Reason Roundup

Trump Says His Crummy Google Results May Be a Crime: Reason Roundup

Plus: "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio faces voters again, states go after sexual-assault NDAs, and Louisiana florists fight licensing exams.

|

Google: Thomas Peter/REUTERS/Newscom; Trump: PAPPIS JEAN PIERRE POLARIS/SIPA/Newscom

President says poor search results might be illegal. On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump was apparently up early and searching for himself on Google—and he did not like what he saw. Too much "Fake News Media" and CNN, not enough pro-Trump news from "Republican/Conservative & Fair Media."

Trump's tweets come close to the now common genre of self-own in which someone can't believe the odd or lurid search results/Facebook ads/etc. that they're being served and announce it publicly, ostensibly without realizing that these results are generally tailored to individuals based on their web history. I won't go so far as to say that Google algorithms aren't political (they even agree to cooperate with government and advocacy groups to feature public-service announcements when people search for certain topics; and yesterday's image honored John McCain); but they're not political in a partisan or traditional way.

Their biggest determinate, broadly speaking, is based on how popular a given page or website is and how relevantly packaged to a particular search term. If pro-Trump "Fair Media" isn't getting prominent play in Google, it's a matter of quality and demand, not conspiracy.

Trump's Twitter tantrum over Google has the quaint ring of someone's muttering granddad…until you get to the last bit: "Illegal?"

And it gets worse:

So now, in addition to data-grubbing and ad-micromanaging senators, social-media monitoring cops, Russia-bot hysteria in Congress, politicians playing to the worst tendencies of online outrage mobs, "net neutrality," the rising popularity of digital deplatforming, and generally mounting online censorship, we have a president who thinks his poor Google results are a crime. This doesn't seem particularly likely to end well.

Even if Trump's comments are off-the-cuff and absurdly petty—another one of the president's impotent (and often self-defeating) public cursings of his perceived enemies—they coincide with a growing popularity among Democrats and Republicans in D.C. for demanding more "accountability" from online platforms. Pretty much all ruling power in Washington right now would like to have more control over what appears in Google results, on YouTube, on Twitter, and all over the web. Until recently, that would have proved too politically unpopular to gain much traction.

But the European Union has gotten away with increasing clampdowns. Once radical tech companies have grown big enough that their bottom lines require increasing fealty to the state. The Russia situation has melted at least a third of Americans' brains (approximately) to the point where they're ready to hand over post-9/11-get-the-Muslims levels of control for alleged protection.

And rank-and-file liberals and conservatives, with their demands to do something about offensive speech and about supposed partisan bias being so much as allowed by private companies, have played right into the hands of Trump, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri), and all the other authoritarian dopes in D.C. clamoring to control what we read, watch, and say online.

ELECTION 2018

Kelli Ward/Twitter

"Sherriff Joe" Arpaio faces voters today, as Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma hold primary elections. Arpaio—who lost his longtime seat as Maricopa County sheriff in 2016 and was pardoned by President Trump of federal criminal charges last year—is now running in the Arizona Republican primary for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Arpaio faces sitting U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, the establishment conservative candidate, and Kelli Ward, a former state senator who is currently on a bus tour around Arizona with the likes of former alt-right figurehead Mike Cernovich and Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren.

Democrats in Arizona today will choose a challenger for the state's gubernatorial race, in which Republican Gov. Doug Ducey faces reelection. "Democratic state Sen. Steve Farley, Arizona State University education professor David Garcia and Kelly Fryer, the CEO of the YWCA Southern Arizona, face off to challenge Ducey in a traditionally red state that has shifted to the left in recent years," reports CNN.

The primary comes days before Ducey faces a major decision: Who to appoint to fill McCain's seat. He'll have to choose between a Trump-like Republican and someone in the McCain mold—or could try to bridge the gap, potentially with a placeholder pick.

Florida voters today choose Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, as current Gov. Rick Scott is barred by term limits from running again. Scott is now running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Florida Democrat Bill Nelson. "Arizona and Florida also each have several primaries for House seats that are expected to be competitive in November's midterm elections," notes CNN.

In Oklahoma, time is also up for the current governor, Republican Mary Fallin. Democrats are running current attorney general Drew Edmondson to take her place. GOP voters today will choose between businessman Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett as a challenger.

FREE MINDS

States reconsider sexual harassment policies for public and private entities. In the wake of the #MeToo movement's turning its gaze on political leaders, the force to Do Something was strong. "About half of all state legislative chambers have followed through with at least some sort of change to their sexual harassment policies, most often by boosting their own training," the Associated Press reports.

Others have been taking aim at the way private companies can arbitrate sexual harassment claims. Lawmakers "introduced bills in at least 16 states this year to restrict the use by private employers of non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures." In Arizona, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, these measures passed. "Lawmakers in California also took action this past week, sending two bills to the governor," notes AP:

One, championed by actress Jane Fonda and former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, would prohibit employers from requiring nondisclosure agreements related to sexual misconduct as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

The other would ban settlements in sexual harassment or discrimination cases that seek to keep the circumstances secret. It would apply to the private sector, government agencies and the Legislature.

Legal experts say it's not clear yet what effect such legislation will have on sexual harassment in the workplace. Some warned that the new laws could have unintended consequences.

FREE MARKETS

Fighting back against Big Florist in the deep south. Louisiana is "the only state in the union that requires florists to pass a licensing exam before they can make and sell flower arrangements," notes Danny Heitman at The Wall Street Journal. After failed attempts at legislative reform, it's become clear that "the path to fixing Louisiana's burdensome licensing requirements" runs "through the courts, not the GOP Legislature," Heitman suggests.

