Trump Budget Search Engine Bias

*See link to this important article at bottom of this post.

This morning I had planned on detailing some opinion on president Trump's budget proposal.  I went on Google to get some details and did a search.  Actually I did two searches, and the second search gave me pause because it's probably the more common search term being used. The reason it troubled me was the results, which just provided me a sense of search engine bias.

The term I put in for that second search was "gop budget proposal 2017".  The top 2 returns were in regard to the proposal put forward from March 2016 by the GOP. Fair enough, because technically that was the budget proposal for 2017.  But look at the next set of results:

1) New York Times - Trump Budget Is Heavy Lift, Even For G.O.P. Congress

2) New York Times - Eyeing Trump's Budget Plan, Republican Governors Say 'No, Thanks

3) The Atlantic - Trump's Budget Proposal Threatens Democratic and Republican [Ambitions]

4) Washington Post - Capitol Hill Republicans not on board with Trump budget

5) Reuters - Trump's budget cuts to domestic, aid programs draw Republican scorn

6) Denver Post - Trump's first budget will test GOP's ability to keep promises

7) This is followed by a Forbes article on the 2016 GOP budget proposal, and then back to the current proposal with;

8) Politico - Trump budget faces GOP resistance

There's the Top 10 list of search results. 2 links to last year's proposal.  A conservative friendly view of the same, and 7 negative articles on how terrible president Trump's budget proposal is.  Look at the sources - clear a highly liberal group of search results - New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters and then a less obviously liberal source The Denver Post (read the article and tell me it is not a liberal bent article).

Search Engine Bias?  Intentional or not, yes, yes there is.

*Who would Google Vote For?

Obama - cutting defence spending

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday the U.S. government was paying too much for things it did not need and ordered a crackdown on spending "plagued by massive cost overruns and outright fraud."

The Democrat, under fire from Republicans for the $3.5 trillion price tag for his 2010 budget plan, also took aim at predecessor George W. Bush and noted the cost of government contracts had doubled to more than half a trillion dollars over the past eight years.

THINGS IT DOESN'T NEED????????? That's the pot calling the kettle...wait, can I say that?

You just passed an $800 billion questionable stimulus package and now you are talking about a $400 Billion omnibus bill and you want to cut defense spending because it's wasteful?

Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.

Just come out and tell the truth - you don't like the military. You don't want to spend money on the military. The middle-of-the-road facade is falling faster than the Dow Jones.