Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

New research shows just how much Google’s search manipulation affects voters when making decisions. During the 2016 election, it was obvious that Google manipulated searches to favor Hillary Clinton while showing disproportionately negative stories about Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

And now we know just how effective all that had been, and it almost left us with Hillary as president.

Hillary Clinton may have lost by a substantially larger margin had Google not manipulated the search results in her favor. Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive by Breitbart, the conclusions are based on 16 months of experiments conducted with a total of 1,800 people from all 50 U.S. states. Participants in the study came from diverse ideological backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate. In order to control prior biases, participants were asked to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –meaning Google was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.” Meaning the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but was between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. 

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people.  Just look at the heavy amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing and Yahoo. The researchers suggested that the search suggestion manipulation made against Google during the 2016 election when the tech giant appeared to be suppressing negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while allowing negative suggestions for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to remain.

This is not a coincidence, especially when considering Google was the Clinton campaign’s largest corporate contributor. Google employees, including at least six high-ranking executives, donated more than $1.3 million to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Call it censorship or manipulation, but the truth is…Google attempted to rig the election for Hillary Clinton by manipulating searches and suggestions, and therefore, voters minds.

UPDATE! The FBI Scandal And FISA Memo: ‘It’s Worse Than Watergate’

By now, most have heard that the FISA memo detailing the major scandal in the FBI was released. Democrats and the deep state FBI are attempting damage control over the biggest scandal in American history.

Let’s start with the cold basic fact: if the left had any evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, it would have been broadcasted all over the deep state’s mainstream media.  Instead of constantly repeating the lie, we would have been shown the evidence. But there is no evidence. Not one single shred.  However, there is mounting evidence that the FBI used lies and false information to weaponize and politically align themselves with the left.

House Judiciary Committee member Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) stated in January, that the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by senior Obama administration officials are “worse than Watergate.”

Just to compare, according to History.com, the “Watergate scandal began early in the morning of June 17, 1972, when several burglars were arrested in the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate complex of buildings in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents.”

Although this parallels the scenario that unfolded in 1972, it is different in one striking and extremely disturbing way. This scandal involves the FBI, who chose sides politically. As Bloomberg reports, the “memo says that the FBI presented an opposition research dossier as evidence to a secret court for warrants to spy on Page beginning in October 2016. The bureau did not tell the court that this dossier was paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign through cutouts. Senior officials at the bureau and the Justice Department knew all of this, but declined to tell the judge who approved the warrant, according to the memo.”

So we can see similarities and differences between Watergate and the FISA abuse. Both occurred in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both involved the executive branch of government spying on member[s] of the opposition party who were seeking the White House, perhaps to gather dirt on them. Both used illegal means to effect that spying. Both involved paying ex-spies (ex-CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, for instance, in Nixon’s case) to make mischief.

As for the differences, the FISA abuse was perpetrated by government agencies while the Watergate break-in was the handiwork of the president’s campaign operatives. (Of course, if Nixon had FISA at his disposal, he might have been able to weaponize government agencies, too.) Also note that when campaign operatives surveil, it’s called spying; when government agencies spy, it’s called surveillance. –The New American

Democrats also spent the week before the FISA memo’s release lying to the American people. They repeatedly claimed the “memo was full of ‘classified information’ and releasing it would expose ‘our spying methods,’” as FrontPage Mag’s Daniel Greenfield put it. He then wryly opined, “By ‘our,’ they didn’t mean American spying methods. They meant Obama’s spying methods.” Greenfield later wrote that the “Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a ‘state within a state’ inside the United States government.”  Add in the fact that the mainstream media continued the lies to manipulate the minds of the public. All of this is turning out to be conspiracy fact, making the FISA abuse indeed far, far worse than Watergate.

“The mainstream media was exploited by the deep state to plant fake news,” Mike Adams declares. This scandal reaches far deeper than anyone could have ever imagined. “This is why the fake news media is a clear an present danger to America…and you’ve only begun to hear the surface of this [scandal].”

It’s fairly safe to say, that the sh*t has hit the fan and the government’s deep state ties and lies are all becoming apparent.  Unless you’ve got your head so far up Communism’s backside you can’t even comprehend reality at this point, it easy to see that the Democrats (the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign), the FBI, and Barack Obama himself may have done irreversible damage to the United States.