Critics of licensing have scored a victory on another front, however. Confronted by a lawsuit, Louisiana's Board of Cosmetology dropped many of its requirements this spring for practitioners of a hair-removal technique known as eyebrow threading. The state had required eyebrow threaders to take 750 hours of beauty-school courses and three exams, at a cost of $6,000 to $13,000. The Institute for Justice, the libertarian nonprofit behind the lawsuit, agreed to drop the case after regulators backed off. Now eyebrow threaders need to pass one test and obtain a permit. Total cost: $50.

QUICK HITS

NEXT: How Trustworthy Does Facebook Think You Are?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. President says poor search results might be illegal.

    RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

    1. Hello.

      Arpaio doesn’t know how to get hints, eh?

      “How the Dutch do sex education.”

      They split it? They go half-half?

      They go Dutch?

  2. A federal appeals court says North Carolina congressional districts “were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans over Democrats and…it may require new districts before the November elections.”

    Also everyone has to change their zip codes.

  3. but they’re not political in a partisan or traditional way.

    *snicker* Sure.

    1. Lizzie the lezzie will never let go of her delusion that everyone is dumb enough to believe her total bullshit.

  4. In California, a state legislator has “introduced legislation to ban filtered cigarettes, and San Francisco is now charging a 60-cent litter surcharge on all packs of smokes sold.”

    Yes, get that sweet, sweet nicotine in the lungs unmolested.

    1. Do you get your money back if you bring your butts back in similar to bottle return laws?

    2. The result would be more littering because it is pre-paid.

  5. Even if Trump’s comments are off-the-cuff and absurdly petty?another one of the president’s impotent (and often self-defeating) public cursings of his perceived enemies?they coincide with a growing popularity among Democrats and Republicans in D.C. for demanding more “accountability” from online platforms.

    Stop referring to them as platforms. They have turned into publishers. Treat them as such.

    1. I’m noticing a pattern here.

      Look at how crazy and paranoid Trump is.
      Oh, they were spying on him?
      Look at how crazy and paranoid Trump is.
      Oh, CNN isn’t objective?

      And so on…

      1. Trump was crazy. He thinks the FBI was spying on his campaign and that foreign intelligence services hacked Hillary’s server. The man is deranged.

        Then all that turns out to be true but somehow it is Trump who is deranged

  6. “A research project attempted to replicate 21 social science experiments published between 2010 and 2015 in the prestigious journals Science and Nature. Only 13 replication attempts succeeded.”

    Does this mean Hillary is president?

    1. And the blue dress is clean?

  7. The FBI is admitting that the Chinese hacked Hillary’s private server. Remember when that was just a conspiracy theory? As always the knuckle dragers were right and the smart set wrong

    1. You can’t be wrong if you’re smart. Because you’re too smart to be wrong. QED.

      Typing that made my head hurt.

      1. Reading it made my head hurt but it is actually what people believe

    2. That FBI investigation would tie in nicely with the Chinese spy on Feinstein’s staff.

      The Chinese just want free trade with the USA nothing else. Nothing to see here.

      Nevermind the Chinese man-made islands in the South China Sea being built as tiny military outposts and the massive Chinese spying effort to steal tech, influence elections, and deflect American attention from Chinese hostility.

    3. John trusts the FBI now?

      1. I would bet that John sorta trusts an FBI that admits they fucked up and says so.

      2. Does jeff?

  8. Burning Man versus the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    Native Americans don’t want that naked paganism anywhere near them.

    1. There’s actually a huge SJW shitstorm raging about Burners appropriating Native culture.

      Not that you’re surprised to hear this.

  9. “the only state in the union that requires florists to pass a licensing exam before they can make and sell flower arrangements,”

    how about flour arrangements like cakes and pies?

  10. He proposed several unusual ideas: appointing a special master to draw new districts

    I’m always impressed when judges attempt to make legislation themselves.

    1. Because special masters are special and know what is good for people I guess

      1. If you just eyeballed the map without knowing partisan breakdown, you might conclude it is one of the least gerrymandered maps around. It generally uses whole counties and cities and is relatively geographically compact. For example, you could roughly describe the shape of the three D districts as “Charlotte”, “Raleigh Durham”, and “the area west of the northern Tidewater region”.

        I doubt you could specify a way to describe the physical shape of congressional districts that would implicate the NC districts but not also implicate maybe 100 or so other districts in both red and blue states.

        1. For example, compare the NC congressional districts to the ones from IL or TX, and look at how the big cities are gerrymandered in the latter two states.

        2. I doubt you could either. Every district has uneven lines of some sort

      2. Because the one thing a political process is certain to find is a completely disinterested person.

  11. President says poor search results might be illegal.

    fairness doctrines all the way down

  12. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08…..-warrants/

    FBI admitted to leaking information and then using the resulting news reports as “independent confirmation ” of their information to get a FISA warrant. This is the biggest civil rights scandal since Snowden. Reason will deal with it by yawning and saying the Republicans are playing politics because TRUMP!!

    1. Judicial Watch reported on a McCain staffer asking Lerner to crack down on Tea Party/conservative organizations and engage in ‘financially ruinous targeting’. Remember when people were crazy snowflakes for bringing this up?

      Of course, Obama lurked in the background on that.

      McCain: Man of the people and downtrodden.

      In the end, he was just a giant text book on the case for term limits and an establishment creature who held people in contempt.

      And he looks too much like Cotton Hill.

      1. If MCCain were 1/10th of the man his fans claimed he was, he would have retired from public life after losing the 08 election. How craven he was.

