Trump 42: Racist In Chief

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus.

[click on the text to see the whole thing]

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Sweet Rufus.

[click on the text to see the whole thing]

I look forward to the Trump National Identity card which must be carried at all times to prove citizenship.

(No, not really - although watching his followers heads explode would be fun...)

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I look forward to the Trump National Identity card which must be carried at all times to prove citizenship.

(No, not really - although watching his followers heads explode would be fun...)

The sad thing is, they probably would go for it because it was Trump's idea. They would have absolute conniption fits if anyone else suggests the national identity card to carry with you all the time.

[Alisamer]

On August 16, 2019 at 9:17 AM, AmericanRose said:

I think a lot of his base would be okay with Trump cheating on his taxes, since they think they shouldn't have to pay any anyway. They would just view him as 'smart'.

I have heard multiple people say exactly that. They have also said it is "smart" for him to profit from the presidency by inviting dignitaries to Mar-A-Lago and things like that. Ironically, these same people's main objection to Hillary Clinton was that she was "trying to make so much money off of her government job, with these high speaking engagement fees and such. It's disgusting, she's just after money!"

These same people get their news from Fox, and just are not aware of 90% of the crazy that is going on. It's very easy for him to declare all other media outlets "fake news" if the people watching Fox (especially casually) are simply not getting the same info everyone else is. I mean, a lot of what is going on is so off-the-wall I can't blame them for thinking it's made up, if they never hear it on the news they watch, and then see it on a newspaper headline or something. 

I mean, "Trump Wants to Buy Greenland" is full-on tabloid. If you are undereducated, hate to read, and not technologically savvy, and you see a headline or hear people talking about Trump being accused of raping a child, but then there's nothing about that on the half-hour of news you watch in the evening except Trump saying it's not true...  

On August 16, 2019 at 2:32 PM, fraurosena said:

If Trump says he's from Germany, in other words, born there... Well, then he is exactly what he claimed Obama to be: not a US born citizen. Therefore he's not eligible to be POTUS. Ergo, he must be removed from office worthwith.

Exactly. He wants to be believed without question, so I'm going to fully believe this one. Go back to where you came from, POTUS!

On August 18, 2019 at 2:34 AM, fraurosena said:

The only people cheering and attempting to chant would be his own plants in the audience. A single person here, another there. They’ll stick out like a sore thumb.

Oh, the meltdown would be epic. The only thing Trump is actually terminably good at is whipping up a crowd. That’s why he loves it so much. It strokes his fragile ego. Finally, something that he doesn’t fail at...

He can't be that good at it, if he has to have plants in the audience. 

38 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

The sad thing is, they probably would go for it because it was Trump's idea. They would have absolute conniption fits if anyone else suggests the national identity card to carry with you all the time.

Oh absolutely. Just like how the Republicans in congress during Obama's term would not agree with anything at all if he approved of it, many of Trump's followers would tattoo his name on their foreheads if he required it, and accuse those opposing it of being unpatriotic. A national ID card idea from Trump would be "a great thing for national security, I can't believe no one's suggested that before, what a genius!" Proposed by anyone else, especially a Democrat? "It's the mark of the beast! The end is near! Violation of personal liberty!"

[WiseGirl]

Seth baby don't get my hopes up only to be dashed.  Let your list come to fruition.  (Btw orange baby doesn't think there will be a recession.  Sure, go against the prime indicator of one 45 see how that works for you.)

Spoiler

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by WiseGirl
Add text

[fraurosena]

The desperation about the downturn of the economy is shining through that thin veneer of the 'no recession, no recession' chant that has replaced the old 'no collusion, no collusion' one.

White House officials eyeing payroll tax cut in effort to reverse weakening economy

Quote

Several senior White House officials have begun discussing whether to push for a temporary payroll tax cut as a way to arrest an economic slowdown, three people familiar with the discussions said, revealing the growing concerns by President Trump’s top economic aides.

The talks are still in their early stages, and the officials have not decided whether to formally push Congress to approve the cut, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose internal discussions. But the White House in recent days has begun searching for proposals that could halt a slowing economy.

Millions of Americans pay a “payroll tax” on their earnings, a 6.2 percent levy that is used to finance Social Security programs. The payroll tax was last cut during the Obama administration to 4.2 percent, as a way to encourage more consumer spending during the recent economic downturn. But the cut was allowed to reset back up to 6.2 percent in 2013.

