US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

^She better not be thinking that. The polls are tightening. The post-convention bounce is over. She's made a few tactical errors recently. While I thought her Alt-Right speech was good it was a huge blunder. You don't force your opponent to make a change for the better. You come out with a speech like that when any change by your opponent just looks like too little too late. That would have been better spent about a week before the election

 

[britbox]

This is the speech. Haven't watched this yet... just about to.

 

[Ricardo]

^She better not be thinking that. The polls are tightening. The post-convention bounce is over. She's made a few tactical errors recently. While I thought her Alt-Right speech was good it was a huge blunder. You don't force your opponent to make a change for the better. You come out with a speech like that when any change by your opponent just looks like too little too late. That would have been better spent about a week before the election

hehe again Federberg comes out and acts like an expert....Hillary and her team must all be stupid but you are the bright one!

 

[Ricardo]

THE FACT ALONE tha tyou resent it -- shows you DO NOT KNOW nearly enough.

that you REFUSE to even KNOW because you are CRIPPLED enough to rely on washington post, cnn, new york times -- REPEATEDLY exposed throughout the world as LIARS -- shows YOU ARE even in WORSE shape as far as information is concerned.

tell me - just for direct answer -- DID YOU KNOW of what i told you of hillary getting a direct to the face tonque lashing from the chinese minister when hillary tried to - in HIS face and to the chinese people and other world leaders -- to LECTURE china on ''human rights"

did you? be honest.

or did YOU KNOW what really transpired when OBAMA IN 2014 in ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC conference tried to SELL what the WHOLEworld know is his very , very secretive ''trans-pacific partnership" deals that 90 percent of asians REJECTED OUTRIGHT once they discovered even the once-hiddeen but leaked innards of it giving US CORPORATIONS the sole right to SUE governemtns IN USA CIVIL COURTS ONLY -- if governemnts TRIED TO PASS BILLS that protec ttheir environment, wages, and interests from american corporations?

did you ? be honest now.

if you SAY YES to any of these -- you will have to PROVE to me by substantiating that with information as to what DID transpire there - and how obama was REJECTED by 3 billion people's reprsentatives...

so - u see -- you can RESENT all youw ant -- your remarks and responses ALREADY told me you KNOW LITTLE,. far too little.

being that your own admission SHOWS your nose IS LOOKING AT YOUR ''AMERICAN BELLY BUTTON" . AND YOU THINK that is 'news".

roflmao.

two things, first you don't tell Moxie to be honest.......she cannot be. Agenda first, honesty means nothing she'll say anything that suits her.

second, don't tell her that she knows little...she won't believe it, at least on the surface so she'll argue with nonsense non-stop.

Remember, if US screwed up one nation (lybia) its ok because there are many other nations......that's how she thinks.

 

[Ricardo]

I appreciate the brevity, Teddy. What do you think Hillary is hiding? What questions is she not answering? She is the most exposed woman, or likely person, in US politics. She's not the one who has failed to release her tax returns. I don't think it's shocking if she wants to control her own press at this stage of the election. You can't really fault a strategy to lay low and let Trump shoot himself in the foot. Don't get in the way of that. We're heading into to the big push now, post-Labor Day. You'll see a lot more of her from now on.

Tax returns? it's nothing compared to her email server leaking classified info, just ask anyone with a brain.

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! Clearly you don't have your helper with you when you write that nonsense. We can't know whether HRC's email scandal is worse or not than Trump's taxes, because we don't know what's in his taxes. Just how dumb do you have to be not to get that?

 

[Federberg]

interesting read...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-e:homepage/story&utm_term=.df8818bc34bc

 

[teddytennisfan]

The health stuff about Hillary is just a red herring. I don't think she's on her death bed anytime soon... maybe just a bit rundown from campaigning. It's irrelevant IMO... but I am surprised to hear she's gone to ground. I would have thought she'd be out there campaigning and putting herself about. Maybe she's hoping Trump loses the election by default.

a red herring is a subject raised to distract from something that is of concern. so if her health issue is raised - let us say by the media against her, or by trump or even by me or anyone --

the question arises -- it is a red herring (a distraction - deflection) from WHAT?

it can be from Trump's failures. on the other hand - another example of a red herring can be

clinton claiming putin is influencing the usa elections - the attention of people are turned to russia meddling from the usa elections or in order to hav etrump elected as she claims...if so what is it distracting FROM?

THE POINT here is this: IF the health of a WORLD leader - the state of his or her mental health is not important - and in this case clinton's

say: forgetfulness about what the FBI asked her on what happened to her missing e mails that have to do with what is NOT a proper and VERY important security protocol -- what is the state of that memory, decision making tasked wih the authority that carries great importance?

but the point i am making here is - she has made front and center of her candidacy these things:
\
"the russian threat" - to what and whom? what is her evidence and how?
"putin is meddling and trump is a russian agent" -- how? what is her evidence?

these are very, very serious allegations which decide what policies governments use.

so - from these points she repeatedly makes - always without proof..but as slogans ...having raised an ''enemy" - russia to focus attention on in regards to why the american people must choose her to ''defend america from the threat".

without proof -how does such position reflect on her state of mind or capacity to lead ? how are these related to her having a memory loss ''due to her fall" according to the FBI itself ?

was that a minor health thing or nothing at all - and IF nothing at all , nothing serious on heatlh

the question STILL remains : WAHT did she do with her e mails that are missing?

with her the questions keep frittering away into non-answers..non-[evidence.

whether it is FROM her making accusations :russia did it, russia did it, russia did it...

or ABOUT her : What happened to the e mails regarding security protocols, why did her aides destroy cell-phones containing back-ups (all of these are admitted by the FBI to have happened) , why did the FBI ''exonerate" her merely by 'loss of memory' - in what would have jailed anyone else for ''severe irresponsibility" (also an FBI statement) in any ordinary job...

along with her claim that she did not really understand or realized what 'C' in e mailing means..for someone - of the highest levels of security concerns (and constantly talks about it as the task for which she must be president -- to ''safeguard america from threats'') - and for someone whose use of communications is not only as involved as anyone on the planet with suich massive amounts of money involved in the foundation - as well as untold other business and responsibilities and plannings but also for someone who has had prolonged use or 'misuse' of such protocols

two things, first you don't tell Moxie to be honest.......she cannot be. Agenda first, honesty means nothing she'll say anything that suits her.

second, don't tell her that she knows little...she won't believe it, at least on the surface so she'll argue with nonsense non-stop.