        1. Or when he got sick.

          As a humble public servant having served the fine people of Arizona I step aside in order to ensure this great state continues to move forward.

          But noooooo. He chose all the shenanigans much like that other sociopath Hilary.

          1. But apparently he told some staffer that he wants a Hispanic woman to be appointed his replacement.
            So there’s that

            1. If she’s a *wise* Latina, the people of Arizona will come out ahead compared to what they had under McCain.

      2. Hey, Cotton lost both his shins and killed fitty men. McCain was involved in a huge disaster and then got captured after being shot down. I think we know who wins this round.

        1. +1 “Hank’s wife”.

      3. You realize there were years of investigations into the IRS scandal, and the allegations didn’t hold up?

        1. Investigations by the FBI while Obama was president, right?

          Yeah, surely there was zero corruption there.

        2. You do realize that Judicial Watch sued and got the internal IRS documents that show that is what McCain did

          http://www.judicialwatch.org/p…..targeting/

          Do yourself a favor and remember to only lie about things that cannot so easily be proven. Dumb ass

          1. It wasn’t partisan. Applications were flagged for “Progressive”, “Occupy”, etc.

            I read the Judicial Watch document. He was asking about organizations that were primarily political but organized under 501c4, which they shouldn’t qualify for. His idea was quickly shot down.

            This nothing burger doesn’t even have lettuce! No wonder Trump’s DOJ refused to reopen the case.

            1. The IRS apologized and paid out millions in settlements to tea party organizations. Stop fucking lying

        3. All of those conveniently crashed harddrives sure helped.

    2. So their sources for this story are (1) unnamed unidentified leakers from a closed door meeting, and (2) Team Red partisans.

      Totally legit!

      1. This is something that is easily refuted by the FBI were it not true. The Daily Caller knows that. So they clearly have confidence it is true or they would not have published it. Moreover, the FBI has not refuted this. If they didn’t admit this to Congress, it would be a simple matter to show that and make the Caller retract this story. They have not done this. That is pretty conclusive proof that it is true.

        Are you this dumb or just think everyone else is?

        1. Yes, John, when unnamed leakers and Team Blue partisans saying critical things about Trump are given front page stories in the New York Times, we all know that your initial response to these stories is “well, we should immediately believe the claims, believe in the reputation of the New York Times not to get it wrong, and put the burden of proof on Trump to disprove them”.

          1. Ad hominem is a fallacy you moron. What they leak might be true as well and sometimes is. If this wasn’t true, the FBI would have denied it.

            How can you be this stupid?

          2. Jeff, are you saying that the FBI isn’t *capable* of this? The new found skepticism is a good look. You should keep it.

        2. >if the FBI doesn’t a deny a news story about the FBI, that proves its true

          Lmao John you are fucking retarded and I will laugh when you defend Trump signing the first gun control bill a Dem house gives him after a school shooting

          1. The FBI doesn’t deny it and disprove it out of kindness I guess. How are people as stupid as you are?

            Get some help Hihn.

  13. we have a president who thinks his poor Google results are a crime. This doesn’t seem particularly likely to end well.

    i really hope he’s never elected to a body of government that is tasked with writing laws.

    1. Boob bait for the boobs on both sides. Trump is a master of that

  14. How the Dutch do sex education.

    They’re only setting themselves up for a huge incel gap with the United States.

  15. Hey Reason, I would have thought that you of all news sources would have mentioned that Oklahoma is also holding a runoff for the Libertarian Governor candidates.

  16. They’re really going with this analogy, huh? https://t.co/WK6fXD5JNe
    ? Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 27, 2018

    EXCEPT TRUMP’S VAULT ISN’T EMPTY.

    1. They are finally going to get the goods on Trump not being faithful to his wife. This will change everything


  17. Donald J. Trump
    ?
    @realDonaldTrump
    ….results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!

    Did the Idiot-in-Chief just discover Google?

  18. “So now, in addition to data-grubbing and ad-micromanaging senators, social-media monitoring cops, Russia-bot hysteria in Congress, politicians playing to the worst tendencies of online outrage mobs, “net neutrality,” the rising popularity of digital deplatforming, and generally mounting online censorship, we have a president who thinks his poor Google results are a crime. This doesn’t seem particularly likely to end well.”

    I don’t see where Trump said that Google results are a crime.

    That whole paragraph is a concern. TDS may not be a medical condition, but out of control anxiety is needless suffering. There are anti-anxiety medications you can take, but you need to go in and seek some professional help.

    Remember, anxiety isn’t psychotic. It’s the rationalization of things in a particular way. It’s filling in the blanks with the worst possible interpretations.

    1. Trump almost never actually is saying what the media claims he does. They always either take it out of context or just straight up lie about what he said. And they wonder why no one pays any attention to them

      1. Gillespie said something the other day about how Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, where Trump’s detractors take him literally but not seriously.

        In some people’s cases, they take things Trump never said literally.

        Did I miss it? It wouldn’t be the first time. I’ll miss important things again. I’m just imperfect that way . . .

        But where did Trump say that Google results are a crime? Where can she be getting that but from her own imagination?

        That paragraph I quoted would make a great commercial for Prozac.

        1. Did I miss it?

          Did you read his tweets? Where he said, “illegal?”

          1. I addressed this below.

        2. I think it is the post modernism they learn in college. All that matters is the narrative in their heads. The facts must be made to conform to it.

          1. Andrew Klavan discusses narratives here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4e9SJ8wPUg

            1. Damn. Thanks Rufus. I never even heard of Klavan and he mad some very good points about the culture wars that conservatives dont even fight.

              It equates to Libertarians always bitching about government, so many of us dont get into government. Yet getting into government to steer it Libertarian is essential.