Americans pay payroll taxes on income up to $132,900, so cutting the payroll tax has remained a popular idea for many lawmakers seeking to deliver savings for middle-income earners and not the wealthiest Americans. But payroll tax cuts can also add dramatically to the deficit and – depending on how they are designed – pull billions of dollars away from Social Security.

The payroll tax cuts during the Obama administration reduced taxes by more than $100 billion each year, but the Obama administration directed the lost revenue to Social Security programs, so those initiatives didn’t lose money. The cuts added to the deficit, however.

The size of the cut could equate to a bigger tax cut for many families than the 2017 tax law.

The Trump administration discussions about whether to pursue a new payroll tax cut have only begun in recent days, the three people said, and specific details about the design have not been reached yet.

Trump and top aides have spent the past few days trying to convince the public that the economy is strong and that fears about a recession are misguided. But White House officials quietly have begun scrambling for new ideas to reverse public concerns and boost business confidence.

Some administration officials have felt that planning for an economic downturn would send a negative perception to the public and make things worse, but Trump has spent much of the past week conferring with business executives and other confidants seeking input on what they are seeing in the economy.

There are signs the U.S. economy is slowing, and economists fear that Germany and the United Kingdom already are tipping towards a recession. So far, consumer spending has remained one of the U.S. economy’s bright spots, and White House officials are aware that Trump’s reelection chances could hinge on the economy staying strong into next year.

Payroll tax cuts have remained popular with Democrats largely because they are seen as targeting working Americans, and the money is often immediately spent by consumers and not saved. That way, the money gives consumers more spending power, but it also helps businesses who rely on the income.

One of the biggest causes of economic downturns is a pullback in consumer spending. That hurts businesses, which then lay off workers, who then cut back on spending — a painful economic loop.

In the past, Democrats have strongly supported payroll tax cuts, while Republicans have been more resistent. Republicans have complained that these cuts do not help the economy and disproportionately harm the deficit.

White House officials have shifted wildly in recent days with varying assessments about the economy. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow has sought to convey optimism, but Trump has been less consistent.

The president on Monday sought to play down the risk of a recession while also pinning the blame for a potential economic downturn on the Federal Reserve, chastising the central bank’s chairman, Jerome H. Powell, for a “horrendous lack of vision.”

In a tweet, Trump also called for the Fed to reduce interest rates by at least 100 basis points, marking an escalation of his demands on the central bank. Trump has frequently lashed out at Powell but had never used the phrase “basis points” in a tweet or made such a specific demand.

“Our Economy is very strong, despite the horrendous lack of vision by Jay Powell and the Fed, but the Democrats are trying to ‘will’ the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election,” Trump tweeted. “Very Selfish! Our dollar is so strong that it is sadly hurting other parts of the world.”

He then declared that interest rates, “over a fairly short period of time, should be reduced by at least 100 basis points, with perhaps some quantitative easing as well.”

“If that happened, our Economy would be even better, and the World Economy would be greatly and quickly enhanced-good for everyone!” he said.

The Fed funds rate, which Trump is trying to tell central bankers to cut, is currently set at 2.25 percent. Slashing it 100 basis points would lower this rate to 1.25 percent, giving them very little additional wiggle room to maneuver if a full-fledged recession began.

His directive for them to launch a new phase of “quantitative easing” is shorthand for asking the Fed to pump more money into the economy, a step that could weaken the U.S. dollar. This is also seen as an extreme step that central bankers take when they are trying to urgently address a slumping economy, not a tactic that is employed when the economy is still growing.

Fed officials have said they do not make decisions based on political pressure, but Trump has taken his attacks on the central bank to new extremes, particularly this month amid numerous signs that the U.S. economy is weakening more than expected.

After a tumultuous week in the markets suggested that the economy is heading onto shaky ground, Trump and his top officials have touted what they believe are the economy’s strengths, particularly consumer spending, and predicted that a recession will not occur.

As concerns mount, Kudlow has scheduled briefing calls this week with state and local business leaders, conservative groups, and others to both guage the economy’s strength and seek more input.

White House spokesman Judd Deere said the calls, which “have been long-planned,” will focus on Trump’s economic agenda, including issues such as deregulation and energy production.