Remember, if US screwed up one nation (lybia) its ok because there are many other nations......that's how she thinks.

THAT - particularly how you summed it in then end -- is what is FRIGHTENING about such ''american-ISM" ..it's like a holy gospel of sorts among many american ''exceptionalists" believing in this myth of ''we are the bestest, most extraordinary, most enlightened,the PINNACLE of human existence" thinking that is truly, truly frightening and dangerous...

 

[teddytennisfan]

unz.com
It’s All About Russia
Philip Giraldi • September 6, 2016 • 1,700 Words • 67 Comments • Reply
Many issues characteristically beloved by Democrats are being raised to disparage Donald Trump. The man has been maligned as a racist, a bigot, as unfit for office and even described as a psychopath, presumably in contract to Hillary Clinton who loves people of every color and shape as long as they are not living next door and will faithfully vote Democratic after they are afforded entry into the United States and amnestied. Hillary, who has held nearly every senior government office that a human being can reasonably aspire to but the one she is currently lusting after, is unlike Trump only sufficiently deranged to kill people if they live somewhere in the third world and can’t do anything about it.

A persistent line emanating from the “national security” experts who have flocked to Hillary’s side is that Trump would threaten the safety of the United States. That many of the crossovers are neoconservatives who have brought us a number of unnecessary wars in the past fifteen years is pretty much ignored by the media just as the argument that the U.S. has a presumptive right to intervene militarily wherever and whenever it chooses is generally accepted. The latest talking head who stands firm for national security is Paul Wolfowitz, who was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel on August 26th. Some readers might recall Wolfowitz. He was the number two at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld. A forceful advocate for the Iraq war, he is famous for having observed that the Iraqis would welcome the American invasion and that the war would pay for itself rather than the $5 plus trillion that it has actually cost. How he came to the latter erroneous conclusion is not very clear, though it may have had something to do with looting Iraq’s oil reserves and exporting them through a pipeline to Israel, an idea that was once floated by Wolfowitz’s godfather Richard Perle.

Wolfowitz has never been apologetic. He now claims that he was deluded by the information provided by the intelligence establishment into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, an odd claim as he himself was largely responsible for the bad intelligence through his setting-up of the Office of Special Plans, a separate organization within the Pentagon intended to critique and supplement what CIA was producing.

Wolfowitz’s zeal was rewarded by George W. Bush, who appointed him head of the World Bank, a position that he was forced to relinquish when it was determined that he had been concealing his relationship with a woman who worked for him as well as promoting her far beyond organizational guidelines. He was also accused of general mismanagement. Some things apparently never change.

In any event, Wolfowitz, who has now characteristically found yet another comfortable and well remunerated niche at the largely defense contractor funded American Enterprise Institute, has finally joined the neocon host that is working for a Hillary victory in November. They understand that it is a bread-and-butter issue. Hillary is clearly predisposed to continue the kinds of mindlessly aggressive policies that have made Neoconservatism Inc. and its vibrant cash flow possible in the first place.

More to the point however, in the real world both Hillary and Wolfie sometimes visit, there is renewed enthusiasm for jumping on the hate Russia bandwagon. To belong to that club one has to repeatedly accuse Moscow of interfering in American politics, preferably without any evidence at all to support the claim. Not surprisingly, the reality is actually quite different. It is the Hillary camp that has injected Russia into the campaign debate to use it as a bludgeon to beat on Trump. They do so without considering that regular excoriation of Russia in the media and from various political pulpits might actually have consequences.

Wolfowitz believes it is weakness in a leader to avoid confrontation with adversaries. He writes that Trump’s apparent desire to “step back” from crises in the world makes him “Obama squared.” It is a principal reason why he will likely be voting for Clinton in November. He describes Trump as a security risk precisely “because he admires Putin” and is “unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous” as “Putin is behaving in a very dangerous way.”

In a recent speech Hillary Clinton also piled on Russia while affirming that she is now the candidate of “American exceptionalism,” an obvious ploy to attract even more neocons and dissident GOP hawks. Hillary has also denounced Trump’s appearance on stage with Nigel Farage, who headed the successful British Brexit movement. Hillary declared Farage to be both racist and sexist before castigating him for being a stooge of the Russians. His crime? Appearing on Russia Today television, where the author of this piece has also appeared numerous times.

So Farage and Trump are together part of Hillary’s alleged vast right wing conspiracy and the strings for that are being pulled by Moscow. She went on to call Putin “the godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” before launching an attack on Trump personally, claiming that he “heaps praise on Putin and embraces pro-Russian policies.” And he does that because there is something “wrong” about him: he is part of a “paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment.”

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook took the argument still further, observing that “Trump is just a puppet of the Kremlin,” taking the claim that Trump is a Putin collaborator and elevating it to make him a true Manchurian candidate, a tool of what used to be Godless communism but is now something more like a revival of the Holy Russian Empire run by the KGB.

Justin Raimondo notes that putting all the bits together one comes up with a Hillary view that her nemesis Donald Trump is the face of a “Vast Right Wing Pro-Russian Conspiracy,” making him an enemy that comprises both domestic and international threats, producing a target rich environment for the slings and arrows produced by Hillary and her hack speech writers.