        3. Where was this distinction when any other president was in office?

          Let’s not grade the most powerful human on earth on a curve, how about? This isn’t special ed governmenting.

      2. One of the things that drove me to listen to Limbaugh years ago was to see how with my own ear (I have one bad ear) the media twisted and/or pulled out of context stuff he was saying.

        And sure enough, the very first day I ever listened they completely (and purposefully no doubt) butchered his point he was making (I forget exactly what it was. I just remember grabbing my apple pie at McDonald’s at a drive-thru and going ‘huh. I’ll be damned’).

        Next thing I know. I’m listening to him more and can’t tell you how many times he was misrepresented.

        Not that I necessarily agree with everything he says but it became sort of a hobby for a time for me.

        1. The thing with Limbaugh is that he is funny and an entertainer. A lot of the things he says, while meant to illustrate a larger point, are just hyperbole and humor and not meant literally. His fans get that. The dunderheaded liberals who obsess over him don’t. They really are too literal minded and earnest to understand what they are hearing

          1. Exactly and precisely that.

            People who blast him usually do so through 2nd and 3rd hand info. They NEVER listened.

            It’s like reviewing a book you never read.

          2. Salena Zito described Trump in 2016. His fans listen to him seriously not literally. The media does not get this.

          3. The thing with Limbaugh Jon Stewart is that he is funny and an entertainer. A lot of the things he says, while meant to illustrate a larger point, are just hyperbole and humor and not meant literally. His fans get that. The dunderheaded liberals conservatives who obsess over him don’t. They really are too literal minded and earnest to understand what they are hearing

            1. Sure no one ever said Stewart wasn’t a comedian. Now go find me where Limbaugh selectively edits interviews to make people look bad and uses his platform to go after average people who have no way to fight back the way Stewart did.

              Beyond Stewart’s appalling ethics, he and Limbaugh are pretty similar. So, either complain about both or shut up about both. I choose to complain about neither.

        2. Trouble is, if you listen to Limbaugh for an hour or so, you’ll hear him misrepresenting what his Leftist targets have said. Never any nuance on either side, just building a wagon load of strawmen to set on fire.

          1. Sure. It is entertainment not the College of Athens. And it is no more guilty of that then every news show on cable

          2. Oh for sure but he lets his audience figure that out.

            I think there’s always some lee-way people generally accept from both sides.

            I’m okay with that.

            I would argue, though, there’s more nuance with Limbaugh because of the nature of his style. He definitely appeals to history – which I feel he gets right more than not.

      3. How odd that the media and reason didn’t cover this.

        “Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police,” Trump tweeted. “If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all.”

        But those are just words and tweets and what’s impprtant is to pay attention to trump’s words..
        and,um, tweets?

    2. As a duplicitous leftist, every single day of the last 18-20 months have been a living nightmare for the poor woman. It’s almost pitiable.

      1. It must be a horrible existence to be someone like Jennifer Rubin or Brett Stephens. Their entire career and livelihoods depend on acting completely unhinged and crazy. It is like being a circus clown only no one is supposed to laugh

        1. Like Max Kellerman and Stephen A. Smith going all racist and showcasing their skullduggery and faux-righteous indignation over Tiger Woods?

          I’ve seen and heard ignorance in my time but oooo nelly….that was something else.

          1. I didn’t see that. The sad thing is that I think Smith actually has a brain. He just has gotten trapped into pretending to be a complete characture of himself as his career

            1. I would never accuse him of being stupid. He’s sharp.

              But he does fall into his blind spots for sure. This is one of them.

            2. They’re just pissed because they thought the “Racial Draft” on Chappelle’s Show was actually real.

          2. STEVE SMITH NOT RACIST, HE RAPIST AND DOESN’T DISCRIMINATE

    3. “I don’t see where Trump said that Google results are a crime.”

      He did say this, (emphasis is mine). I assume that’s what ENB is latching onto.
      Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal?

      I, too, think it was probably meant to be tongue-in-cheek from Trump. This is probably the case where ignoring his rant on Twitter and waiting to see if he acts on it is the right course of action.

      1. Written like that leaves a lot for interpretation. Only people infected with TDS (among its symptoms is the neutering of spotting nuanced rhetoric) would take it literally.

        Then again, he’s LITERALLY Hitler.

        I’m seeing his tweets as tongue in cheek more and more. The media hasn’t figured it out it seems like.

        1. That sums it up pretty well Rufus.

        2. The idea that Trump is about to dispatch the FBI to do a Waco style raid of Google headquarters because their search results aren’t balanced seems pretty far fetched.

          I’d go so far as to say the idea that Trump will sponsor legislation through congress that will regulate Google results pretty far fetched, too. How would that even be possible to do?

          If I had to guess? I’d say that “illegal?” might be a function of Trump thinking about campaign finance laws a lot lately. He’s been accused of violating campaign finance laws because his personal payment to Stormy Daniels kept information away from the public that might have changed the outcome of the election. If I’d spent last week being subjected to such rhetoric by the media, I might shoot back that Google could be accused of the same thing if their search results are biased against Trump’s candidacy–and people get better search results for various reasons, some of which might involve advertising.

          I’m not saying that logic is acceptable or libertarian or that I approve of that logic. But if I had to guess, I’d bet that’s what he was thinking.

          Honestly, I read right over that because the idea that Trump was trying to criminalize Google results was so far fetched, it never even entered my mind.

          1. Not clear about the coordinating with the campaign issue, huh?
            Google can spend $10 billion on campaigns. That’s what Citizen’s United was.
            They can’t do it in coordination with a campaign or candidate.