But even as the White House has dismissed the notion that the country may be headed toward a recession, Trump and his aides have sent mixed messages.

In an exchange with reporters in Morristown, N.J., shortly before taking off for Washington on Sunday evening, Trump brushed aside the possibility of a downturn, saying, “I don’t see a recession.”

“I mean, the world is in a recession right now — although that’s too big a statement,” he added, in a remark that appeared to undercut his effort to calm fears.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, for pity sake: "Trump stumbles onto a new justification for losing the popular vote: It’s Google’s fault"

Spoiler

President Trump is back at the White House on Monday, after a week spent mostly at his private golf club in New Jersey. In short order, he was back to his typical routine at the executive mansion. Meaning, of course, that he spent some part of the morning watching cable news.

Shortly before noon, Fox Business aired a segment discussing testimony offered to the Senate last month. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who at one point was editor in chief of Psychology Today, told senators on July 17 that his research suggested Google had given millions of votes to Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. A guest on Fox Business named Oz Sultan, who worked with Trump’s 2016 campaign, looped that claim back into the broader, ongoing criticism of social-media companies that’s currently in vogue among conservatives.

Trump, though, quickly picked out — and exaggerated — the claim about Clinton votes.

That’s not what Epstein said in his testimony. He estimated a range of 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes, with 15 million votes being the possible shift in 2020. That 2.6 million estimate, he said, was the “rock bottom” estimate. While Epstein identifies himself as a Democrat who backed Clinton, that’s a convenient figure, since Clinton won by about 2.9 million votes nationally.

There’s just one problem: Those estimates deserve far, far more skepticism than Trump would ever give them.

On its face, the numbers are dubious. In his prepared remarks, Epstein estimated Google “gave at least 2.6 million votes” to Clinton, a statement that isn’t well-defined. Gave … how? These were non-voters inspired to vote? Trump voters who switched? Without knowing that, it’s hard to evaluate the accuracy of the claim.

A claim, mind you, that is very bold. Getting millions of voters to vote a particular way is the sort of thing that political parties spend a lot of time trying to figure out. Epstein is claiming that more than 2 percent of all 2016 voters were influenced to vote for Clinton by Google. The scale is massive.

So why does he make this claim? He appears to have combined two bits of research he’s conducted: a 2015 look at how search engine results can influence political opinion and a collection of search results from users before the 2016 contest. Over the last 25 days of the campaign, a summary of the latter research suggests, “we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.” Given that his earlier research found results could influence views of candidates, we get the top-line assumption.

What does “biased to favor Hillary Clinton” mean? We don’t know. The summary doesn’t explain what that looks like.

It does, however, suggest it found results emailed to his research team from Google’s email system (Gmail) to be unusually unbiased.

“Perhaps Google identified our confidants through its gmail system and targeted them to receive unbiased results,” it reads, “we have no way to confirm this at present, but it is a plausible explanation for the pattern of results we found.” So they threw those results out.

One of the more baffling aspects to this research is that no indication is made about how the searches were conducted. Google’s search results are specific to users, and there’s no indication in the summary (mentions of using incognito mode, for example) that any effort was made to return unweighed results from the search engine. Nor is there information provided about who participated in the study. Collecting results from a group of well-to-do city dwellers, for example, might help explain any “bias.”

This is more problematic because while the research points to thousands of search results that were analyzed, only 95 people actually provided responses to the study. Meaning if the results were driven by the identities of those individuals, the variation in the pool of results was actually 95. Oh, and of that group? Only 21 were undecided. If the 2.6 million figure derives from that group alone, the value of that figure is almost nil.

It’s worth noting that bias by Google is precisely what Epstein expected to see. In August 2015, he wrote an essay for Politico in which he predicted that Google might be able to influence the election and, voilà, so it did.

In his testimony, Epstein was also asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to talk about another way in which Google might have influenced a federal election. On Election Day last year, Google’s home page changed its iconic logo to read “Go Vote.” Writing for the Epoch Times, Epstein claimed that Google could have spurred an additional 500,000 people to vote.

In 2010, Facebook ran an experiment aimed at boosting turnout by showing users friends who’d already cast a ballot. It estimates this experiment — which used data about individuals to identify likely voters and showed people images of their friends who voted — increased turnout in a target pool of 60 million people by 340,000 votes. In what doesn’t seem much like a coincidence, Epstein’s estimate of an increase of 500,000 votes is about the same percentage of the 87 million people he claims saw Google’s logo as 340,000 is of 60 million.

