President Trump

[SeanAvery2point0]

Veritas has been sued and lost over such practises. O'Keefe has been prosecuted for related crimes. It's not just occasionally being wrong, they are often wrong.
The employee Veritas interviewed does not actively work on the projects Veritas inquired about.
Employee opinions due not necessarily reflect the opinions, policies or actions of a company.
I just tested your bias claim, when I clicked a Shapiro video after googling "Ben Shapiro" I got the following options. Fox News video featuring Shapiro interview, a Peterson interview on CBC, Lahren interview, another Peterson interview for GQ then a CNN interview with Sheriff Clark. The rest is a mix of left and right.
When I searched "Don Lemon CNN", (had to add YouTube to search or you get CNN vids first. I get a broad selection of suggestions including Shapiro (fox) and Peterson and Lahren again.
Lets not forget, that these people are on limited tv outlets. Breitbart, daily caller and wire don't have much video content online.
So I don't see the bias you claim.
I think in any corporate group discussion of any issue you should and will get a broad range of opinions. I solicit multiple opinions as a managing partner and I coach others (in my consulting business) to do as well. But only the final decision and implementation reflects the company's position.

The suggest content bias I was referencing was on YouTube. It is quite possible they changed their algorithm for suggested content after the project veritas video was made public and these claims were made. I had previously noticed that suggested videos were largely unrelated to my original search in instances where I was watching conservative commentary, at times it became frustrating. I just did the same test as you and it seems that is no longer the case. It is not difficult for tech giants to manipulate the perception of the public, through curated streams of information. I'm not saying they definitely changed something, but it is definitely not out of the question.

People put a lot of trust in these tech giants in terms of our own information and the information which they curate, and they have done relatively nothing to earn it. They are no more or less trustworthy than other large public institutions like the news media, the EPA, etc.

[IrishGuy1979]

Stable genius

Women’s soccer player, @mPinoe, just stated that she is “not going to the F...ing White House if we win.” Other than the NBA, which now refuses to call owners, owners (please explain that I just got Criminal Justice Reform passed, Black unemployment is at the lowest level...

....in our Country’s history, and the poverty index is also best number EVER), leagues and teams love coming to the White House. I am a big fan of the American Team, and Women’s Soccer, but Megan should WIN first before she TALKS! Finish the job! We haven’t yet....

....invited Megan or the team, but I am now inviting the TEAM, win or lose. Megan should never disrespect our Country, the White House, or our Flag, especially since so much has been done for her & the team. Be proud of the Flag that you wear. The USA is doing GREAT!

[ace in the hazard]

The NYT ran a piece highlighting how the executive branch has historically had a fraught relationship with the fed. This is not a Trump phenomenom.

One has to assume you stopped at the headline because there is no way anyone who read the article could summarize it like that.

The article details how presidents USED to gripe about fed actions and how some stories came out about presidents attempting to influence Fed chairs in private. But that stopped in the 80's.

Trump himself used to complain about the fed keeping rates artificially low to benefit Obama. Until he became president. Then he broke with decades of precedent and went on one of his patented twitrampages threatening to demote Powell (or implying he would) if he didn't kowtow to Trump's demands.

Trump realizes that he has failed at just about everything presidential and is praying that low unemployment and a strong stock market (largely inherited) will bail him out. If the fed pursues a tighter monetary policy than he wants, those hopes are dashed. Hence his usual bluster and threats about interfering with a supposedly independent body...

[mpare]

Thanks, Willie.

[SeanAvery2point0]

One has to assume you stopped at the headline because there is no way anyone who read the article could summarize it like that.

The article details how presidents USED to gripe about fed actions and how some stories came out about presidents attempting to influence Fed chairs in private. But that stopped in the 80's.

Trump himself used to complain about the fed keeping rates artificially low to benefit Obama. Until he became president. Then he broke with decades of precedent and went on one of his patented twitrampages threatening to demote Powell (or implying he would) if he didn't kowtow to Trump's demands.

Trump realizes that he has failed at just about everything presidential and is praying that low unemployment and a strong stock market (largely inherited) will bail him out. If the fed pursues a tighter monetary policy than he wants, those hopes are dashed. Hence his usual bluster and threats about interfering with a supposedly independent body...

Putting the propaganda aside, the fed has long been influenced by politics, for better or worse. In the 1960s and 1970s the relationship was fraught, especially with LBJ and Nixon. From the 1980s through the 1990s it had regained some of its independence. Though in 2009 they were practically the monetary arm of the treasury with regards to the bailouts, and that continued through most of Obama's tenure - interest rates were higher following the great depression than they were at any point of Obama's presidency.

[pudubny]

The suggest content bias I was referencing was on YouTube. It is quite possible they changed their algorithm for suggested content after the project veritas video was made public and these claims were made. I had previously noticed that suggested videos were largely unrelated to my original search in instances where I was watching conservative commentary, at times it became frustrating. I just did the same test as you and it seems that is no longer the case. It is not difficult for tech giants to manipulate the perception of the public, through curated streams of information. I'm not saying they definitely changed something, but it is definitely not out of the question.