            1. So about all of those google staffers working for Barry’s election…

      2. I see that now–since you pointed it out. Thank you for that.

        I guess this is like what Gillespie said, where Trump’s detractors take him literally but not seriously.

        I don’t expect Trump to do anything more about Google results than he did about NFL players refusing to stand during the national anthem. In fact, I expect him to do less than he did with that.

        Filling in the blanks with all the worst possible interpretations remains a primary symptom of an anxiety disorder.

        P.S. There’s an election in eight weeks, and it’s a referendum on Trump himself. I expect all kinds of silliness ahead of that.

        1. Trump uses the media against themselves.

          Trump sees some issue that bugs him. He tweets about it in a vague way. The media takes it and runs with it in the most Lefty mypoic way and it gets national attention. The Silent Majority mostly supports Trump and takes every instance of media outrage as a sign of how bad the media is.

          The Silent Majority votes accordingly.

      3. Illegal is not the same as something being a crime. Anti trust violations are illegal but not criminal for example. And that was what Trump was talking about

        1. Sure it was, John. When he wrote “Illegal?” in an early morning tweet, he surely was referencing the nuances of antitrust law. Why, anyone can see that plainly!

          1. Words have meanings. You can wish he said “crime”. All you want. But he didn’t. He said illegal and that is what that means. Stop expecting other people to join into your delusions

            1. John, you give new meaning to the phrase “giving Trump the benefit of the doubt”.

              1. Yes. You never would and forever assume he must have meant a word he didn’t use. That is your delusion not mine. I will consider him saying it should be a crime when he says so not when I hope and imagine he did

                1. A question mark is the proper punctuation to use when making a declarative statement. It is known.

    4. I don’t see where Trump said that Google results are a crime.

      ???

      Did I misread the tweet? In what way does “Illegal” not refer to criminal activity?

      1. You dropped a character at the end. It’s kinda important?.

    5. And I suppose you’ll be doing the diagnosing? Fuck off.

  19. “The recent election continues to have a measurable impact on people’s moods, with many of my clients (and friends and family) expressing fear, sadness, and anger . . . . As a cognitive-behavioral therapist, however, I am trying to help people adjust their thinking, not just their behavior. How can I feel less hopeless? What can I do to stop the downward spiral of catastrophic thinking?”

    “5 Ways to Stop Catastrophizing”

    —-Psychology Today

    http://www.psychologytoday.com…..trophizing

    1. If the Dem don’t take the House, it is going to get really ugly for these people. Imagine if Trump is re-elected

      1. Someone on here predicted that when Trump is reelected and/or election 2018 goes poorly for Lefties, violent Lefty groups will make a comeback (Weather underground, Black panthers, etc).

    2. Step 4: Go to a nice quiet FEMA concentration camp and get white genocided by Malia Obama after selling your children to Hillary Clinton, then your troubles will be over.

  20. Maybe it is time for a conservative search engine just like there is conservative news (Fox, Newsmax, Bratfart), schools (BJU, Hillsdale, Liberty), encyclopedia (Conservapedia), science (Creationism, no AGW) etc.

    Conservatism is like an advanced form of stupidity.

    1. …did you just call yourself a conservative?

      1. If he thinks conservatives have a monopoly on stupidity, then that’s where his stupidity would fit in.

  21. Google results only show what people want to see when they search. Like the results I received for Hillary Clinton just now included a few stories about the importance of the time she drank vodka with John McCain, a profile of her post-election life from NY mag, you know… the stories everyday people like me are dying to read

    1. A conservative search engine would return results reflecting her cannibalism and child predator activities.

      1. There will probably never be a conservative search engine because conservatives generally don’t need to inject their politics into work and every other aspect of their lives

        1. Exactly. And even if there were, it would eventually be infiltrated and turned into a leftist organization by Progs

        2. Now that’s funny right there.

        3. There are explicitly conservative social media platforms, like Gab.

          Take a look at it and report back what you see.

          1. You mean explicitly open to all speech. I can see how that can be confusing though.

    2. Everyone knows google results are just advertising. At some point the value of being the top google result is going to diminish to the point that the company will no longer have a business model

  22. It is rather odd that Google tends to use left-wing anti-Trump Fake News sources like CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo, TIME, Bloomberg, et al as their top links instead of the conservative pro-Trump press such as the East Armpit Weekly Shopper, the Frogass County Fish Wrapper and the Bumfuck Litterbox Liner. I’m sure Google’s top search results aren’t based on the fact that approximately 100% of the top news sources are biased against Trump.

    1. I know. It is not like those first ones you list are not constantly caught lying and trusted by virtually no one or anything

    2. It’s almost as if he really is anti-establishment. I really don’t know.

    3. I wrote elsewhere today about how Facebook has a lot of problems because their free to user model means they don’t get price signals from their users–only their advertisers.

      There’s something like that going on in the news distribution business, as well.

      It was shortly after Gates barely beat the antitrust case against him that he bought into MSNBC. He was following the lead of his mentor, Warren Buffet, who had owned Washington Post and Cap Cities/ABC since long before they became the basis of his holdings in Disney.

      They own these assets for more than their return on equity. Journalists who may need or want a job at NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Washington Post, ABC, or a plethora of other news outlets probably doens’t have much bad to say about Messrs. Buffet and Gates. And the media outlets they own are covering that place on the left that are most likely to criticize them or their companies.

      That has value far beyond the cash flow statement. When you see how much any particular channel contributes to these Mega-corporations’ bottom lines, you wonder why they even bother.

      Gates isn’t into MSNBC for the money. I don’t think they really care about getting the best news out there to the largest number of people by giving the people what they want.

