Posted on Jun 26, 2015
Google Says Hillary Clinton Will Be The Next POTUS. Is this for real?
3.88K
14
33
1
1
0
Google, be blessed.
You have given me almost two more years of my life that I never thought I'd have. You have saved me from endless hours and days of purgatorial pain. You have offered me closure, even before the doomed affair had truly begun.
My apologies. I'm not wrecked on Retsina. I'm merely reading reports that Google's very fine search engine has already indicated that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
Of course, there's a touch of hyperbole here. But I suspect there might be one or two political partisans who will be experiencing intensely hyperbolic reactions when they hear of it.
You see, Google search has responded to the question: "Who will be the next president?" with a card that answered: Hillary Clinton.
I know, I know. You were still holding out for either Ted Nugent or the Hulk Hoganesque intellect of Donald Trump.
Instead, as the Next Web reported, two formulations of the same question both throw up results that suggest that in 2016, the revolution will be Clintonized.
Nerds will surely rush to explain that Google's search engine reacts to optimized results, and these two happened to be results that appear to be -- but aren't -- definitive answers. One, after all, is from renowned independently-minded performer Glen Beck.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-says-hillary-clinton-will-be-the-next-president/
You have given me almost two more years of my life that I never thought I'd have. You have saved me from endless hours and days of purgatorial pain. You have offered me closure, even before the doomed affair had truly begun.
My apologies. I'm not wrecked on Retsina. I'm merely reading reports that Google's very fine search engine has already indicated that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
Of course, there's a touch of hyperbole here. But I suspect there might be one or two political partisans who will be experiencing intensely hyperbolic reactions when they hear of it.
You see, Google search has responded to the question: "Who will be the next president?" with a card that answered: Hillary Clinton.
I know, I know. You were still holding out for either Ted Nugent or the Hulk Hoganesque intellect of Donald Trump.
Instead, as the Next Web reported, two formulations of the same question both throw up results that suggest that in 2016, the revolution will be Clintonized.
Nerds will surely rush to explain that Google's search engine reacts to optimized results, and these two happened to be results that appear to be -- but aren't -- definitive answers. One, after all, is from renowned independently-minded performer Glen Beck.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-says-hillary-clinton-will-be-the-next-president/
Office of the President (POTUS)
Hillary Clinton
Google
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
3
3
0
SGT (Join to see)
LTC John Shaw, None of them claim to smart but they remind me of Search Engines For Dummies.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I seriously hope not. I seriously hoped her husband wouldn't become President too though.
(3)
(0)
SPC Margaret Higgins
This so indeed correct. Wars could stop. (Although, GOD said that there will always be war.)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I hope not, but I'm in the camp that the R waters are now so saturated that we will again end up with another RINO that no conservative will want to vote for.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
With how uneducated society is these days when it comes to the government, corporations and the world in general, it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being true. I pray to God that it never happens since she's been a lying, manipulative b**ch ever since the Watergate scandal.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO2 Terri Myre, she'll fit in just fine with all of the other liars and manipulation that's part of being in the POTUS job.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Sergeant, I certainly hope so. That was decisively my intent. I also buffed the hallway floor at the tail-end of an IG inspection. I let my Squad members go to sleep.
I don't think that any of the others had graduated from a college or a university.
As far as leading my buddies was concerned, one of the girls could not stand me.
Hope this helps to answer your question.
Blessings.
I don't think that any of the others had graduated from a college or a university.
As far as leading my buddies was concerned, one of the girls could not stand me.
Hope this helps to answer your question.
Blessings.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Margaret Higgins, Ma'am, one of my thoughts has always been, "The Speed Of The Leader, Is The Speed Of The Team." You fit into that saying 100%. Thanks.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Keep in mind that Hillary was the presumptive Democratic candidate once before, then came Obama. Thus, she may be replaced by someone equally unfit. How would you choose: Hillary or Elizabeth Warren? (Don't be surprised by a last minute campaign to draft Warren)
How will the Republicans respond? As they do most often in recent history, they remind me of the Suicide Squad in Monty Python's Life of Brian...
How will the Republicans respond? As they do most often in recent history, they remind me of the Suicide Squad in Monty Python's Life of Brian...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
First off, I am not advocating EITHER party. Second, I am NOT ADVOCATING EITHER PARTY.
But let's look at how campaigns and elections are ran.
1) When it really boils down to it, the goal is to get a few key states on your side. "Swing States." as it were. The red states are going to vote red, and the blue states are going to vote blue.
2) Look at the Party Platforms. Actually go to the Democratic & Republican Parties website and read their platforms. The Republican platform is "strategically" speaking listed in the wrong order. I'm not saying it isn't a good platform, just that whoever put the 1-10 list there needs to reorganize it and shift 1-3 towards the bottom... The top few are going to drive away young voters.
The Democratic platform highlights the republican candidates, and who they are, and why they are bad for the country. This is a strategic difference. It is the Tear them down, vice Build us Up, which when you are trying to win an election...is the strategy to take. You don't need the vote, you just don't want the other guy to get it. You'd rather someone stay home than go to the opposition.
3) Voter base. Progressive v. Conservative. Again, "Strategically" the impression has been made one side is "Inclusive" while the other side is everything but. I'm not saying it is true, but there is that perception, and that is a hard impression to break. Especially, when you focus on issues as dividing as those on the top 10 list (see #2).
4) Players on the field. As of last night there were 13 Republican Candidates on the field. The number of viable Dem candidates is half that, and in reality Ms. Clinton is the front runner for the nomination. It's her ticket to lose. She is able to build up a base while all these other candidates are fighting with each other trying to figure out who is going to get the nom. Think king of the mountain, but she is "reigning champ" because she got there first.
5) Name recognition. She's been in politics a long time. And bad publicity is better than no publicity. She's just a well known name.
That's just off the top of my head from a strategic level, where she has distinct advantages.
But let's look at how campaigns and elections are ran.
1) When it really boils down to it, the goal is to get a few key states on your side. "Swing States." as it were. The red states are going to vote red, and the blue states are going to vote blue.
2) Look at the Party Platforms. Actually go to the Democratic & Republican Parties website and read their platforms. The Republican platform is "strategically" speaking listed in the wrong order. I'm not saying it isn't a good platform, just that whoever put the 1-10 list there needs to reorganize it and shift 1-3 towards the bottom... The top few are going to drive away young voters.
The Democratic platform highlights the republican candidates, and who they are, and why they are bad for the country. This is a strategic difference. It is the Tear them down, vice Build us Up, which when you are trying to win an election...is the strategy to take. You don't need the vote, you just don't want the other guy to get it. You'd rather someone stay home than go to the opposition.
3) Voter base. Progressive v. Conservative. Again, "Strategically" the impression has been made one side is "Inclusive" while the other side is everything but. I'm not saying it is true, but there is that perception, and that is a hard impression to break. Especially, when you focus on issues as dividing as those on the top 10 list (see #2).
4) Players on the field. As of last night there were 13 Republican Candidates on the field. The number of viable Dem candidates is half that, and in reality Ms. Clinton is the front runner for the nomination. It's her ticket to lose. She is able to build up a base while all these other candidates are fighting with each other trying to figure out who is going to get the nom. Think king of the mountain, but she is "reigning champ" because she got there first.
5) Name recognition. She's been in politics a long time. And bad publicity is better than no publicity. She's just a well known name.
That's just off the top of my head from a strategic level, where she has distinct advantages.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google