The Clinton view of Putin is particularly ironic as it runs against the frequently expressed Russian government desire to work together with Washington to solve mutual problems, to include dealing with Islamic terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East. Putin in fact pulled President Barack Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire in 2013 when the latter got caught in a series of lies relating to Syria’s alleged chemical weapons.

It would be bad enough if a delusional Hillary Clinton were alone, a voice crying in the wilderness, but she is not. She is supported by a growing number of neoconservatives as well as the Establishment Dems in her own party. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has called on the FBI to investigate whether the Putin government is trying to undermine the November ballot, implying that they might try to cyber-meddle with election results. Of course, if Hillary wins as expected he will fade back into the woodwork and stop complaining.

And then there is the media, which is playing its part by fearmongering. On August 18th The reliably neocon Washington Post featured two op-eds, one written by David Kramer and the other by Angela Stent. Kramer, who is a Senior Director with the McCain Institute for International Leadership and an ex-George W. Bush official, posits that “Russia is now a threat. The U.S. should treat it like one.” That an ex-GWB official should expound on sound policy from the pulpit of an institute reflecting the values of Senator John McCain might be considered comical, but Kramer asserts that “Russia under Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian, kleptocratic regime that poses a serious threat to our values, interests and allies. We should contain and deter Russian aggression…”

Kramer cites the familiar examples of Ukraine, Crimea and Syria as evidence of Putin’s bestiality but his descriptions are curiously one-sided, making it appear that Russia is invariably purely malevolent while all the alleged victims are peace loving and high minded democrats-to-be. Such thinking is, of course, nonsense. Putin is a realist and a nationalist who is well aware of his country’s limitations but who is willing to protect his genuine interests. Would that President Hillary Clinton might be intelligent enough to do the same.

In the second op-ed Stent, who directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University, blames Russia for failing to integrate into “Euro-Atlantic and global institutions” while also “thwart[ing]” America’s “commitment to create a peaceful, rules-based post-Cold War order.”

I must have missed some of the recent history that Stent recalls so unambiguously, possibly because I was somehow misled by the reported looting of Russia by the west and the western aligned oligarchs as well as the more recent interference in the country’s internal affairs by Congress and the White House. She also seems unaware that the United States has a far worse international record than Russian since 1991, invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya while also interfering in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. And, oh yes, there was also that little matter of expanding NATO up to Russia’s doorstep, which just might seem provocative, as well as the direct encouragement of anti-Russian sentiment and worse in Georgia and Ukraine.

Stent admits that she does not know if Moscow actually hacked U.S. computers or released embarrassing information about candidates, but she nevertheless is confident enough to see Russia as “clearly intend[ing] to sow doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic election process.” What to do? Forget about any reset with Putin and instead consider building up military strength to “deter any further attempts by Russia to destabilize its neighboring countries.”

One has to wonder what stimulants they are serving in the coffee at the McCain Center and Georgetown, but it really doesn’t matter as the Wolfowitzes, Clintons, Kramers and Stents of this world are all bottom feeding out of the same gravy boat.

For them, a world in conflict with a genuinely dangerous enemy that keeps them employed is a highly valuable commodity.

The only problem is that Russia might really, really get pissed off by all the flatulence being directed at it. That could become very dangerous.


============================

note;

as with all previous accusation sby the USA that -- whatever the problem is anywhere |"russia did it" ./..

the statement made by the FBI or the NSA people about ''russia did it" (democratic party hacking. , hillary's e mails exposed etc.)

"we know know HOW they did it -- but russia did it" --

in other words? in even a highschool level debate

THAT is considered a complete non-sequitur...

making an assertion without proving it.
making an accusation and then - going around itself to conclude that the accusation is ITSELF the proof in the absence of proof.


the ultimate "it is so because i said so|"/.

TYPICAL american mentality.

5-6 centuries ago -- the BRITISH created one of the great bodies of law - inspired by the even more ancient ROMAN body of law -

THE BRITISH created 'MAGNA CARTA" -- about rights of people and rights of accused..

from the ROMAN LAW of HABEAS CORPUS :"show the body" or ''give us the body" -- ''show the evidence'' if you are going to make an accusation -- otherwise -- be silent.

THE USA ''exceptional nation" disagrees :

for the USA -- ''IF WE ACCUSE SOMEONE -- there is no need for evidence -- we say so and that's THAT -- RUSSIA DID IT"!!

in the BIBLE -- ''thou shalt not give false witness" -- but NOT to the USA..

'Whatever it is -- RUSSIA DID IT".

evidence not necessary. INNUENDO, false evidence, rigging takes the place ...

''SHE did it, they did it, russia did it" ...either no evidence or in its place plant it, create conditions to make it SEEM like evidence, get the RIGHT people to ''give witness"...etc...and VOILA -- america has ''proven" someone ''did it".

 

[teddytennisfan]

by the way , MOXIE...

did you get that piece of news last week? it was -- er -- BRIEFLY on USA tv, or ''news" -- but they stopped talking about it when it backfired:

PENTAGON and USA CLAIMED that ''we killed the HEAD OF ISIL/DAESH in syria with our anti-terrorist operation bombing" ...

except for one tiny detail -- he was known to NOT be in the village the USA claimed they bombed...and instead was directing operations from another village that was the real critical hold-out of ISIL -- and it was the RUSSIANS that killed him ...and they ''gently'' corrected the pentagon (and the pentagon KNOWS by now when the russians make such things they CAN AND WILL come up with PROOF -- just like very operation they had complete with specs, videos, ground intelligence, local intelligence -- the works which they share with the americans just to make sure there are no misunderstandings)

and the attempt to CLAIM CREDIT for SOMETHING THE USA NEVER DID -- piped down...did you know that?

it's kinda like -- uh - last year

when the pentagon sent ''experts" talking on PBS and US media bragging about how the USA OPERATIONS bombed and destroyed TERRORIST STRONGHOLDS in syria - complete with VIDEOS from the planes to PROVE IT...
except for one little detail -- it was RUSSIAN VIDEO by cameras from undr the wings of SUKHOI bombers -- and the russians also ''reminded" the pentagon ''gently" - that they captured it from - uh --- YOUTUBE which the russians always show - just to ''have no misunderstandings that when we say we will bomb or are operating in such and such location at such and such time and minute -- it is what we do".

lol.

did you know of THESE matters, MOXIE?