      It’s like a protection racket.

      And there’s a lot of that going around.

      1. Gates isn’t into MSNBC for the money. I don’t think they really care about getting the best news out there to the largest number of people by giving the people what they want.

        The funny thing is that this shit was discussed in the Gawker doc as a sinister trend in the industry–and while the conservative Sheldon Adelson buying the Las Vegas Herald was portrayed in a negative light, the Bezos purchase of WaPo was only alluded to. And of course Gates was never discussed.

  23. How mentally deranged are these Weigelian/Brownian/Welchian leftards in the JournoList? They tried to get Tiger Woods (who they usually worship and fawn over) to say that he hates Trump, and now they’re pissed at him because he refused to take the bait.

    1. It says a lot when someone is ridiculed for not jumping on the bandwagon. I have to hand it to Tiger, he could’ve taken the bait and immediately received “hero” status by saying anything even a little negative.

    2. Tiger Woods wants to be left alone so he can make a living. The nerve of that guy.

      I have always been a bit agnostic about Tiger. But I am becoming a fan.

    3. What’s the deal? Did they ask Brooks Kopeka about Trump? Or Phil Mickelson? Or Dustin Johnson? No, they ask a caucasian, amerindian, african, and 50% asian guy! No matter what he says, 50% of the people are going to be disappointed. All this “dividing up” from the people who claim they want to “unite the country.”

  24. Quoting a test tube soy creature like Chris Hayes is the most ENB thing ever.

    1. Madow’s Transgender little brother

  25. President says poor search results might be illegal

    Anti-trust at least.

    1. Yes. Illegal does not mean the same as criminal.

        1. Some laws are only enforceable civilly. Some laws are criminal but not all of them. It is against the law to form a monopoly. But doing that is not a crime in that it won’t result in a criminal conviction or anything beyond injunctive relief or non punitive fines

          1. So what’s the illegal activity again?

            1. Anything prohibited by the law. But illegal and criminal are not the same thing. Since you are a half wit, that point goes right over your head

              1. I mean specifically what is Trump referring to?

                1. too few forced to google him. should be law.

        2. Yeah yeah, TDS is a two way street.

          1. No it’s not. The distinction between civil laws and criminal laws is the most basic one in law. It is against the law for me to Welch on a contract. Every state has a statute that says so and says you can sue me and get your money back if I do. It is not however a crime to welch on a contract

            1. I’m sure the President was splitting legal hairs when he posted that. A quick glance at a dictionary will put the lie to you and your bullshit. You are not funny and never have been. Which, as you have said yourself, makes you stupid. You are the current Bo Cara Esq. Big mouthed and tediou in the extreme.

              1. I don’t write the laws, I just read them. If you don’t like the laws, go change them or live in another universe. In this universe words have meanings and insisting on those meanings is not splitting hairs.

                The bottom line is that if Google is part of a cartel or has monopoly power over search results, their manipating them is a violation of anti trust law and is illegal. It is just a civil offense and not a crime.

                I don’t know what else to tell you other than you seem to be untrainable

              2. And no I am not funny. I am right. Being right usually isn’t very funny.

                  1. I just explained to you what I am talking about and why you are wrong. Just admit it and save yourself some dignity. You are only making yourself look worse

                    1. News flash! All dictionaries to be recalled and “corrected” because John.

                    2. News flash. Illegal is a different word than crime. Do you just enjoy being ignorant?

                    3. Whatever you do Bo, don’t pick up a dictionary and look up the word and its synonyms.

                    4. Synonym? When did that start meaning “exactly the same”?

        3. The media jumps to the conclusion that Trump meant sending Antifa Brownshirts into Google and arresting all Google staff for some criminal violation of law.

          Trump could have meant civil violations of law, like Anti-Trust.

          Trump says vague things, which the media never follows up on. Instead the media uses what Trump says to spin into propaganda to further some TDS goal.

  26. I see Reason is still too scared to speak out against what is going on in South Africa.

    Reason
    Ignorant Minds and Broke Markets

    1. They also have hardly noticed the dystopian Rand novel playing out in Venezuela. They manage to find the time and space to talk about infringements on liberty abroad all of the time. Yet, they ignore the two worst disasters for freedom this decade. It is almost like they only cover stories that fit their cultural leftist perspective or something.

      1. You gonna abandon this den of progressivism for more Nazi-friendly forums?

        1. John never said he was going to The Atlantic, which caters to Socialist Nazis.

        2. So you endorse mass murder and property confiscation. We already knew that but thanks for reminding everyone

          1. Even Tucker Carlson walked this shit back John. You’re letting neo-nazi folklore infest your already conservatarded worldview. Just be careful with that shit.

            1. What shit? South Africa is going to confiscate huge tracks of land without compensation and white farmers are murdered by the dozens every year with almost no one ever being brought to justice. Those are the facts.

              Stop getting your news from Tucker Carlson. You are dumb enough already

              1. Link please.

                  1. Just as long as you keep your rhetoric from going overboard, and I expect a criticism of Trump for his “large-scale killings” comment.

                    Good reading on the topic.

                    The point is there’s a reason you care about this particular story among all the injustice in the world, and it’s not because you’re a scholar of South African political science.

                1. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/…..ar/9591724

                  About 70 farmers a year are murdered in South Africa. I love how that is portrayed as some kind of defense of the situation. Hey only 70 people a year have their home invaded and are murdered because of the color of their skin. Well I guess that is okay then

                  1. Hey only 70 people a year have their home invaded and are murdered because of the color of their skin. Well I guess that is okay then

                    It’s okay with leftists, as long as the people being killed are white.