People put a lot of trust in these tech giants in terms of our own information and the information which they curate, and they have done relatively nothing to earn it. They are no more or less trustworthy than other large public institutions like the news media, the EPA, etc.

I have never had a problem getting different views from google or YouTube.
Should you get only similar content recommendations or should you get a variety? The recommends I always get have similar content with some alternate content as well. I think that's good. I recall the first time I saw this and it really stood out, years ago a guy posted flat-earth theory info on here and I was impressed with how much content YouTube had in the suggestion column, both for and against.
youtube posts info about this and other experts have described how it works. Years ago.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E6pC6iql5xM

http://trouvus.com/how-does-the-youtube-recommendation-system-work/

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/sick-of-irrelevant-youtube-recommendations-heres-what-you-need-to-do/

While I don't think any institution is perfect, I don't think there is anything nefarious about results in searches or suggestions. You can say maybe it should be different, but what they are doing isn't bad.
If you believe that Google wants to silence or delist conservative views that's fine. But I think Google, Facebook and Twitter took a lot of heat from the gov't for allowing the Russians to manipulate election related content and they want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

[par345]

.
But I think Google, Facebook and Twitter took a lot of heat from the gov't for allowing the Russians to manipulate election related content and they want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Which Donald again opposes.Donald wants foreign players in US elections...he told ABC news that.

[mpare]

What missing noun was the adjective "fraught" intended to qualify?

Putting the propaganda aside, the fed has long been influenced by politics, for better or worse. In the 1960s and 1970s the relationship was fraught, especially with LBJ and Nixon. ...

[dhacker56]

The NYT ran a piece highlighting how the executive branch has historically had a fraught relationship with the fed. This is not a Trump phenomenom.

Shows your political bent if you give any credence to the Times or the Post!!! Like reading Das Capital!

[IrishGuy1979]

Oh great - hes back

[par345]

The Fed and Trump is a non issue.Sexually assaulting women(16) is an issue..taking foreign oppo research is an issue....obstructing justice is an issue...

[ManFromMoffat]

The Iran Ayatollah said the WH is 'afflicted with mental retardation.'

Trump just proved them right this morning.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1143862761480491008

Rump is tough when there's a p_ssy to be grabbed, otherwise not so tough. Sad!

[ace in the hazard]

Putting the propaganda aside, the fed has long been influenced by politics, for better or worse. In the 1960s and 1970s the relationship was fraught, especially with LBJ and Nixon. From the 1980s through the 1990s it had regained some of its independence. Though in 2009 they were practically the monetary arm of the treasury with regards to the bailouts, and that continued through most of Obama's tenure - interest rates were higher following the great depression than they were at any point of Obama's presidency.

What propaganda?


Rates were low during Obama's presidency. During that little thing we call the Financial Crisis? When too-big-too-fail banks and FI's that have been around for decades failed or were bought for pennies? When the economy almost stopped because no one would lend money or invest in growth?


That is when rates are supposed to be low.

Central bankers were criticized for getting us into the mess (when it had more to do with regulators allowing exotic investments instruments that hid the true risk of overlending) but no one patted them on the back when aggressive quantitative easing got us out of it.

Fast forward to the very predictable economic expansion and runup in stock markets that Trump inherited but likes to claim all the credit for.

Trump repeatedly states the economy is "the best it's ever been" with record low unemployment and record market highs.

That is when rates are supposed to go up.

There is no propaganda. Just an impressive combination of Nadia Comănecian mental gymnastics, self delusion, and lack of subject knowledge that allows you to maintain your belief that he is not the worst thing to happen to the presidency in decades.

[par345]

Rump is tough when there's a p_ssy to be grabbed, otherwise not so tough. Sad!

17 women have accused him of sexual misconduct....he lied about Stormy and McDougal...he's lying about the 17 others....the TMZ tape showed his intentions towards women

[SeanAvery2point0]

What propaganda?


Rates were low during Obama's presidency. During that little thing we call the Financial Crisis? When too-big-too-fail banks and FI's that have been around for decades failed or were bought for pennies? When the economy almost stopped because no one would lend money or invest in growth?


That is when rates are supposed to be low.

Central bankers were criticized for getting us into the mess (when it had more to do with regulators allowing exotic investments instruments that hid the true risk of overlending) but no one patted them on the back when aggressive quantitative easing got us out of it.

Fast forward to the very predictable economic expansion and runup in stock markets that Trump inherited but likes to claim all the credit for.

Trump repeatedly states the economy is "the best it's ever been" with record low unemployment and record market highs.

That is when rates are supposed to go up.

There is no propaganda. Just an impressive combination of Nadia Comănecian mental gymnastics, self delusion, and lack of subject knowledge that allows you to maintain your belief that he is not the worst thing to happen to the presidency in decades.

The propaganda I was referring to is the notion that the fed has historically been an entity independent of the federal government. They are accountable to the legislative and as an extension the executive, as they were granted 'autonomy' over monetary policy by Congress, it can be just as easily taken away.

If Trump 'inherited' a booming economy, why were interest rates never raised more than half of a percentage point over 8 years, yet in the last 3 years rates have increased over a full point? By that logic, rates should have increased more prior to his election. Obama went 80 months with interest rates below .5% and much of that time they were 0.25%.