So the same results, in effect — but without any of the use of photos of friends or targeting of likely voters. Sure.

Epstein also dances around the question of intentionality. Google insists it doesn’t re-rank its results to influence politics — meaning that it didn’t intervene with the results of its initial algorithmic ranking. Epstein says he “never claimed it did,” which suggests he’s finding fault with the algorithm itself. But, in his prepared remarks, he also pointedly claims “[a] growing body of evidence suggests that Google employees deliberately engineer ephemeral experiences to change people’s thinking.”

If you want to allege bias but can’t prove bias, the above pair of claims seem like a needle you might want to thread.

This is one claim from one person that, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been peer-reviewed or replicated. On its surface, it’s dubious, as is the methodology underlying it. It’s the sort of thing that people in positions of authority — such as, say, a senator or a president — might be cautious about spreading.

But, on the other hand, it also lets Trump claim almost-victory in the 2016 election. And when something does that, Trump rarely shows any signs of hesitation about getting it in front of as many people as possible.

 

[fraurosena]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Eugene Robinson: "Trump is melting down. Again."

Spoiler

Uh-oh. President Trump is in such a state of panic about his dimming reelection prospects that he’s getting his lies mixed up and occasionally blurting out the truth.

“It’s tough for Apple to pay tariffs if it’s competing with a very good company [Samsung] that’s not,” the president told reporters Sunday — flatly contradicting the ridiculous and utterly false narrative that he has spent months trying to sell. Trump apparently forgot his standard lie that China is somehow paying “billions of dollars” in tariffs, acknowledging instead that they are taxes paid by U.S. companies and, ultimately, the American consumer.

This reflects more than just the difficulty of juggling multiple lies. Evidence suggests that Trump is melting down. Again.

And for good reason.

Fears of a global recession, greatly exacerbated by Trump’s erratic and self-destructive trade policies, have sent financial markets tumbling. A sharp downturn would close off one of the principal lines of attack the president was hoping to use against his Democratic opponent. He tried it out at a rally in New Hampshire last week: “You have no choice but to vote for me,” he told the crowd, “because your 401(k)’s down the tubes, everything’s gonna be down the tubes” if he loses. “So whether you love me or hate me, you gotta vote for me.”

Fact check: No.

Trump is flailing. He berates his handpicked chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, for not cutting interest rates fast enough to goose the economy. He practically begs Chinese President Xi Jinping for a meeting to work out a trade deal — any trade deal, apparently — and is met with silence. He threatens more tariffs but then backs down, at least for now. According to published reports, he sees himself as the victim of a conspiracy to exaggerate the growing economic anxiety in order to hurt his chances of winning a second term.

He entertains grandiose, almost Napoleonic fantasies — purchasing Greenland from Denmark in what he calls “a large real estate deal,” perhaps, or imposing a naval blockade to force regime change in Venezuela. He apparently spent much of this past weekend fuming about not getting credit for how his New Hampshire rally broke an attendance record for the arena that had been set by Elton John.

And Trump can’t seem to stop railing against a recent Fox News poll that showed him losing to four of the leading Democratic contenders. The president seems to consider Fox News his administration’s Ministry of Propaganda — indeed, that is the role the network’s morning-show hosts and prime-time anchors loyally play — but the polling unit is a professional operation. “There’s something going on at Fox, I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it,” Trump told reporters Sunday . He added a threat, saying that Fox “is making a big mistake” because he is “the one that calls the shots” on next year’s general election debates — the implication being that Fox News might not get to broadcast one of them if it doesn’t toe the party line.

For the record, Trump’s claim about his political standing is that it couldn’t be better — but could be better.

“Great cohesion inside the Republican Party, the best I have ever seen,” he tweeted Monday. “Despite all of the Fake News, my Poll Numbers are great. New internal polls show them to be the strongest we’ve had so far! Think what they’d be if I got fair media coverage!”

An hour later, he was back on Twitter to attack Anthony Scaramucci, who famously spent 11 days as White House communications director and recently became the latest Trump supporter to hit the “eject” button. Predictably, Trump called him a “nut job,” claimed to barely know him and dusted off the ultimate insult, calling him “bad on TV.”