                  2. Farm murders in SA are at their lowest levels in 20 years.

                    1. Yes Tony, you don’t care about people being murdered. We know that. If they were murdering the equivalent number of gays here you would not think it was okay because the numbers are down. But in that case you would give a shit about the murders and here you think they are just fine

                    2. John you started this, but I’m too kind to suggest that you only care about the murder of white people by brown people, which would almost be unavoidably indicated by the selective outrage here, parroted from neo-Nazi sources on their white genocide kick. I wouldn’t dream of it.

                    3. Farm murders in SA are at their lowest levels in 20 years.

                      Doesn’t refute what I said.

                    4. Farm murders in SA are at their lowest levels in 20 years.

                      As long as you use a complex methodology that basically redefines nearly everyone in SA as a farmer.

                      FTFY

                    5. “Farm murders in SA are at their lowest levels in 20 years.”

                      And racially moitvated farm murders?

      2. “the two worst disasters for freedom this decade”

        Venezuela is a stone cold lock. But South Africa?

        Really?

        Worse than the Syrian War and the outright demise of about 25 democracies in the same timeframe? Gotcha.

        Blow that dog whistle harder, boy. Don’t forget to keep up the reverse-SJW act of setting up a big fat strawman and accusing anyone not parroting your white grievance bullshit of being racist against white people.

        Yes, murder is bad. Racism is baaaad. But of allllllll the countries in the world where 70 minorities get murdered in a year, (Myanmar’s in the middle of a genocide, right?) you apparently only give a shit about this particular one, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with you being a white guy deeply invested in white guy identity politics.

        Just remember that 70 deaths a year is a drop in the bucket and the REAL White Genocide comes in the form of white women betraying their race by accepting the poisonous seed of Jews and blacks into their wombs

        1. I think the richest country in Africa going the way of Zimbabwe is a big deal and a tragedy. But hey, you hear a dog whistle and don’t really care if the brown people in Africa end up in a hellish nightmare like Zimbabwe did.

          But it is all of us who are racist and not you. Yeah sure pal

    2. That’s OK, I learned everything I need to know about the South Africa situation from NPR the other day. They called it a “complex land use debate” and pointed out that some people, including black people, died on land owned by white people.

    3. Shut the fuck up Cathy.

  27. It used to be that media would report what a president says or does.

    Now the president says or does what the (right-leaning) media reports.

    1. (right-leaning) media

      “Anyone not supporting the glorious Soviet revolution is a collaborator or fascist!”

  28. Burning Man versus the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    White Democrats still trying to fuck the Indians over.

  29. Well, the desperate hand-wringing excuses for the president continuing his rapid slide into paranoid psychosis and attacking the first amendment are just about as shitty and numerous as I expected.

    1. Exactly.

      The real problem is too many fake Russian Facebook trolls being allowed to post during elections.

      Along with electioneering communications during elections.

      And the fake news that trolls spread, undermining our democracy.

      Propaganda works or it wouldn’t exist, and it’s time we saved democracy!

      Why Trump is so paranoid about free communication hurting him, I have no idea. It’s probsbly his small dick.

  30. MAGA! (see page 2 of Google)

    DuckDuckGo is better. Supposedly dont track and less ads.

  31. Am i the only one shocked that Adam Lovinger isnt mentioned here too often? You would think his story would be in Reason’s wheel house.

    1. Reason thinks Brennnen losing his clearance is a huge deal but doesn’t care about that guy. Reason cares about civil rights unless they protect someone associated with Trump. Then it is different because PRINCIPLES!!

    2. http://pjmedia.com/trending/su…..-a-set-up/

      Lovinger says the Russian collusion was a set up and the biggest abuse of power since Watergate. If he is right, Reason will end up on the wrong side of the biggest abuse of law enforcement power and civil rights in our lifetime. It is little wonder they are not talking about him and hope he goes away.

      1. And he had his clearance revoked for going thru the proper channels to discuss the issues he found.

        *crickets*

        But remove clearance from a serial liar and a man who committed perjury before Congressional oversight and…well, we looking at a Constitutional crisis right there!

        1. It happened in 2017.
          Lovinger made the mistake of allying with Flynn at the beginning of the administration. When Flynn flamed out in spectacular fashion, McMaster came in to clear out the crazies he brought in.

          This is a Trumpian turf battle. He picked the wrong horse.

          1. His clearance was revoked by an obama holdover, but keep going with the narrative.

            1. The bosses, if it were a case of anti-Trump bias, would have reversed that decision in a hot minute.

              He got caught on the wrong side of a turf battle. Or, the appointees are so bad that they can’t control the department.

              1. The bosses, if it were a case of anti-Trump bias, would have reversed that decision in a hot minute.

                Explains Strzok being employed for over a year and all…

                Or, the appointees are so bad that they can’t control the department.

                Concerns about the bureaucracy trying to run the govt isn’t what libertarians have. Apparently.

    3. Because they don’t want to look like idiots when whatever allegation being circulated around the Republican partisan media falls apart?

      Because they aren’t partisan Republicans?

      1. You mean like the FBI getting a FISA warrant to spy on Trump or any of the other dozens of things liars like you swore were not true only to be later proven correct.

        Why is this guy lying other than you don’t like what he has to say?

        1. Exactly.
          Because that, as well, isn’t true.

          1. Aside from being completely wrong, you’re right.

            1. I know there were FISA warrants on Carter Page in 2014, before the campaign. I also know that there were warrants after Page left the campaign. None during the period when Page was part of the campaign.

              1. I know there were FISA warrants on Carter Page in 2014, before the campaign. I also know that there were warrants after Page left the campaign.