 

[britbox]

^She better not be thinking that. The polls are tightening. The post-convention bounce is over. She's made a few tactical errors recently. While I thought her Alt-Right speech was good it was a huge blunder. You don't force your opponent to make a change for the better. You come out with a speech like that when any change by your opponent just looks like too little too late. That would have been better spent about a week before the election

Hey Fberg, I watched the Hillary speech and it actually drew something to my attention. I'm getting like the kids these days and have the attention span of a fish. Hillary couldn't hold it... I had to force myself to watch it. Contrast that with Trump, who can hold an audience.

I read a great article the other day on why Trump might win this election, for the life of me I can't remember where I read it... might have been on Vanity Fair or similar website... and one of the reasons they gave for Trump having a shot was that Americans watch something like 5+ hours per day of TV and a lot of it is reality based. Trump fits the bill... he's interesting and watchable, even if you don't agree with anything he says. When I was trying to watch the Hillary speech... it resonated.

Hillary's major problem might not be the message... but the delivery of the message.... and the target audience combined.

 

[Federberg]

Hey Fberg, I watched the Hillary speech and it actually drew something to my attention. I'm getting like the kids these days and have the attention span of a fish. Hillary couldn't hold it... I had to force myself to watch it. Contrast that with Trump, who can hold an audience.

I read a great article the other day on why Trump might win this election, for the life of me I can't remember where I read it... might have been on Vanity Fair or similar website... and one of the reasons they gave for Trump having a shot was that Americans watch something like 5+ hours per day of TV and a lot of it is reality based. Trump fits the bill... he's interesting and watchable, even if you don't agree with anything he says. When I was trying to watch the Hillary speech... it resonated.

Hillary's major problem might not be the message... but the delivery of the message.... and the target audience combined.

That's a fair point, and it's something I've considered as well. The last few weeks have made me really consider the opinion you raised some time ago. That the media has been unfair to Trump. I've come to the conclusion that I completely and utterly agree with that. The Commander in Chief debate was a case in point. HRC is held to what I would consider to be the normal standard for Presidential candidates, while Trump is treated like someone on the apprentice. How he is allowed to lie and not be challenged, while Clinton is interrogated about issues for which she has been cleared is absolutely stunning to me. And before anyone says something, I don't think she should get a pass for the emails, but come on... at least lets see Trump being challenged on lies, on potentially bribing federal agents, on links to the Mafia, for an almost treasonous lovefest with a Russian despot. He just gets a pass, I don't get it..

 

[teddytennisfan]

on 9/11 HILLARY CLINTON has her own ''medical" 9/11...

the irony - even as the entire USA MSM tried to cover up for her....it's THEIR Credibility just as much -- lol.

=====================

hillary collapses - again -- in 9/11 'faint spell" - leaves early -- and gets literally DRAGGED into her reportedly ''medical facility" personal van...
================================

 

[teddytennisfan]

sputniknews.com
Hillary Dragged Into Van After Fainting: Can Bernie or Biden Replace Her? Yes
Sputnik
Politics
21:37 11.09.2016(updated 03:20 12.09.2016) Get short URL

Hillary Clinton nearly collapsed on Sunday morning abruptly being swept away from a Ground Zero ceremony to commemorate the 15th anniversary of 9/11 with a half dozen staffers holding her up to prevent her from slamming head first into the pavement as she was dragged into a black van.

© AFP 2016/ DOMINICK REUTER

The video, posted on Twitter, shows the former Secretary of State wobbling back and forth almost uncontrollably reminiscent of the notorious seizure footage in which Hillary Clinton suffered uncontrolled spasms for 30 seconds in front of a pool of press reporters, leading to a horrified look on one AP journalist’s face, before regaining her wits and being shuffled off by staffers – an incident that has gone viral, but went unreported at the time.

Failing to stay on two feet at the 9/11 memorial service will be hard for the Clinton campaign to downplay coming at a time when Democrats are already clamoring for Bernie Sanders to come back into the fold after Hillary’s statements to wealthy donors discarding millions of Americans as “irredeemable” and what she calls a "basket of deplorables" highlighting what her opponents say is her elitist views.

It now raises the question whether Democrats have a Plan B should Clinton be unable to fulfill her campaign duties with Hillary’s running mate Tim Kaine likely lacking the star power necessary to fend off the insurgent bid of bombastic billionaire Donald Trump. Many Americans are also left to ask whether a vote for Hillary Clinton may ultimately be a decision to make the relatively unknown Kaine the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.

Highlighting the chaos in Democratic Party circles is a statement by Bakari Sellers, a Hillary Clinton surrogate and CNN political contributor who openly said "Does she need to prove more [medical records]? That is a legitimate question to ask."

Political reporter for Time Magazine reports that the former Secretary of State will be temporarily removing herself from the campaign trail in light of the most recent incident and returning home to Chappaqua after being rushed to her daughter Chelsea’s apartment following the incident.

Although Clinton emerged saying that she "feels great" and her campaign has gone into damage control mode suggesting that the incident was merely a bout of dehydration, Hillary may soon be fending off calls by her own party to drop out of the race leaving the door wide open for either Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden to replace her.

Democratic Party bylaws stipulate that in the event that a presidential nominee drops out due to health related or other reasons, a special meeting would be called by the chairperson to find a proper replacement. It is also possible that Congress could move to delay Election Day in the event that the decision occurs too close to November 8.