The astonishing thing is that the president of the United States is, let’s face it, raving like a lunatic — and everyone just shrugs.

The nation is still reeling from two mass shootings. The financial markets are yo-yoing by hundreds of points. A bomb in Afghanistan, where we’re still at war, killed 63 revelers at a wedding. Tension between the United States and Iran continues to mount. North Korea keeps testing new missiles. India is playing with fire in Kashmir. Hong Kong has been convulsed for months by massive protests seeking to guarantee basic freedoms.

And Trump obsesses about buying Greenland.

The truth is that we don’t have an actual presidency right now. We have a tiresome reality show whose ratings have begun to slide — and whose fading star sees cancellation on the way.

 

[fraurosena]

Three exceptionally idiotic statements to underline he's exceptionally idiotic.

 

Oh, and in case anyone didn't understand the first three times, he threw in a fourth exceptionally idiotic statement.

 

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A good one from Eugene Robinson: "Trump is melting down. Again."

  Reveal hidden contents

Uh-oh. President Trump is in such a state of panic about his dimming reelection prospects that he’s getting his lies mixed up and occasionally blurting out the truth.

“It’s tough for Apple to pay tariffs if it’s competing with a very good company [Samsung] that’s not,” the president told reporters Sunday — flatly contradicting the ridiculous and utterly false narrative that he has spent months trying to sell. Trump apparently forgot his standard lie that China is somehow paying “billions of dollars” in tariffs, acknowledging instead that they are taxes paid by U.S. companies and, ultimately, the American consumer.

This reflects more than just the difficulty of juggling multiple lies. Evidence suggests that Trump is melting down. Again.

And for good reason.

Fears of a global recession, greatly exacerbated by Trump’s erratic and self-destructive trade policies, have sent financial markets tumbling. A sharp downturn would close off one of the principal lines of attack the president was hoping to use against his Democratic opponent. He tried it out at a rally in New Hampshire last week: “You have no choice but to vote for me,” he told the crowd, “because your 401(k)’s down the tubes, everything’s gonna be down the tubes” if he loses. “So whether you love me or hate me, you gotta vote for me.”

Fact check: No.

Trump is flailing. He berates his handpicked chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, for not cutting interest rates fast enough to goose the economy. He practically begs Chinese President Xi Jinping for a meeting to work out a trade deal — any trade deal, apparently — and is met with silence. He threatens more tariffs but then backs down, at least for now. According to published reports, he sees himself as the victim of a conspiracy to exaggerate the growing economic anxiety in order to hurt his chances of winning a second term.

He entertains grandiose, almost Napoleonic fantasies — purchasing Greenland from Denmark in what he calls “a large real estate deal,” perhaps, or imposing a naval blockade to force regime change in Venezuela. He apparently spent much of this past weekend fuming about not getting credit for how his New Hampshire rally broke an attendance record for the arena that had been set by Elton John.

And Trump can’t seem to stop railing against a recent Fox News poll that showed him losing to four of the leading Democratic contenders. The president seems to consider Fox News his administration’s Ministry of Propaganda — indeed, that is the role the network’s morning-show hosts and prime-time anchors loyally play — but the polling unit is a professional operation. “There’s something going on at Fox, I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it,” Trump told reporters Sunday . He added a threat, saying that Fox “is making a big mistake” because he is “the one that calls the shots” on next year’s general election debates — the implication being that Fox News might not get to broadcast one of them if it doesn’t toe the party line.

For the record, Trump’s claim about his political standing is that it couldn’t be better — but could be better.

“Great cohesion inside the Republican Party, the best I have ever seen,” he tweeted Monday. “Despite all of the Fake News, my Poll Numbers are great. New internal polls show them to be the strongest we’ve had so far! Think what they’d be if I got fair media coverage!”

An hour later, he was back on Twitter to attack Anthony Scaramucci, who famously spent 11 days as White House communications director and recently became the latest Trump supporter to hit the “eject” button. Predictably, Trump called him a “nut job,” claimed to barely know him and dusted off the ultimate insult, calling him “bad on TV.”

The astonishing thing is that the president of the United States is, let’s face it, raving like a lunatic — and everyone just shrugs.