                ZZZIIIINNNGGG go the goalposts!

  32. >>>President says poor search results might be illegal.

    Roberts writing opinion on constitutionality of taxing us for not searching T

  33. In an alternative universe, President Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Liberal views are shut out of Fox News! Illegal??” And John simply said “well you know, it’s not like Hillary is going to be sending stormtroopers to Fox News HQ to arrest everyone. It’s not like she’s really an authoritarian censor at heart. There’s nothing to worry about! You can’t pay attention to what she says. You have to pay attention to what she does.”

    1. And you wouldn’t give shit about her saying it or even acting on it. You are not helping your case here

      1. Just once, John, I would love to see you apply some semblance of an objective standard to Trump, that you would apply just as equally and rigorously to Hillary or any other Team Blue partisan. But, I won’t hold my breath.

        1. I do apply one. You just don’t think so because you have no idea what objective looks like and think anything that disagrees with your warped perspective is just biased

          1. Lmao you suck Trump’s dick like it’s going out of style, friend. You’ll be over here blindly defending anything he does as somehow Libertarian via reverse psychology, be it tariffs, banning bump stocks, or confiscating the land of white farmers.

            The God Emperor can do no wrong. #WWG1WGA

        2. Just once, JohnJeff, I would love to see you apply some semblance of an objective standard to Trump, that you would apply just as equally and rigorously to Hillary or any other Team Blue partisan. But, I won’t hold my breath.

          Fixed that for you.

    2. Hillary advocated silencing everybody except the media from discussing candidates before an election.

      You know, the whole “CITIZENS UNITED IS BAD” nonsense.

      …a case, of course, based on the airing of a movie about her shortly before the 2008 election…

  34. EU politicians might agree with him.

  35. Even if Trump’s comments are off-the-cuff and absurdly petty?another one of the president’s impotent (and often self-defeating) public cursings of his perceived enemies?they coincide with a growing popularity among Democrats and Republicans in D.C. for demanding more “accountability” from online platforms.

    You don’t understand:
    Elements of the dark web conspire to thwart our democracy. Look at how rich and powerful interests control access to the internet, as well as Russian trolls, biased talk radio personalities, and data-hungry electioneering hackers, who have undeserved influence on political outcomes, hurting the democrat party.

    That’s totally different from Trump’s bitching about the internet’s unfairness. He’s just a whiny crazy bitch.

  36. Hmm, no thoughts on a review showing that China thoroughly hacked Hillary’s private email server and got basically every single email in there?

    Guess what FBI agent didn’t much care about it?

    Yup, Strzok.

    No issues there. No sir.

    1. When it is all said and done, we will learn the ENTIRE Russian collusion nonsense was to cover up for the spying on the Trump campaign. These people’s actions only make sense if you realize they believed Hillary would win.

      This also helps cover up the rot Obama inflicted.

      1. I wonder how much blackmail material the Chinese have thanks to that server. And it won’t just be on Hillary. The Chinese basically own the Democratic Party for the next few years

      2. Russia won either way. We’d probably be in year 2 of the “How Hillary stole the election” hearings in Congress if she won, and you’d believe every dumbass piece of horesehit that came out of Trey Gowdy’s Q-tip looking head.

        You idiots have an excuse for everything. Your man is a whiny manchild and you’re all imitating him and expecting normal people to think you’re OK and sane.

        1. You idiots have an excuse for everything

          Oh, the irony, coming from a hicklib who spouts excuses like Old Faithful.

    2. Is there any conspiracy theory you won’t jump to? Any news on Q?

      1. Q is old news. It’s all about JFK Jr. posting as R, now.

      2. So, no issues with China stealing emails from her illegal server? Got it.

      3. So, no issues with China stealing emails from her illegal server? Got it.

  37. Trump was probably kidding. After all, the mainstream press is all over the story that Trump giving money to his own campaign was a felony. And people take that nonsense seriously.

  38. Reason got any opinions on the Brown study on trans that got activists so pissed they pulled it?

    Note: climate realists do not do that to the warming cult.

  39. Poor manically insecure, paranoid, and delusional Dumb Donny. No wonder he wants the power to shut down the media they keep reporting the facts and truth about the pathological proven serial liar, life long con-man ,grifter, and gifted flimflam artist, now Google too? He’s afraid after his unpatriotic universally condemned childish McCain envy pique flag re-raising disgrace and then cowardly back down re-lowering, Dirty Donny is now justifiably concerned his naive, gullible, ignorant lemmings are going to start seeing him for what he is, a bad fake.

  40. Did he say it was a crime? Not really. But he did throw it out there, “illegal?”

    This is Trump classic. Put out provocative statement saying essentially what you want to say (and knowing the media will shit their pants about it and take it to its extreme meaning) but with enough plausible deniability that people can argue in a court of law that he didn’t say EXACTLY that. He’s a puss. Basically an internet provocateur / troll.

    His brainless followers will run with his sentiment wholeheartedly, most of them will end up agreeing with him that it should be illegal if he puts it out there enough; but the best part is, if he ends up looking like a fool (spoiler; he does) said brainless followers get to just go “I mean he was just asking the question! Cmon! TDS TDS TDS!!, give the guy a break! he didnt mean it IS illegal!”

    The history books, err, history i-Pads will be an interesting read when we look back at this very sad period. There will be a sweet footnote on the bottom of the page *but despite the 8 years of embarrassment the dow was good for a while though!!*

  41. Great information, very helpful, I will make sure to use the information for getting my blog out there!! Thanks for all the tips!!
    Arcade Games

  42. This looks amazing! I’m always looking for something new to try the post, so thanks for sharing!

    Puzzle Games

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.