To date, a nominee for a major party has never withdrawn or died prior to an American election with the closest historical corollary being Vice President James Sherman who died of kidney disease six days before the 1912 election – his name remained on the ballot and the election proceeded. Watching the video below, it is hard to know whether or not the Democratic nominee may be the first to bow out in history.

 

[Ricardo]

^Lol! Clearly you don't have your helper with you when you write that nonsense. We can't know whether HRC's email scandal is worse or not than Trump's taxes, because we don't know what's in his taxes. Just how dumb do you have to be not to get that?

tax evasion cannot compare to national security, no matter what. Why am i stating the obvious here? just wasting time explaining this to some truly stupid dumb ass.....Shemaleberg keeps talking, and stinks up the whole place with dumb crap, and insult people's intelligence.

 

[Ricardo]

by the way , MOXIE...

did you get that piece of news last week? it was -- er -- BRIEFLY on USA tv, or ''news" -- but they stopped talking about it when it backfired:

PENTAGON and USA CLAIMED that ''we killed the HEAD OF ISIL/DAESH in syria with our anti-terrorist operation bombing" ...

except for one tiny detail -- he was known to NOT be in the village the USA claimed they bombed...and instead was directing operations from another village that was the real critical hold-out of ISIL -- and it was the RUSSIANS that killed him ...and they ''gently'' corrected the pentagon (and the pentagon KNOWS by now when the russians make such things they CAN AND WILL come up with PROOF -- just like very operation they had complete with specs, videos, ground intelligence, local intelligence -- the works which they share with the americans just to make sure there are no misunderstandings)

and the attempt to CLAIM CREDIT for SOMETHING THE USA NEVER DID -- piped down...did you know that?

it's kinda like -- uh - last year

when the pentagon sent ''experts" talking on PBS and US media bragging about how the USA OPERATIONS bombed and destroyed TERRORIST STRONGHOLDS in syria - complete with VIDEOS from the planes to PROVE IT...
except for one little detail -- it was RUSSIAN VIDEO by cameras from undr the wings of SUKHOI bombers -- and the russians also ''reminded" the pentagon ''gently" - that they captured it from - uh --- YOUTUBE which the russians always show - just to ''have no misunderstandings that when we say we will bomb or are operating in such and such location at such and such time and minute -- it is what we do".

lol.

did you know of THESE matters, MOXIE?

She's got NY times to cover all sources of info, she is very tiny....you know.

 

[Federberg]

tax evasion cannot compare to national security, no matter what. Why am i stating the obvious here? just wasting time explaining this to some truly stupid dumb ass.....Shemaleberg keeps talking, and stinks up the whole place with dumb crap, and insult people's intelligence.

Dear dear dear... posting without your helper again. You really shouldn't. We don't know the extent of Trump's activities at all. What we suspect already includes possibly tax dodging, mafia links, possible ties to the Russian government, but it could be more. I repeat... we can't know unless we see his tax returns. On the other hand, Clinton has actually been cleared of malfeasance. I know it's difficult for someone like you to understand, but there's a huge difference between one party who has been scrutinised like no one else before and another who is trying to evade any scrutiny at all. And the one who's been investigated has been found to be reckless, but not meeting the standard for criminal prosecution no matter how much her enemies protest. I know you still won't understand, but that's really your problem, no one elses...

 

[teddytennisfan]

She's got NY times to cover all sources of info, she is very tiny....you know.

sputniknews.com
SPUTNIK EXCLUSIVE: Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton
Sputnik
Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google's autocomplete can too.

A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete.

Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look at my new research. As you will see, there is some cause for concern here.

In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google's search suggestions — often called "autocomplete" suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook.

The video's narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

"The intention is clear," said Lieberman. "Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site."

Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company's spokesperson, "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause." The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying that "Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person's name."

Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been systematically investigating Lieberman's claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something new — something quite disturbing — about the power of Google's search suggestions to alter what people search for.

Lieberman insisted that Google's search suggestions were biased, but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why — and also why Google's lists of search suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo show us.

Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so far:

Bias in Clinton's Favor

To test Lieberman's claim that Google's search suggestions are biased in Mrs. Clinton's favor, my associates and I have been looking at the suggestions Google shows us in response to hundreds of different election-related search terms. To minimize the possibility that those suggestions were customized for us as individuals (based on the massive personal profiles Google has assembled for virtually all Americans), we have conducted our searches through proxy servers — even through the Tor network — thus making it difficult for Google to identify us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on computers (cache and cookies) fairly obsessively.

Google says its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false.

Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing and Yahoo, on the other hand, often show a number of negative suggestions in response to the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo seem to be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google is showing us something else — but what, and for what purpose?

As for Google Trends, as Lieberman reported, Google indeed withholds negative search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms show high popularity in Trends. We have also found that Google often suggests positive search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms are nearly invisible in Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced by Google's own documentation, that Google's search suggestions are based on "what other people are searching for" seems to be untrue in many instances.

Google's Explanation

Google tries to explain away such findings by saying its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false; Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across the board. It is easy to get autocomplete to suggest negative searches related to prominent people, one of whom happens to be Mrs. Clinton's opponent.

A picture is often worth a thousand words, so let's look at a few examples that appear both to support Lieberman's perspective and refute Google's. After that, we'll examine some counterexamples.

Before we start, I need to point out a problem: If you try to replicate the searches I will show you, you will likely get different results. I don't think that invalidates our work, but you will have to decide for yourself. Your results might be different because search activity changes over time, and that, in turn, affects search suggestions. There is also the "personalization problem." If you are like the vast majority of people, you freely allow Google to

track you
24 hours a day. As a result, Google knows who you are when you are typing something in its search bar, and it sends you customized results.