The nation is still reeling from two mass shootings. The financial markets are yo-yoing by hundreds of points. A bomb in Afghanistan, where we’re still at war, killed 63 revelers at a wedding. Tension between the United States and Iran continues to mount. North Korea keeps testing new missiles. India is playing with fire in Kashmir. Hong Kong has been convulsed for months by massive protests seeking to guarantee basic freedoms.

And Trump obsesses about buying Greenland.

The truth is that we don’t have an actual presidency right now. We have a tiresome reality show whose ratings have begun to slide — and whose fading star sees cancellation on the way.

 

Sadly, at this point, it's only newsworthy if Trump isn't melting down. I just checked to see what is the latest bee in his bonnet multiple times each day.

[fraurosena]

Good grief.

 

[SilverBeach]

On 8/19/2019 at 3:16 AM, Ozlsn said:

I look forward to the Trump National Identity card which must be carried at all times to prove citizenship.

The new drivers license/state ID requirement is getting awfully close to this.

[JMarie]

On 8/16/2019 at 2:32 PM, fraurosena said:

Hold on a minute! Quoting myself here because I've just had an epiphany about this.

If Trump says he's from Germany, in other words, born there... Well, then he is exactly what he claimed Obama to be: not a US born citizen. Therefore he's not eligible to be POTUS. Ergo, he must be removed from office worthwith.

His followers would never be able to come to that conclusion.

[GreyhoundFan]

20 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, for pity sake: "Trump stumbles onto a new justification for losing the popular vote: It’s Google’s fault"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump is back at the White House on Monday, after a week spent mostly at his private golf club in New Jersey. In short order, he was back to his typical routine at the executive mansion. Meaning, of course, that he spent some part of the morning watching cable news.

Shortly before noon, Fox Business aired a segment discussing testimony offered to the Senate last month. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who at one point was editor in chief of Psychology Today, told senators on July 17 that his research suggested Google had given millions of votes to Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. A guest on Fox Business named Oz Sultan, who worked with Trump’s 2016 campaign, looped that claim back into the broader, ongoing criticism of social-media companies that’s currently in vogue among conservatives.

Trump, though, quickly picked out — and exaggerated — the claim about Clinton votes.

That’s not what Epstein said in his testimony. He estimated a range of 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes, with 15 million votes being the possible shift in 2020. That 2.6 million estimate, he said, was the “rock bottom” estimate. While Epstein identifies himself as a Democrat who backed Clinton, that’s a convenient figure, since Clinton won by about 2.9 million votes nationally.

There’s just one problem: Those estimates deserve far, far more skepticism than Trump would ever give them.

On its face, the numbers are dubious. In his prepared remarks, Epstein estimated Google “gave at least 2.6 million votes” to Clinton, a statement that isn’t well-defined. Gave … how? These were non-voters inspired to vote? Trump voters who switched? Without knowing that, it’s hard to evaluate the accuracy of the claim.

A claim, mind you, that is very bold. Getting millions of voters to vote a particular way is the sort of thing that political parties spend a lot of time trying to figure out. Epstein is claiming that more than 2 percent of all 2016 voters were influenced to vote for Clinton by Google. The scale is massive.

So why does he make this claim? He appears to have combined two bits of research he’s conducted: a 2015 look at how search engine results can influence political opinion and a collection of search results from users before the 2016 contest. Over the last 25 days of the campaign, a summary of the latter research suggests, “we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.” Given that his earlier research found results could influence views of candidates, we get the top-line assumption.

What does “biased to favor Hillary Clinton” mean? We don’t know. The summary doesn’t explain what that looks like.

It does, however, suggest it found results emailed to his research team from Google’s email system (Gmail) to be unusually unbiased.

“Perhaps Google identified our confidants through its gmail system and targeted them to receive unbiased results,” it reads, “we have no way to confirm this at present, but it is a plausible explanation for the pattern of results we found.” So they threw those results out.

One of the more baffling aspects to this research is that no indication is made about how the searches were conducted. Google’s search results are specific to users, and there’s no indication in the summary (mentions of using incognito mode, for example) that any effort was made to return unweighed results from the search engine. Nor is there information provided about who participated in the study. Collecting results from a group of well-to-do city dwellers, for example, might help explain any “bias.”

This is more problematic because while the research points to thousands of search results that were analyzed, only 95 people actually provided responses to the study. Meaning if the results were driven by the identities of those individuals, the variation in the pool of results was actually 95. Oh, and of that group? Only 21 were undecided. If the 2.6 million figure derives from that group alone, the value of that figure is almost nil.

