Donald Trump: Google ‘Trying to Rig the Election’

What is even more comical are these Pro-Trump RW Types who feel the need to make 100 posts a day (about this "Google Thing) across multiple threads.

1) Google can do whatever they want. Trump (and The RW) needs to quit whining.

2) If you don't like Google, then use Bing (or invent your own).

End of discussion.

 

Following such logic, homosexuals should stop complaining about discrimination, not bringing harassment suits against those who deny them services for being homosexual, and instead simply go and find a business that has no objections.

It works both ways. If google is free to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, all other businesses are free to discriminate on the basis of who is seeking to be their clientele.

 

If you're only shown certain information about a candidate and have to dig to, for example, find out Bernie Sanders has never held a real job in his life, or that Kamala Harris ****ed her way into politics...

Then yes, it can absolutely influence decisions.

 

Gays do find businesses to serve them. There have been over 100,000 gay weddings, and only a handful of lawsuits. And since the courts have ruled in favor of the businesses (which is what conservatives wanted) I don't see the problem with Google choosing who they will link their service with.

 

They don't need to organize because their government is expert at clandestine activities. Anyway, Google can't do much.

 

Do you really need to see the web sites that claim Trump came to office by sucking Putin's dick or that Trump beats his wife? Cause those have also been put on Google's list of sites not to link to. Should Google be FORCED to link to those sites?

 

Here you are using equivocation and a false dilemma to gaslight.

 

Even if you make 100 posts a day about this, it won't change the FACT:

Google is free to do whatever they want. Period.

 

It can't be broken up. Freedom of speech is not a reason to punish a company (in fact it is unconstitutional) and google is not a monopoly. If it were a monopoly I would have to use it instead of Bing, my favored search engine. Besides, as a conservative you should be against punishing success. Give Bing or Yahoo or Duck Duck or some other search engine a try and you may prefer them to google.

 

Awww, cute. You learned a new internet term.
However, forcing a private business to link their service with something they find morally repulsive is exactly like forcing a baker to link his cake with something he finds morally repulsive. The courts have ruled in favor of the business - just like conservatives wanted them to. So dude - you opened the door for this, don't complain when you get shoved through it.

 

Lets find out about that.

 

It hasn't sunk in yet in lefty circles but it will soon enough.

Trump has another 6 years in DC.

He's just getting warmed up.

 

To become a dictator?
The courts have final say on this one - not Trump's puppet DOJ.

 

If he was a dictator he'd be giving free helicopter rides to his enemies.

Google may end up feeling like he's a dictator though.

 

We will.

I am sure that Breitbart will be contaminating the internet with 10 articles a day about it (until it is settled).

 

Then perhaps Google should be required to acknowledge to the public up front that it and its affiliates will only support the promotion of a single viewpoint, and suppress all other dissenting viewpoints it does not agree with. Perhaps its front page should come with a disclaimer everyone must click on before being allowed to use its services.

 

How about those gifts they promised to illegals? I bet the illegals have been committing voter fraud for awhile and this time, the democrats are organizing them.. big time.. try to beat HRC's "5 million" popular vote in 2016

 

Yes. If its true, I'd like to see it.

I'm not really into dudes who blow other dudes.

 

There are a million viewpoints on Google - it isn't a world of A or B. And you do agree to there terms by using their product - simply use someone else if you don't like it - the same argument conservatives used for the wedding cake case,

 

Again this is distinctly different from the gay wedding cakes.

This leftist mega corp will be reduced via federal action.

 

So you think that Google should only have to link to sites that have true information? How do they verify it? At some point someone would have to make a judgement call on veracity or we could end up with a whole bunch of linked sites telling you to send money so you can get 10% of some Prince's inheritance.

 

How is it different? It's a private business making a call on who they will associate their product with - EXACTLY like the baker.

 

Totally.

No kidding.

Looks like like something right out of the latest "How to win an internet argument" Handbook.

That said, I got a great laugh out of it.

Anyway, back on point, it is literally stupefying how the RW continues to exhibit their utter cluelessness on this subject.

 

Exceptin' they are a monopoly.. anti0trust laws might come into play

 

No, they should have a link to everything and allow people to decide for themselves who they trust.

If you're too stupid to know you arent entitled to prince's inheritance, that's your own problem.

Naturally, the websites most visited (the ones most people tend to believe) will display first because... that's how the internet works.

Except Google... who we know intentionally manipulates search results.