There's some weird idea among conservatives that Google can't nor shouldn't suppress results. Google probably suppresses conservative content, but they're a private company and not a government search engine, so they can do that sort of thing. It's just conservatives still not understanding what free speech or free market means.
She wants his voting base, that's the only reason she caved and endorsed him b/c she had one of the best shots at being the Republican nominee behind Trump. If he wins, that's 2 terms & she'll feel his base will move towards her in 2028. If he loses, it'll probably be nigh improbable he runs again & she can still get in his voter base's good graces by being the next nominee and speaking highly of him.
Judging by the number of times I've seen MAGAs online complain about the lack of a transparent nomination process, it sounds like they all want Biden back in.
And then you've got this rat bitch:
And then you've got this rat bitch:
No, Miss Lindsey, a private individual* or entity using speech absent fraud to, even legitimately and sincerely**, persuade others to vote for a particular candidate is not election interference. "Election interference," like "communism" and "treason," is something which has an actual meaning that doesn't correspond to how you want your idiot base to understand it.
*Necessarily including those who may represent a public entity but are not speaking in an official capacity. Even one representing a public entity speaking in an official capacity to advocate for a particular candidate isn't likely to be election interference (but for specific circumstance unrelated to their representing a public entity) even if it may be wildly inappropriate.
**Which is to say, in this instance, Amazon itself and not some individual within it but not in any legitimate representative role. Just the optics of Amazon using its devices in this manner suggest this was the result of a bad actor with the ability to affect programming seeking to harm Amazon rather than one sincerely advocating for a particular candidate, though the latter remains a possibility.
I suspect video of this exists somewhere but I haven't been able to find it and the post linked to in the screenshot has been deleted.
I mean no doubt, but I'm disappointed that it won't be one of the old "normals."
...
I've known you for quite a while, man. We share a racing community on here and I have to say... I don't know why you can't seem to meet the members in this discussion as equals, but it's massively soured my opinion of you.
I'm not certain I know what this non-engagement engagement is. It comes off as a sort of trolling but with a partisan angle. Actual trolling is baiting entirely absent desire for anything more than personal entertainment. There's an alternative wherein the party engaging in this manner has a political agenda and is attempting to ridicule, for personal entertainment, those viewed as having an opposing political agenda whether they do or not. When ventured by connie types, it has been labeled (originally by those engaging in this manner though the phrase has been accepted by others) "owning the libs." The voids necessitating additional scrolling without substantive interaction seems more in keeping with actual trolling.
Okay, yeah, I'm less uncertain about what this is and more certain that my assessment hit the nail on the nose.
www.salon.com
