Hillary Defeated Again: Hulu Passes On ‘Rodham’ After Nearly 2 Years In Development

Hillary Clinton took another loss as Hulu has passed on a show about her that had been in development at the network for nearly two years.

“Rodham” is based on the novel of the same name, which tells the story of an alternate universe in which Hillary does not marry Bill Clinton, but instead serves as a Northwestern University professor before running for president in 2016.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-d...cCgTa-_JVQ

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

Score for Hulu. No one cares about that wildebeest.

---

Hulu already has Candy. They don't need another horror series.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Jessica Biel seems to like weird characters and storylines.

---

The only thing worse than Hillary is the right-wing obsession with her.

---

Trump is supposedly starting a media company very soon. He should launch the network or whatever it is with the Killary story: Arkanside.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

We need a neutral version of Google more than we need another social media company.

---

We need a neutral version of Google more than we need another social media company.

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see. Seems pretty neutral.

---

We need a neutral version of Google more than we need another social media company.

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see they choose for you to see within your requested search . Seems pretty neutral controlling.

FTFY

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

We need a neutral version of Google more than we need another social media company.

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see. Seems pretty neutral.

You're missing the mark on this one, man.

---

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see. Seems pretty neutral.

You're missing the mark on this one, man.

He either doesn't understand search algorithms, or is just being deliberately obtuse.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see they choose for you to see within your requested search . Seems pretty neutral controlling.

FTFY

When you search using Google you're requesting they give you results that their algorithm finds relevant. If you don't like what Google find relevant then why are you asking them for what they find relevant?

How would a neutral version of Google of Google be different? From what I can tell Google works super hard to insure you only see what you want to see. Seems pretty neutral.

You're missing the mark on this one, man.

Don't just say nuh uh, back your argument up. In what way do you think a "neutral Google" would be different?

---

FTFY

When you search using Google you're requesting they give you results that their algorithm finds relevant. If you don't like what Google find relevant then why are you asking them for what they find relevant?

You're missing the mark on this one, man.

Don't just say nuh uh, back your argument up. In what way do you think a "neutral Google" would be different?

The fact that you are accepting what Google finds as 'relevant' pretty much says it all. Google should not be the arbiter of what information is relevant. It should present all information based on the search and let the searcher decide what is relevant. I'm speaking politically, of course, since this is the Political forum. If you're talking about looking up technical information, or a recipe for lasagna, then it does a more even-handed job. But to suggest that Google is 'neutral' in the political area is, no offense intended, rather naive.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Hillary Defeated Again: Hulu Passes On ‘Rodham’ After Nearly 2 Years In Development

Hillary Clinton took another loss as Hulu has passed on a show about her that had been in development at the network for nearly two years.

“Rodham” is based on the novel of the same name, which tells the story of an alternate universe in which Hillary does not marry Bill Clinton, but instead serves as a Northwestern University professor before running for president in 2016.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-d...cCgTa-_JVQ

In what sort of fantasy world would Hillary Clinton have gotten to the Presidency without marrying Bill Clinton?  Even sci-fi needs some shred of plausibility.  This has none.

---

Hillary Defeated Again: Hulu Passes On ‘Rodham’ After Nearly 2 Years In Development

Hillary Clinton took another loss as Hulu has passed on a show about her that had been in development at the network for nearly two years.

“Rodham” is based on the novel of the same name, which tells the story of an alternate universe in which Hillary does not marry Bill Clinton, but instead serves as a Northwestern University professor before running for president in 2016.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-d...cCgTa-_JVQ

In what sort of fantasy world would Hillary Clinton have gotten to the Presidency without marrying Bill Clinton?  Even sci-fi needs some shred of plausibility.  This has none.

LOL, i was thinking the same thing. At best, Hillary would have become another Elizabeth Warren type holding a Senate seat somewhere in the Northeast. She might have turned out a better person without Bill, tho.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

You have to remember the entertainment world consists almost entirely of lefties who have no issue with divorcing reality from their ideological beliefs.

---

When you search using Google you're requesting they give you results that their algorithm finds relevant. If you don't like what Google find relevant then why are you asking them for what they find relevant?


Don't just say nuh uh, back your argument up. In what way do you think a "neutral Google" would be different?

The fact that you are accepting what Google finds as 'relevant' pretty much says it all. Google should not be the arbiter of what information is relevant. It should present all information based on the search and let the searcher decide what is relevant. I'm speaking politically, of course, since this is the Political forum. If you're talking about looking up technical information, or a recipe for lasagna, then it does a more even-handed job. But to suggest that Google is 'neutral' in the political area is, no offense intended, rather naive.

You seem confused. I'm not accepting anything. When you chose to go to Google you're asking them for their take on relevance, that's what a search engine is all about. Do you not even understand that?

If you think there's a better way to do it there's a market solution for that, start your own neutral search engine.

---

Well, "their take on relevance" isn't neutral. So, I will use your own words to defend my last statement.

Look, the long and short of it is that they skew results based on what they think. Their algorithm is made by a predominantly leftist group that wants to control the narrative, at least to some degree. I get the need to filter based on some criteria, otherwise every search would come back with mostly porn, but we need to allow for free political expression and meritocratic search results. Even if we just look at this from a consumer perspective, they can inflate or deflate critical reviews or limit exposure to different products. I just want a neutral platform so I don't have to spend a half hour searching for something that should be on the first page.

---

Well, "their take on relevance" isn't neutral. So, I will use your own words to defend my last statement.

Look, the long and short of it is that they skew results based on what they think. Their algorithm is made by a predominantly leftist group that wants to control the narrative, at least to some degree. I get the need to filter based on some criteria, otherwise every search would come back with mostly porn, but  we need to allow for free political expression and meritocratic search results. Even if we just look at this from a consumer perspective, they can inflate or deflate critical reviews or limit exposure to different products. I just want a neutral platform so I don't have to spend a half hour searching for something that should be on the first page.

Why did you ignore that you could create your own search engine? Even if you're not willing to do that there are lots of other search engines you could use instead of Google that already exist.

Why do you think Google needs to change when market forces seem to be reinforcing that they want what Google currently is and there are alternatives readily available?

---

Well, "their take on relevance" isn't neutral. So, I will use your own words to defend my last statement.

Look, the long and short of it is that they skew results based on what they think. Their algorithm is made by a predominantly leftist group that wants to control the narrative, at least to some degree. I get the need to filter based on some criteria, otherwise every search would come back with mostly porn, but  we need to allow for free political expression and meritocratic search results. Even if we just look at this from a consumer perspective, they can inflate or deflate critical reviews or limit exposure to different products. I just want a neutral platform so I don't have to spend a half hour searching for something that should be on the first page.

Why did you ignore that you could create your own search engine? Even if you're not willing to do that there are lots of other search engines you could use instead of Google that already exist.

Why do you think Google needs to change when market forces seem to be reinforcing that they want what Google currently is and there are alternatives readily available?

I think the "create your own search engine" blather was directed at me, not L2L, so he didn't ignore you. So I would ask you, if there is a video game or a tax software package or an automobile that you don't like, then why don't you just go create one of your own liking? Obviously, you cant create any of those things unless you are very well financed and understand the technology and the potential market for any of those products. So your original answer is bordering on childish.

Of course there are alternative search engines, and I use them as much as possible, but unfortunately there are certain things you can't do with anything other than Google. When that changes, and the competition gets better and alternative search engines have more robust functionality and are less algorithmically biased, then I won't use Google. Till then, I have to hold my nose and make the best of it. Just like electing politicians.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption