left....if you refrain from facts, logic and reason and if you just want to be wrong all the time then I suggest you take Hillary's lie as the truth.  But if you want to live in the real world then by all means please read the study.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512

And I do mean dumb, because it is only stupidity that can cause someone to blindly believe Hillary's abject and easily refutable lie and repost it before looking to see if it is true.  Well, maybe lazy and ideologically blind as well.  I really have to avoid looking at posts by those I have on ignore before I log in.  Takes me a while to get my IQ back up to stable genius levels like our beloved leader. 

It's like shooting fish in a barrel........sometimes I wonder if it isn't masochism that makes them do it.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 9:40:05 AM

Here's a quote from Epstein - the guy you're referencing - in an interview a few days ago.

"In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.

"I don't have any evidence that Google manipulated anything."

IOW, exactly what I've been saying.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 10:54:29 AM

Sheesh Doe, how would you design a study "proving" that 2.5 - 10 million votes were changed by SEME?  One flaw of the study was that they avoided asking leading questions that specifically referred to bias so as not to generate false positive responses.  So actually, the inherent SE bias could actually be greater than the 20% cited.

What he stated was that his research supports the fact that SEME is "sufficient to have shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes" to Clinton.  I will leave designing a study to disprove his work up to you.

Funny how you libs want everything from Healthcare to how I fuel my automobile, to how much I pay my minimum wage employees, to decisions Americans make about running their businesses to be subject to intrusive governmental regulations.  Yet these companies like Google continue to operate without governmental regulations.  I know that Warren and a few others have advocated for breaking these monopolies up, however, I assume that Google threatened to cut off the DNC revenue stream.  Don't hear much about this now.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 12:48:54 PM

You failed to address the point I made in the post to which you replied: that there is no evidence that Google altered search results or votes.

"how would you design a study "proving" that 2.5 - 10 million votes were changed by SEME?" 

Attempting to account for a specific behavior (like voting choice) after the fact - with (obviously) no ability to control independent variables - by definition requires speculation. There is no possibility of establishing what would have happened had one thing - and that one thing only - been different.

"What he stated was that his research supports the fact"

The "fact" has not been established. He obviously believes his research supports his hypothesis, but hypotheses and facts are not the same.

"Funny how you libs"

Funny how you attribute everything to an imagined monolithic mindset. It's called "projectiion," BTW.

"want everything from Healthcare"

You mean like every other civilized country in the world provides? Guilty as charged.

"to how I fuel my automobile",

You might want to talk to Chuck Grassley about that. The agribusiness and petrochemical lobbies in this country have a lot to say about "how you fuel your automobile." We reasonable folks just want the air we breathe and the water we drink and bathe in not to be polluted with toxins. That's why Nixon supported the creation of the EPA.

"how much I pay my minimum wage employees",

You have minimum wage employees? Hell, even In and Out Burger pays more than that. My employees start at more than twice minimum wage.

"to decisions Americans make about running their businesses to be subject to intrusive governmental regulations."

You mean those "intrusive governmental regulations" that require you to have a safe workplace, not discriminate, not pollute the environment? My business happily complies with such regulations and even goes further in many cases. And we're profitable, too. Ain't that weird?

"Yet these companies like Google continue to operate without governmental regulations."

You are blissfully unaware of irony. In a free economy - which, last time I checked, Republicans support - the market will take care of companies that misbehave, right?

"I know that Warren and a few others have advocated for breaking these monopolies up, however, I assume that Google threatened to cut off the DNC revenue stream.  Don't hear much about this now."

Listen better, then. Watch the next Democratic primary debate.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 4:02:30 PM

Retrospective studies, which can be associated with bias by their very nature, are very, very valuable studies when you attempt to control confounding variables, which these authors valiantly tried to do.  Your dismissal of the retrospective nature of this study means that you also would tend to dismiss too numerous to mention retrospective studies in the healthcare fields that often are precursors to valuable prospective studies which you and I benefit from every day. Not to mention the classic 1926 retrospective study describing risk factors for breast cancer.

Just because gov't healthcare is offered according to you,, in every "civilized country in the world", does not mean that civilized, compassionalte healthcare that exists in the US is equally offered.  Two vitally different distinctions and if you want me to enlighten your world to the absolute discrepancies, we can talk about, lets say for starters, acute treatment of a subdural hematoma in an individual 65 yrs of age in the US and in the UK.  When do you want to begin?  

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 4:29:11 PM

"civilized, compassionalte healthcare that exists in the US. "

Bwahaha. "Civilized, compassionate" healthcare in Alabama produuces an infant mortality rate no better than those in some thirld world countries. ""Civilized, compassionate" healthcare in Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas caused the first US death from Ebola, a black Liberian citizen who had provided all the red-fllag information, had the key symptoms, and was still sent home the first time he showed up at the ER. He had no health insurance.

If you've got enough money, you can sometimes - but not always - get ""civilized, compassionate" health care in the US, depending on where you live. If you're counting on insurance to cover needed therapy, you're likely in for a shock. The health care "system" in this country is the most expensive in the world and produces mediocre results at best.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 4:48:27 PM

This post is delusional  and proves you are to blinded by TDS to even try to talk too. I don't know why the doctor wastes his keystrokes engagingyou. But it is fun to watch him destroy your childish arguments.

I remember the Ebola case and if I remember the patient LIED to the medical professionals caring for him about his past and where he came from.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote
Date:	8/24/2019 5:48:09 PM

Yeah, mediocre at best until he/she needs it.  I doubt that he/she will defer any healthcare needs until an appointment time opens up in Canada.