It’s worth noting that bias by Google is precisely what Epstein expected to see. In August 2015, he wrote an essay for Politico in which he predicted that Google might be able to influence the election and, voilà, so it did.

In his testimony, Epstein was also asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) to talk about another way in which Google might have influenced a federal election. On Election Day last year, Google’s home page changed its iconic logo to read “Go Vote.” Writing for the Epoch Times, Epstein claimed that Google could have spurred an additional 500,000 people to vote.

In 2010, Facebook ran an experiment aimed at boosting turnout by showing users friends who’d already cast a ballot. It estimates this experiment — which used data about individuals to identify likely voters and showed people images of their friends who voted — increased turnout in a target pool of 60 million people by 340,000 votes. In what doesn’t seem much like a coincidence, Epstein’s estimate of an increase of 500,000 votes is about the same percentage of the 87 million people he claims saw Google’s logo as 340,000 is of 60 million.

So the same results, in effect — but without any of the use of photos of friends or targeting of likely voters. Sure.

Epstein also dances around the question of intentionality. Google insists it doesn’t re-rank its results to influence politics — meaning that it didn’t intervene with the results of its initial algorithmic ranking. Epstein says he “never claimed it did,” which suggests he’s finding fault with the algorithm itself. But, in his prepared remarks, he also pointedly claims “[a] growing body of evidence suggests that Google employees deliberately engineer ephemeral experiences to change people’s thinking.”

If you want to allege bias but can’t prove bias, the above pair of claims seem like a needle you might want to thread.

This is one claim from one person that, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been peer-reviewed or replicated. On its surface, it’s dubious, as is the methodology underlying it. It’s the sort of thing that people in positions of authority — such as, say, a senator or a president — might be cautious about spreading.

But, on the other hand, it also lets Trump claim almost-victory in the 2016 election. And when something does that, Trump rarely shows any signs of hesitation about getting it in front of as many people as possible.

 

I love Hillary's response:

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump postpones Denmark trip after prime minister declines to sell him Greenland"

Spoiler

President Trump on Tuesday abruptly called off a trip to Denmark, announcing in a tweet that he was postponing the visit because the country’s leader was not interested in selling him Greenland.

The move comes two days after Trump told reporters that owning Greenland “would be nice” for the United States from a strategic perspective.

Greenland is a self-governing country that is part of the kingdom of Denmark.

In his tweet, Trump said that while Denmark is “a very special country with incredible people,” he is postponing his scheduled meeting with Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen based on her statement “that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland.”

“The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct,” Trump added. “I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!”

Over the weekend, Frederiksen had visited Greenland and told reporters there that Trump’s idea of buying the island was “absurd.”

Trump had been scheduled to visit Denmark in two weeks. He said Sunday that his visit was not related to his interest in Greenland.

“Not for this reason at all,” he said.

But his Tuesday night tweets made clear that the central purpose of his trip had in fact been discussion of a U.S. purchase of the massive, glaciered island, which holds increasing strategic value as melting sea ice opens new parts of the Arctic to shipping and resource extraction.

Trump had also jokingly acknowledged his interest in purchasing the island for the United States on Monday, when he tweeted a doctored photo of a huge gold Trump Tower planted on what appears to be a Greenlandic fishing village.

“I promise not to do this to Greenland!” Trump wrote.

Greenlanders, many of whom chafe at Danish rule, reacted with scorn to word last week that Trump was keenly interested in making an offer.

Both Danish and Greenland officials have said in recent days that the island is not for sale.

“Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism,” Greenland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Friday in a tweet. “We’re open for business, not for sale.”

Trump’s interest, which was a closely held secret until last week, stems largely from the island’s potential as a hedge against Chinese and Russian expansion in the Arctic.

He told reporters Sunday that owning Greenland is “hurting Denmark very badly” and that “they carry it at a great loss,” although he did not immediately provide evidence to back up those claims.

Although many in the United States have mocked the idea, one Democratic lawmaker on Sunday voiced openness to considering it. Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “changes are happening” in Greenland as a result of climate change, “and the people up there understand it and they’re trying to adjust to it.”

“We have a very strategic base up there, a military base, which we visited,” Manchin said, referring to his visit to Greenland earlier this year as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation. “And I understand the strategy for that in that part of the world and the Arctic opening up the way it is now.”

