LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership's Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election


#21

Yeah, it’s not the head of a government agency, but a private business. You’re only angry because he wasn’t supportive of your guy. I thought you support rights and freedoms of the private sector?


#22

I thought that you were a supporter of Citizens United?


#23

Private company…:wink:


#24

Yep, so what, plenty of evangelicals did the same thing in their churches, for a candidate who’s character and ethics are the antithesis of Christianity.


#25

But I don’t think that, and never said that. Shrug.


#26

And that would certainly not be me…


#27

I don’t mind that straight up but the fact is most liberals don’t see… or don’t want to see the deceit in the searches they depend on for knowledge. And as we all know, hidden campaign donations are illegal so that goes to your next comment …

To your third comment… yes you are right and I believe that they should have the right to have the ethos and hiring practices that they choose… I also believe that of the many companies who were held, for so many years to a different hiring, service and firing practice… but apparently you hold one as equality and on as ‘private company’ … lets not forget it is your brand of ethos that decided that private companies were really no different than one owned by the government.

As to your 'antithisis of Christianity comment… seems that some years ago their non profit status was use as a threat to keep preachers sermons ‘in line’. If they did that, either they complied with the threat after it was enacted because I don’t hear about a lot of church losing their exempt status.

As for your next comment… you were the one who said #5 that it was 'just a CEO being disappointed in an election result… so yes you believe or indicate that you believe just that.


#28

Can you provide me an example of this, as you’re right, I don’t see this when I’m using google. If this is fact and can be proven in court, then I would be on the supporting side of regulation that displays everything in some random form (I’m not a tech expert so you’ll forgive me if this is wrong) when a google search is conducted. Unless there is some compelling argument against that. A national debate would be nice.

The other thought would be that a group of conservative minded techies build their own search engine, though that just feeds the already divisive partisanship in America.


#29

That’s a bit broad, and could be deceptive. If you enjoy non profit status, I support regulation of certain speech. Certainly no political speech or endorsements from the alter.


#30

So why live in America? We don’t want you here


#31

I’m sorry, you’ll need to explain further. I don’t see the connection between the CEO of a private company expressing to a gathering of his employees any political opinion, and government nationalization of a private sector business. Unless you mean something else when you say nationalized.


#32

Hey everyone, read this thread where @Montecresto1 takes the opposite position of “it’s a private company so stay out of it”.


#33

Lol - that’s different because the business was owned by white Christian conservatives.


#34

#35

We had a thread about this some time ago…


#36

I wonder if the US government… under anyone else but Trump wanted Google to ‘be quite’ about the manipulation of their search engine by say… the CIA… would Google willingly comply to curry favor with the government?


#37

If he had reported the in kind donations likely to be in the tens of millions in contributions I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all… If any of this reported activity bothers you in the least and it bothers you that you didn’t know that Google was manipulating search results… well you can, in part, thank that purveyor of honest news the NYTimes… they reviewed the tape a long time ago and conveniently left out the juicier parts…


#38

If Google was filtering results to help a political candidate (or screw another) then that is a political contribution. Plain and simple.


#39

Hey ty, there’s a very huge difference between a CEO’s personal political opinions, and a baker discriminating against the public walking through his door. But you know that. So you have no point. :wink:


#40

Are you saying that the CEO of google committed election finance violations? Because if he did, then I support prosecuting him!!