For both of these reasons, you might doubt the validity of the conclusions I will draw in this essay. That is up to you. All I can say in my defense is that I have worked with eight other people in recent months to try to conduct a fair and balanced investigation, and, as I said, we have taken several precautions to try to get generic, non-customized search suggestions rather than the customized kind. Our investigation is also ongoing, and I encourage you to conduct your own, as well.

Let's start with a very simple search. The image below shows a search for "Hillary Clinton is " (notice the space after is) conducted on August 3rd on Bing, Yahoo, and Google. As you can see, both Bing and Yahoo displayed multiple negative suggestions such as "Hillary Clinton is a liar" and "Hillary Clinton is a criminal," but Google is showed only two suggestions, both of which were almost absurdly positive: "Hillary Clinton is winning" and "Hillary Clinton is awesome."

© Photo: Bing, Yahoo, Google

“Hillary Clinton is ”

To find out what people actually searched for, let's turn to Google Trends — Google's tabulation of the popularity of search results. Below you will see a comparison between the popularity of searching for "Hillary Clinton is a liar" and the popularity of searching for "Hillary Clinton is awesome." This image was also generated on August 3rd. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" was by far the more popular search term; hardly anyone conducted a search using the phrase, "Hillary Clinton is awesome."

© Photo: Google

“Hillary Clinton is awesome.”

Okay, but Google admits that it censors negative search results; presumably, that is why we only saw positive results for Mrs. Clinton — even a result that virtually no one searched for. Does Google really suppress negative results? We have seen what happens with "Hillary Clinton is." What happens with "Donald Trump is "? (Again, be sure to include the space after is.)

© Photo: Google

“Donald Trump is “?

In the above image, captured on August 8th, we again found the odd "awesome" suggestion, but we also saw a suggestion that appears to be negative: "Donald Trump is dead." Shouldn't a result like that have been suppressed? Let's look further.

Consider the following searches, conducted on August 2nd, for "anti Hillary" and "anti Trump." As you can see below, "anti Hillary" generated no suggestions, but "anti Trump" generated four, including "anti Trump cartoon" and "anti Trump song." Well, you say, perhaps there were no anti-Hillary suggestions to be made. But Yahoo — responding merely to "anti Hill" — came up with eight, including "anti Hillary memes" and "anti Hillary jokes."

© Photo: Google, Yahoo

“anti Hillary” and “anti Trump.”

This seems to further refute Google's claim about not disparaging people, but let's dig deeper.

After Mrs. Clinton named Senator Tim Kaine to be her running mate, Mr. Trump dubbed him with one of his middle-school-style nicknames: "Corrupt Kaine." Sure enough, that instantly became a popular search term on Google, as this July 27th image from Trends confirms:

© Photo: Google

“Corrupt Kaine.”

Even so, as you can see in the image below, in response to "corrupt," the Google search bar showed us nothing about Senator Kaine, but it did show us both "Kamala" (Kamala Harris, attorney general of California) and "Karzai" (Hamid Karzai, former president of Afghanistan). If you clicked on the phrases "corrupt Kamala" and "corrupt Karzai," search results appeared that linked to highly negative web pages about Kamala Harris and Hamid Karzai, respectively.

Oddly enough, both on the day we looked up "corrupt Kaine" and more recently when I was writing this essay, Google Trends provided no popularity data for either "corrupt Kamala" or "corrupt Karzai." It is hard to imagine, in any case, that either search term has been popular in recent months. So why did the Google search bar disparage Attorney General Harris and President Karzai but not Mrs. Clinton?

© Photo: Google, Yahoo

“corrupt Kaine”, “corrupt Kamala”, “corrupt Karzai.”

If you still have doubts about whether Google suggests negative searches for prominent people, see how Senators Cruz, Rubio and Sanders fared in the following searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd:

© Photo: Google

Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Lying Ted

© Photo: Google

Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Little Marco

© Photo: Google

Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd - Anti-Bernie

I could give you more examples, but you get the idea.

The brazenness of Google's search suggestion tinkering become especially clear when we searched for "crooked" — Mr. Trump's unkind nickname for Mrs. Clinton — on Google, Bing, and Yahoo on various dates in June and July. On Google the word "crooked" alone generated nothing for Mrs. Clinton, even though, once again, its popularity was clear on Google Trends. Now compare (in the image following the Trends graph) what happened on Bing and Yahoo:

© Photo: Google, Bing, Yahoo

“crooked”

No surprise here. Consistent with Google's own search popularity data, Bing and Yahoo listed "crooked Hillary" near the top of their autocomplete suggestions.

The weird part came when we typed more letters into Google's search bar, trying to force it to suggest "crooked Hillary." On June 9th, I had to go all the way to "crooked H-I-L-L-A" to get a response, and it was not the response I was expecting. Instead of showing me "crooked Hillary," I was shown a phrase that I doubt anyone in the world has ever searched for — "crooked Hillary Bernie":

© Photo: Google

“crooked H-I-L-L-A”

Crooked Hillary Bernie? What the heck does that mean? Not much, obviously, but this is something my associates and I have found repeatedly: When you are able to get Google to make negative suggestions for Mrs. Clinton, they sometimes make no sense and are almost certainly not indicative of what other people are searching for.

Masking and Misleading

There are also indications that autocomplete isn't always pro-Clinton and isn't always anti-Trump, and in this regard the Sourcefed video overstated its case. While it is true, for example, that "anti Hillary" generated no suggestions in our study, both "anti Clinton" and "anti Hillary Clinton" did produce negative results when we search on August 8th, as you can see below:

© Photo: Google

“anti Clinton”

© Photo: Google

“anti Hillary Clinton”

At times, we were also able to generate neutral or at least partially positive results for Donald Trump. Consider this image, for example, which shows a search for "Donald Trump" on August 8th:

© Photo: Google

Search for “Donald Trump” on August 8th

If you believe Google can do no wrong and that it never favors one candidate over another (even though Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to Obama in 2012 and only $37,000 to Romney), so be it. But trying to be as objective as possible in recent months, my staff and I have concluded that when Google occasionally does give us unbiased election-related search suggestions, it might just be trying to confuse us. Let me explain.

