[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Fugus]

Keep trying to project. Google has apparently reversed their stance on the biggest bullshit item. If you typed in Hillary for pri- you'd get Hillary for President in the fill in when before, you'd get Hillary for Prison. Google was 100% filtering the results. I literally went and typed that shit in for myself. Now they're just adding Bernie onto the autofill (last I saw) to soften the blow. There's literally example after example of searching Hillary and getting mostly positive shit and then searching Donald Trump and getting negative controversy. Don't even try to say 'it's your search results'. I don't have any tracking on and I delete cookies every time I log out. Google was 100% filtering results but they've scaled them back a bit. They also censored the image of her hugging/kissing an old KKK Grand Wizard too. I don't know if they walked back on that yet.

No, google isn't censoring for Hillary or anyone else in particular.

Google censors negative results when it detects a name.

I personally have tried it with the search terms Donald Trump, Bernie Madoff, Adolph Hitler and Ted Kaczynski and it censored all of it the moment it picked it up as a name. Even searched it for Hillary Clinton this time and get the exact same type of censoring.

It isn't google censoring for someone, it is google censoring results for everyone.

[Leobald]

...who also vote. Which is the point.

It would be a huge waste of resources for the Clinton campaign to try to persuade people like you. You made up your mind months ago, and nothing will change that.

It's also one of the basic concepts of presidential campaigns that once you have secured the nomination, you have to focus on gaining votes from the moderates in the centre. You don't do that by pandering to the fringes of your party.

You make the mistake thinking that you, or the people on TYT, or the Sanders reddit are in any way representative of Sanders primary voters in general.

[Forogil]

No, google isn't censoring for Hillary or anyone else in particular.

Google censors negative results when it detects a name.

And they even acknowledge that themselves. However, they don't always know what is a negative result - which makes it a bit hit and miss:

If I search for "Hillary crim" it suggests "criminal Clinton", "criminality", "criminal youtube", and "criminal defense lawyer".
If I search for "Kirsten Vangsness cri" it suggests "criminal minds" - but not just criminal.
If I search for "Donal trump crim" it suggests "criminal justice" - but not just criminal.
If I search for "Costner crim" it suggests "criminal review" - but not "criminal" even if Kevin Costner stars in "Criminal"

The problem is that google doesn't know that Criminal is a movie so it doesn't dare suggest it.

[DeadmanWalking]

There's still the question of how big of a portion of Sanders' supporters will not vote for Hillary regardless of whether she's the nominee or not, and as such, it's not over at all. Then again, the general assumption seems to be that a big enough of a number of the voters who voted for Sanders will vote for Hillary.

That assumption, however, seems to always come from Hillary's supporters, and as such you'd have to wonder if they really do have such a good read about Sanders' supporters after all. Every time I bring this up, there's a handful of people in this thread who get very angry and say I'm delusional, but they never base their accusations on any kind of a "pulse taking" of the Sanders supporter base. Thus far it's been along the lines of...

"Well, X% of Sanders' supporters say they'll never vote for Hillary."
"You're delusional! Of course they will! I know them better than they know themselves!"

I suppose, if you're going to say "it's all over except for the crying", then the "crying" in this case might be done by Sanders' suppoters, in November, at home, during the general election, instead of voting for Hillary.

Lets explain this in simple terms. Bernie can't win. Even if he runs as an independant he can't win because he needs hillary's voters as much as she needs his to win. Now that being determined, if you want Donald Trump and the Republicans to win and run the Govt for the next 4-8 years then don't vote for Hillary. If you don't want Trump and the Republicans, who are as far opposites from Bernie as Satan and Jesus, then you will need to vote for Hillary.

That's the reality of the situation. Regardless of what Sanders supporters want, the reality is that A: Bernie can't win. B: Not voting for Hilary is voting for Trump.

Don't vote, Trump wins. Trump hopes you won't vote, because the Sanders supporters are going to decide this election. You will get to decide who gets to decide in pot gets legalized, you get to decide who gets to decide who is a supreme court member, at least 2, you will decide if gay marraige gets banned again, you will get to decide if 36 billion dollar walls are built that get defeated by $50 worth of rope. You get to decide if bathroom laws become the laws of the land.

You are not going to get what you want, now the question is how much damage are you willing to cause to your cause due to your anger.

*note, by 'you' I mean anyone reading this and not the person I quoted.*

[therayeffect]

You do realize that the search checks for past searches right? As in, it's different for everyone?

It should base that difference on cookies and as I said, I delete my cookies every time I close my browser.

No, google isn't censoring for Hillary or anyone else in particular.

Google censors negative results when it detects a name.

I personally have tried it with the search terms Donald Trump, Bernie Madoff, Adolph Hitler and Ted Kaczynski and it censored all of it the moment it picked it up as a name. Even searched it for Hillary Clinton this time and get the exact same type of censoring.