On Tuesday night, Fox News host Pete Hegseth took an optimistic view of events, musing that perhaps Denmark was simply holding out in the hopes of getting Trump to reveal how much he was willing to pay for the island.

“It’s one of these big, bold ideas that no one would’ve thought of, that the modern era mostly bats aside and says would never happen,” Hegseth said of buying Greenland on Fox Business Network. “But hey, maybe it’s just an initial rebuff. Maybe it’s part of their negotiations. ‘Hey, we want a better price for Greenland.’”

“You never know,” he added. “You never know.”

 

[Dandruff]

The residents of Greenland must be feeling a bit anxious. 

I can imagine Trump wanting to make it a migrant detention center.

[fraurosena]

Up till now I actually thought this buying Greenland thing was some kind of joke. It’s too absurd for words. 

That Trump was serious about it, and so pissed by Denmark’s refusal that he’s cancelled his planned trip there has just shown the world, once again and with emphasis, that he’s a complete and utter idiot.

What a way to represent America.

These are the tweets mentioned in the article posted above:

 

[Audrey2]

7 hours ago, Dandruff said:

The residents of Greenland must be feeling a bit anxious. 

I can imagine Trump wanting to make it a migrant detention center.

I have been thinking something similar. I can't decide if he wants it based on its mineral resources or if he would start some heinous program sending all non-whites to Greenland. That thought churns my stomach, but based off of this administration I don't think much will surprise me.

[AnywhereButHere]

JFC! It’s a country, not a freaking ball in the discount bin at Walmart. You can’t just decide you want it and then throw a tantrum because you can’t have it. ?

Someone must have told him: “Land acquisition. All the great presidents manage one.”

[fraurosena]

26 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I have been thinking something similar. I can't decide if he wants it based on its mineral resources or if he would start some heinous program sending all non-whites to Greenland. That thought churns my stomach, but based off of this administration I don't think much will surprise me.

Surprisingly, it's based on something rather more... logical. And believe it or not, Trump isn't the first American president who expressed interest in buying Greenland. After WWII Harry Truman offered the Danes 100 million dollars for it.

Why?  I've been digging into the issue a bit, and found some interesting facts.

First of all, Greenland has valuable resources, like uranium, metals, gas and oil. Secondly, there is the so-called 'Arctic silk road', a trade route that is of significance because it's much shorter than the trade route through the Suez canal. Greenland lies along this Arctic trade route. The more Arctic ice melts, the more ships can make use of this trade route, so its importance will only grow as the climate changes. (Side note: Could this also be a reason why there is such reluctance to do something about climate change?)

At the moment, China has acquired a lot of business interests in Greenland, and they are poised to expand their economic involvement in the country.  There are also some fears China is going to try to gain some military presence on Greenland as well. As their economy is being shored up by Denmark, and 60% of Greenland's treasury is currently being filled by the Danes, Greenland needs foreign investments to be financially stable if they were to gain independence. At the moment, sentiments towards independence from Denmark are growing, and Greenland is rather welcoming of Chinese investments, much to the consternation of the US and EU.

Acquiring Greenland would put an end to China's influence in the arctic region, which would be economically and politically advantageous. 

So, although it sounds ludicrous that the US would want to buy Greenland, and Trump personally may be thinking of his own business interests before any other advantages, it isn't really that weird as it seems on the face of it. Other than the fact that you simply can't buy another country, that is.

 

[fraurosena]

Yeah, yeah, we know he's a lying liar that lies. Still, it's eye-roll inducing to see it so blatantly like this.

 

[WiseGirl]

47 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Trump personally may be thinking of his own business interests before any other advantages

Trump? Put himself and his interests before anything else even the country he is supposed to be leading? Surely you jest (this is all sarcasm directed directly at 45).

What a baby man - can't get what he wants so throws a tantrum. I'm so embarrassed to be "represented"(and I use that term very loosely) by him. To quote some my students "I just can't even (with him)." I have to cease to be amazed at how much lower he can go and what a buffoon he is. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

The Fed is part of his own administration, not some stand alone entity. Like a cannibal, he is attacking his own flesh. In doing so, he's showing his absolute inability to lead.

Apart from that, the nonsense he's spouting about the Fed's actions is dumbfounding and reveals, once again, his complete lack of economic insight.