When Ronald Robertson and I began conducting experiments on the power that biased search rankings have over voter preferences, we were immediately struck by the fact that few people could detect the bias in the search results we showed them, even when those results were extremely biased. We immediately wondered whether we could mask the bias in our results so that even fewer people could detect it. To our amazement, we found that a very simple mask — putting a search result that favored the opposing candidate into the third search position (out of 10 positions on the first page of search results) — was enough to fool all of our study participants into thinking they were seeing unbiased search results.

Masking a manipulation is easy, and Google is a master of obfuscation, as I explained a few years ago in my TIME essay, "Google's Dance." In the context of autocomplete, all you have to do to confuse people is introduce a few exceptions to the rule. So "anti Clinton" and "anti Hillary Clinton" produce negative search suggestions, while "anti Hillary" does not. Because those counter-examples exist, we immediately forget about the odd thing that's happening with "anti Hillary," and we also ignore the fact that "anti Donald" produces negative suggestions:

© Photo: Google

“anti Donald”

Meanwhile, day after day — at least for the few weeks we were monitoring this term — "anti Hillary" continued to produce no suggestions. Why would Google have singled out this one phrase to protect? As always, when you are dealing with the best number crunchers in the world, the answer has to do with numbers. What do you notice when you look below at the frequency of searches for the three anti-Hillary phrases?

© Photo: Google

“anti Hillary”

That's right. "Anti Hillary" was drawing the most traffic, so that was the phrase to protect.

Sourcefed's video was overstated, but, overall, our investigation supports Sourcefed's claim that Google's autocomplete tool is biased to favor Mrs. Clinton — sometimes dramatically so, sometimes more subtly.

Sputnik's Recent Claims

All of the examples I've given you of apparent bias in Google's search suggestions are old and out of date — conducted by me and my staff over the summer of 2016. Generally speaking, you won't be able to confirm what we found (which is why I am showing you screen shots). This is mainly because search suggestions keep changing. So the big question is: Do new search suggestions favor Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

Recently, Sputnik News reported that Google was suppressing search suggestions related to trending news stories expressing concern about Mrs. Clinton's health. Sure enough, as you can see in the following screen shots captured on August 29th, suggestions on Bing and Yahoo reflected the trending news, but suggestions on Google did not:

© Photo: Google

Google Trends

© Photo: Google

Mr. Trump’s “flip flopping”

And, yes, once again, Google Trends showed a recent spike in searches for the missing search suggestions:

© Photo: Google

“Donald Trump flip flops”

While the news was buzzing about Mrs. Clinton's health, hundreds of stories were also being published about Mr. Trump's "flip flopping" on immigration issues, and that too was reflected on Google Trends:

But, as you can see, Google did not suppress "Donald Trump flip flops" from its suggestions:

Google, it seems, is playing this game both consistently and slyly. It is saving its bias for the most valuable real estate — trending, high-value terms — and eliminating signs of bias for terms that have lost their value.

And that brings me, at last, to a research project I initiated only a few weeks ago. If Google is really biasing its search suggestions, what is the company's motive? A new study sheds surprising and disturbing light on this question.

How Google's Search Suggestions Affect Our Searches

Normally, I wouldn't talk publicly about the early results of a long-term research project I have not yet published in a scientific journal or at least presented at a scientific conference. I have decided to make an exception this time for three reasons: First, the results of the study on autocomplete I completed recently are strong and easy to interpret. Second, these results are consistent with volumes of research that has already been conducted on two well-known psychological processes: negativity bias and confirmation bias. And third, the November election is growing near, and the results of my new experiment are relevant to that election — perhaps even of crucial importance.

I began the new study asking myself why Google would want to suppress negative search suggestions. Why those in particular?

In the study, a diverse group of 300 people from 44 U.S. states were asked which of four search suggestions they would likely click on if they were trying to learn more about either Mike Pence, the Republican candidate for vice president, or Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for vice president. They could also select a fifth option in order to type their own search terms. Here is an example of what a search looked like:

Two of the searches we showed people contained negative search suggestions (one negative suggestion in each search); all of the other search suggestions were either neutral (like "Tim Kaine office") or positive (like "Mike Pence for vice president").

Each of the negative suggestions — "Mike Pence scandal" and "Tim Kaine scandal" — appeared only once in the experiment. Thus, if study participants were treating negative items the same way they treated the other four alternatives in a given search, the negative items would have attracted about 20 percent of the clicks in each search.

By including or suppressing negatives in search suggestions, you can direct people's searches one way or another just as surely as if they were dogs on a leash.

But that's not what happened. The three main findings were as follows:

1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40 percent of the time — that's twice as often as one would expect by chance. What's more, compared with the neutral items we showed people in searches that served as controls, negative items were selected about five times as often.

2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched control questions.

3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative suggestion for the candidate from their own party less frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate. In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number of clicks when they were consistent with people's biases.

These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias.

Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one's salad ruins the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more palatable.

Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones, they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions — negative ones, of course. In recent years, political scientists have even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli.

Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information that contradicts those beliefs.

When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they predict that people are far more likely to click on negative search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms.

Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also know exactly how many times people click on every other kind of search suggestion one can categorize.

To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study with exquisite precision every day.

Given Google's strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the number of searches people conduct that will expose them to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people.

This is not the place to review the evidence that Google strongly supports Mrs. Clinton, but since we're talking about Google's search bar, here are two quick reminders:

First, on August 6th, when we typed "When is the election?," we were shown the following image:

© Photo: Google

“When is the election?”

See anything odd about that picture? Couldn't Google have displayed two photos just as easily as it displayed one?

And second, as reported by the Next Web and other news sources, in mid 2015, when people typed "Who will be the next president?," Google displayed boxes such as the one below, which left no doubt about the answer:

© Photo: Google

“Who will be the next president?”