It isn't google censoring for someone, it is google censoring results for everyone.

I mean, if you want to keep denying the truth, you can but the evidence is pretty damming. Link: imgur.com/a/l9N9B (Hopefully it doesn't show all the images). As I said, they DO have an opinion and they do their best to represent it. Google is not unbiased and is not 'innocent' and they don't censor or represent everything equally nor on equal terms. The same concept that was shown there is recreated by me just now: http://imgur.com/Bl0JAI2

As is easy to see, they autocorrect to Hillary for President and yet don't do that for Trump, even though Trump doesn't have a fairly large subreddit nor merchandise for him to go to prison. They are not treating people equally. Google IS biased. If you want to argue that they're allowed to since they're a private company, that's fine but they are clearly biased.

[Matchles]

Keep trying to project. Google has apparently reversed their stance on the biggest bullshit item. If you typed in Hillary for pri- you'd get Hillary for President in the fill in when before, you'd get Hillary for Prison. Google was 100% filtering the results. I literally went and typed that shit in for myself. Now they're just adding Bernie onto the autofill (last I saw) to soften the blow. There's literally example after example of searching Hillary and getting mostly positive shit and then searching Donald Trump and getting negative controversy. Don't even try to say 'it's your search results'. I don't have any tracking on and I delete cookies every time I log out. Google was 100% filtering results but they've scaled them back a bit. They also censored the image of her hugging/kissing an old KKK Grand Wizard too. I don't know if they walked back on that yet.

Projecting? Google hasn't done anything. The sources you are relying on are cherry picking. And notice they don't do it for the other candidates. Trump is in the middle of plenty of legal trouble but when you search "Trump for pri" it comes up with the SAME results as Clinton. Why? Because they have predictive searches that anticipate misspellings, like for instance when someone tries to spell president with two "i"s.

Google has already addressed your conspiracy theories and low and behold it was exactly what I was saying. So loosen the tinfoil strap.

“Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.”

- - - Updated - - -

There's still the question of how big of a portion of Sanders' supporters will not vote for Hillary regardless of whether she's the nominee or not, and as such, it's not over at all. Then again, the general assumption seems to be that a big enough of a number of the voters who voted for Sanders will vote for Hillary.

That assumption, however, seems to always come from Hillary's supporters, and as such you'd have to wonder if they really do have such a good read about Sanders' supporters after all. Every time I bring this up, there's a handful of people in this thread who get very angry and say I'm delusional, but they never base their accusations on any kind of a "pulse taking" of the Sanders supporter base. Thus far it's been along the lines of...

"Well, X% of Sanders' supporters say they'll never vote for Hillary."
"You're delusional! Of course they will! I know them better than they know themselves!"

I suppose, if you're going to say "it's all over except for the crying", then the "crying" in this case might be done by Sanders' suppoters, in November, at home, during the general election, instead of voting for Hillary.

You already lost Jimmy Dore from your Bernie or Bust crusade and he was BY FAR the most vocal about it on TYT. That is until he saw the type of shit Trump was promoting.

[therayeffect]

Projecting? Google hasn't done anything. The sources you are relying on are cherry picking. And notice they don't do it for the other candidates. Trump is in the middle of plenty of legal trouble but when you search "Trump for pri" it comes up with the SAME results as Clinton. Why? Because they have predictive searches that anticipate misspellings, like for instance when someone tries to spell president with two "i"s.

Google has already addressed your conspiracy theories and low and behold it was exactly what I was saying. So loosen the tinfoil strap.



- - - Updated - - -



You already lost Jimmy Dore from your Bernie or Bust crusade and he was BY FAR the most vocal about it on TYT. That is until he saw the type of shit Trump was promoting.

I literally took a picture of how Google is fudging the results and you say I have a tinfoil hat on my head. If you want to deny the obvious, go ahead since I can't make you be reasonable. Google is not innocent. I'm not pro-Trump but ignoring the censorship and bias of the extreme left isn't something I take lightly.

Here: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/...in-two-charts/

Read through that. Even though it's long and they are an apparently pro-Snowden website, it's pretty easy to see that Google is just another big Corporation. Replace that data with an Oil company in the 2000s and we're all here railing against how Bush and the Republicans are buddy-buddy with Oil companies. Google is not this glorious angel of a company that's a gift from the heavens to inform us all. They're biased and they have their motives, just like any other company including Big Pharm and Big Oil.

“Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.”

And as it clearly shows in both imgur links, that's not what is happening. There is NO Donald Trump for Prison reddit subforum nor merchandise and yet it doesn't auto-correct to 'for President' like it does for her, even though I spell out the entire thing.

[Forogil]

And as it clearly shows in both imgur links, that's not what is happening. There is NO Donald Trump for Prison reddit subforum nor merchandise and yet it doesn't auto-correct to 'for President' like it does for her, even though I spell out the entire thing.