H/T [The New American]

Hillary Clinton’s Wealthy Backer Paid Women $500K To Accuse Trump Of Sexual Harassment Before Election

A wealthy backer of Democrat Hillary Clinton has been caught paying off women who would accuse Trump of sexual misconduct.

Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing and a major Clinton campaign donor for many years, gave the money to celebrity lawyer Lisa Bloom who was working with a number of Trump accusers at the time, according to the New York Times’ bombshell report.

Since the report came out on Sunday (New Year’s Eve) many haven’t been able to react to the news just yet.

As the #MeToo movement to expose sexual harassment roils the nation’s capital, political partisans are exploiting the moment, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support accusers who come forward with charges against President Trump and members of Congress, even amid questions about their motivation.

As accusations take on a partisan tint, activists and lawyers fear that such an evolution could damage a movement that has shaken Hollywood, Silicon Valley, media suites in New York and the hallways of Congress — and has taken down both a Democratic fund-raiser,Harvey Weinstein, and a conservative stalwart,Bill O’Reilly. -The New York Times

Bloom solicited donors by saying she was working with women who might “find the courage to speak out” against Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a “safe house,” the paper reported. Former Clinton nemesis turned Clinton operative David Brock also donated $200,000 to the effort through a nonprofit group he founded, the paper reported in an article entitled, “Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims.”

According to Fox News, Bloom claims she only contacted women whose stories she could corroborate. (Because she was there? It certainly makes one wonder how many of the accusers are being paid.) The Times article expanded on a report in The Hill two weeks ago that said Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets during the final months of the presidential election to arrange compensation for the alleged Trump victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories.

The report not only exposes the lengths that California lawyer Lisa Bloom was willing to go to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, it also points to the fact that she herself was attempting to make money off accusations that Trump sexually assaulted multiple women.

According to the report, Bloom’s efforts including arranging a liberal donor to pay off one of the accusers mortgage, offering to sell an alleged victims story to TV outlets, and even trying to secure a six figure payment for another women who eventually decided not to come forward with her supposed accusations.

One of the Bloom clients who DID receive financial help in exchange for her allegations against Trump was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth who herself defended the revelations while claiming that the money had nothing to do with her coming forward in the first place. -SHTFPlan

Bloom, who is the daughter of the infamous attorney and Democrat donor Gloria Allred and, like her mother, specializes in representing women in sexual harassment cases, worked for four women who were considering accusing Trump. Two went public, and two declined.

Sexual harassment and misconduct allegations shouldn’t be taken lightly, but neither should false allegations. Democrats are doing an excellent job of making women who have experienced a horrible sexual harassment look like nothing more than money hungry and biased partisans with an agenda.

The Dumbing Down Of America: ‘The Numbers Speak Volumes’

Almost everyone can see that the dumbing down of America is in full effect.  A video breakdown of a Psychology Today piece from 2014 which details the anti-intellectualism most of us have already experienced in some way.

According to Signs of the Times, there has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason, and anti-science have been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, reveals how a whole generation of youth is being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital “crap” that is composed on social media.

Joe Joseph from The Daily Sheeple breaks it down in his new video. “You have plenty of these experts that are basically sounding the alarm,” he says. “Let’s keep it simple,” he continues. “I ask everybody a very simple question. If you think about what you learned from grade K to grade 12, give yourself a percentage of how much of that you actually use in your everyday life. Out of all of that information…now think about how much of your life experience weighs in.”

Joseph then goes over the statistics that have been compiled which are evidence of Americans getting dumber by the decade. Part of that, is because of the declining quality of higher education. After leading the world for decades in 25-34-year-olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010.

According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 68% of public school children in the U.S. do not read proficiently by the time they finish third grade. And the U.S. News & World reported that barely 50% of students are ready for college-level reading when they graduate:

We’re creating a world of dummies. Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation. –Signs of the Times

The new elite are the angry social media posters; those who can shout loudest and more often, a clique of bullies and malcontents baying together like dogs cornering a fox. Rational thought is the enemy, says Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times.