Corporate Control

Over time, differentially suppressing negative search suggestions will repeatedly expose millions of people to far more positive search results for one political candidate than for the other. Research I have been conducting since 2013 with Ronald Robertson of Northeastern University has shown that high-ranking search results that favor one candidate can easily shift 20 percent or more of undecided voters toward that candidate — up to 80 percent in some demographic groups, as I noted earlier. This is because of the enormous trust people have in computer-generated search results, which people mistakenly believe are completely impartial and objective — just as they mistakenly believe search suggestions are completely impartial and objective.

The impact of biased search rankings on opinions, which we call the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), is one of the largest effects ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and because it is invisible to users, it is especially dangerous as a source of influence. Because Google handles 90 percent of search in most countries and because many elections are very close, we estimate that SEME has been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world for several years now, with increasing impact each year. This is occurring, we believe, whether or not Google's executives are taking an active interest in elections; all by itself, Google's search algorithm virtually always ends up favoring one candidate over another simply because of "organic" search patterns by users. When it does, votes shift; in large elections, millions of votes can be shifted. You can think of this as a kind of digital bandwagon effect.

The new effect I have described in this essay — a search suggestion effect — is very different from SEME but almost certainly increases SEME's impact. If you can surreptitiously nudge people into generating search results that are inherently biased, the battle is half won. Simply by including or suppressing negatives in search suggestions, you can direct people's searches one way or another just as surely as if they were dogs on a leash, and you can use this subtle form of influence not just to alter people's views about candidates but about anything.

Google launched autocomplete, its search suggestion tool, in 2004 as an opt-in that helped users find information faster. Perhaps that's all it was in the beginning, but just as Google itself has morphed from being a cool high-tech anomaly into what former Google executive James Whittaker has called a "an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus," so has autocomplete morphed from being a cool and helpful search tool into what may be a tool of corporate manipulation. By 2008, not only was autocomplete no longer an opt-in feature, there was no way to opt out of it, and since that time, through strategic censorship, it may have become a tool for directing people's searches and thereby influencing not only the choices they make but even the thoughts they think.

Look back at the searches I have shown you. Why does Google typically show you far fewer search suggestions than other search engines do — 4 or fewer, generally speaking, compared with 8 for Bing, 8 for DuckDuckGo and 10 for Yahoo? Even if you knew nothing of phenomena like negativity bias and confirmation bias, you certainly know that shorter lists give people fewer choices. Whatever autocomplete was in the beginning, its main function may now be to manipulate.

Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don't see how we can rule out that possibility.

Perhaps you are skeptical about my claims. Perhaps you are also not seeing, on balance, a pro-Hillary bias in the search suggestions you receive on your computer. Perhaps you are also not concerned about the possibility that search suggestions can be used systematically to nudge people's searches in one direction or another. If you are skeptical in any or all of these ways, ask yourself this: Why, to begin with, is Google censoring its search suggestions? (And it certainly acknowledges doing so.) Why doesn't it just show us, say, the top ten most popular searches related to whatever we are typing? Why, in particular, is it suppressing negative information? Are Google's leaders afraid we will have panic attacks and sue the company if we are directed to dark and disturbing web pages? Do they not trust us to make up our own minds about things? Do they think we are children?

Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don't see how we can rule out that possibility. There is nothing illegal about manipulating people using search suggestions and search rankings — quite the contrary, in fact — and it makes good financial sense for a company to use every legal means at its disposal to support its preferred candidates.

Using the mathematical techniques Robertson and I described in our 2015 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I recently calculated that SEME alone can shift between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes in the upcoming US presidential race without anyone knowing this has occurred and without leaving a paper trail.

I arrived at those numbers before I knew about the power search suggestions have to alter searches. The new study suggests that autocomplete alone might be able to shift between 800,000 and 3.2 million votes — also without anyone knowing this is occurring.

Perhaps even more troubling, because Google tracks and monitors us so aggressively, Google officials know who among us is planning to vote and whom we are planning to vote for. They also know who among us are still undecided, and that is where the influence of biased search suggestions and biased search rankings could be applied with enormous effect.

[Google declined to comment on the record when queried about some of the concerns raised in this article. Instead, a company representative sent me to a June 16th blog post.]

___________________

EPSTEIN (@DrREpstein) is Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista, California. A PhD of Harvard University, Epstein has published fifteen books on artificial intelligence and other topics. He is also the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

 

[britbox]

^ There was a lot of chatter about Facebook favouring the Democrats in their news curation.

 

[teddytennisfan]

^ There was a lot of chatter about Facebook favouring the Democrats in their news curation.

which the MSM and these SAME entities -- will call ''conspiracy theories"

a typical CIA.FBI tactic to dismiss what is OBVIOUS -- that ''conspiracies" BY THEM actually exist.

they'd call it conspiracy ''theories' that people NOTED with reasonable concenr THE health and mental condition of a PRESIDENTIAL candidate KNOWN for her willingness and eagerness to go to WAR?

of course -- it's just 'conspiracy" theory -- UNTIL of course it is all EXPOSED as correct1!!!

the money laundering clinton foudnation --- selling ''access" - the dismissiveness and irresponsibility in security , the many other numerous scandals...-- evidence keeps crawling out -- and crowned by HER own medical collapse in public view - again and agian,, and increasing in severeity and frequency -- as the COVER-UP -- by msm and handlers ALSO is there for all to watch in public! lol.

as for google and facebook -- these are the BIGGEST DONORS to the clinton,s lol. they practically probably are part of the ''deep state" she serves,..what with all their hundreds of billions of investments to take care of - jus tlike bill gates -- another of the deep state ''lords of the universe".,

like i keep saying -- they ALWAYS are exactly what people called them long ago...

war criminals, profiteering money launderers, monopolist fascistic corporate overlords...