You are grasping for straws.

If I type in "Donald trump for pri" or "Donald trump for pris" it auto-corrects to "for president" - it just stops after the next "o".

The difference with Hillary is that it doesn't stop auto-correcting when you type more - and the reason for that is likely anti-Hillary.

If I type in "Donald trump for prison " it suggests nothing, but if I type in "Hillary Clinton for prison " it suggests "Hillary Clinton for prison sticker". That sticker probably messes up the results.

[Yvaelle]

It should base that difference on cookies and as I said, I delete my cookies every time I close my browser.

It doesn't. Google knows you even without cookies. It sees into your soul. It hears your thoughts.

It is right behind you. Do not move. Do not breathe.

BEHOLD, YOGG GOOGLE!

[Matchles]

“Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.”

And as it clearly shows in both imgur links, that's not what is happening. There is NO Donald Trump for Prison reddit subforum nor merchandise and yet it doesn't auto-correct to 'for President' like it does for her, even though I spell out the entire thing.

Nice try. There is nothing inherently offensive or disparaging about a Senator's Patriot Act vote. Maybe if Sanders had won an award with "patriot" in the title, his search results would be different too. With all this Google searching you are doing, why don't you look up the word "apophenia."

[Dextroden]

So, now Google is part of the shadow army that denied Sanders victory.

I wonder if they'll blame Twitter or Reddit next.

[Matchles]

So, now Google is part of the shadow army that denied Sanders victory.

I wonder if they'll blame Twitter or Reddit next.

You know those millions that were hoping to learn more about Clinton's patriot act vote but were unable to do so because the search box didn't autocomplete the word. Those poor souls that ended up voting for Clinton because when they search "Hillary Clinton for pri" it didn't fill in prison, and they just couldn't fill in the last 3 letters.

[triplesdsu]

I thought they'd finally got around to referring to it as a criminal investigation, hadn't they? With how long it's taking it's entirely possible Hillary isn't the target of the investigation, but it does appear to be a criminal investigation.

If someone didnt know it was a "criminal" investigation, they're an idiot. Law Enforcement, like the FBI, doesn't do civil investigations. They might do an investigation, determine it wasn't criminal and close it as a civil matter but they don't do civil investigations. In fact, that's what I expect to happen here. They will probably conclude that some rules were broken but her violations weren't of a criminal nature.

[Annoying]

If I type in "Donald trump for pri" or "Donald trump for pris" it auto-corrects to "for president" - it just stops after the next "o".

Mine does that for hillary as well.

It doesn't. Google knows you even without cookies. It sees into your soul. It hears your thoughts.

It is right behind you. Do not move. Do not breathe.

BEHOLD, YOGG GOOGLE!

But really:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/465?hl=en

It's pretty handy.

[Dextroden]

Yay for people not understanding Google=rigged election!

Seriously. I thought this year would be dissappointing. This is the best election cycle ever.

[Dezerte]

I mean, if you want to keep denying the truth, you can but the evidence is pretty damming. Link: imgur.com/a/l9N9B (Hopefully it doesn't show all the images). As I said, they DO have an opinion and they do their best to represent it. Google is not unbiased and is not 'innocent' and they don't censor or represent everything equally nor on equal terms. The same concept that was shown there is recreated by me just now: http://imgur.com/Bl0JAI2

As is easy to see, they autocorrect to Hillary for President and yet don't do that for Trump, even though Trump doesn't have a fairly large subreddit nor merchandise for him to go to prison. They are not treating people equally. Google IS biased. If you want to argue that they're allowed to since they're a private company, that's fine but they are clearly biased.

Trump is a robot, but not a racist according to Google.

Bottom-line, maybe there isn't some conspiracy going on here - maybe it's just a flawed search algorithm.

[Yvaelle]

Trump is a robot, but not a racist according to Google.

Or maybe Trump is Tay 2.0!

Tay for VP!



Note: I'm very much kidding Mr. Trump, please do not elect a demented racist twitterbot as your vice president. The lulz would not be worth the consequences.

[Matchles]

Or maybe Trump is Tay 2.0!

Tay for VP!

Note: I'm very much kidding Mr. Trump, please do not elect a demented racist twitterbot as your vice president. The lulz would not be worth the consequences.

Are you sure that isn't better than those he is actually considering for VP?

[Vash The Stampede]

Jesus, yes this^^ Hilary is going to win, let the old man bow out with dignity. He put up a good fight.

He's trying to get Hillary to adopt his policies. He'll continue to fight. But just in case she doesn't adopt his policies, is someone else running for president that shares Bernie's views?

[Eviscero]

So Bernie is having this live-stream address tonight at 8:30 EST:

https://berniesanders.com/stream/

Wonder if he'll clarify his position on the nomination process and his goals for the convention and the party. I find the choice of picture at the above link quite interesting.