Could this post be fabricated to make us think you are a shill? It's working!

shilling for what exactly? I criticize both sides, not just the right

Criticism and claims without any substance are two different things.

well i did say that i was speculating, i just wanted to see if i was the only one thinking that the frontpage seems rather "fake" lately but i guess it's just me. Good to know

I just thought it was interesting that you were commenting on the state of reddit during Obama's election but you only have a 3 month old account.

throwaway that i ended up keeping, main account is 6 year old

Your post literally describes the role CTR and ShariaBlue for Clinton, which are confirmed to exist by their founder.

Why is everyone a shill that you disagree with? Why is every negative article about Trump FAKE NEWS!!!

Criticism of Russia is also FAKE NEWS - or if you do manage to demonstrate their culpability in something or another, it just shows how smart and strong they are.

you did read this Politico Article? Basically saying the same thing.

oh ok

I keep getting the feeling, that my imagination is insufficient in predicting the weirdness of current times...

what is this like the 'fake news' version of shills?
The donald supporters really are that devoted, and probably misled. CTR is a response to an organic collection of crazy people who think they can make america great again. That's really fucking annoying that you would twist the situation. and it's painfully obvious. go back to /r/politics.

Can somebody explain to me why pro trump people wouldn't also pay for up votes. Their a companies where this is their sole business. I am incredibly skeptical that any major political party or government is not doing this.

maybe they would. but we know for a fact that the 'establishment' is a thing, and they were pushing Clinton with online shills. Do you deny Trump's popularity and the fact that he was elected?
This seems like very obvious strategy to de-legitimize Trump online.

How does trump being elected impact what I said at all? If being popular proves that shills don't support you then why did Hillary get more votes? That doesn't really make any sense.

The difference is one was pro establishment and one was not.

What does anti establishment even mean? How can you be anti establishment and fill your government with billionaires and neocons?

Also how does being anti establishment mean that you can't pay for upvotes?

Look I'm no Trump supporter, but you can't tell me he's an establishment candidate.
Being 'of the establishment' is about foreign policy, military policy, military industrial policy, trade policy, financial policy. And to some degree, Trump policies are compatible with basic capitalist America. I'm not suggesting Trump is anti-capitalist. He's clearly a right-wing authoritarian who barely understands what it means to run public policy. But he's not 'of the establishment' of the last 30 - 40 years.
I'm talking about the same establishment that runs drugs through CIA channels and yet claims to fight a war on drugs, who funds ISIS through Saudi Arabia and claims to fight a war on terror, who provides Israel with endless weapons to destroy Palestinians, who makes shit up about other countries, lies to Americans, assassinates political leaders foreign and domestic, and has generally fucked up this country for decades to come. Trump is not of the establishment. He's different, not necessarily better.
Welcome to /r/conspiracy!

Thanks for that rundown.

I still don't see though why being anti establishment means you can't pay for upvotes, which is the crux of the thread.

I'm italian living in italy, everyone here hates trump so maybe my views are a bit skewed. I find it hard to believe that he is liked in the us, his campaign was great (addressing the h1b workers problem alone would have won my vote had i been american) but his policies don't seem too great now

You underestimate the desperation and ignorance of the American public.

how much did you get to make this post, 10 cents?

Removed. Rule 10.

Nope. Have you seen his huge rallies? And Hillary's small crowds were pitiful

Rallies aren't a very scientific way of determining how well someone is liked. Clintons rallies were smaller, but she received millions of more votes than Trump.

illegals

There's no evidence that millions of illegals voted for Clinton.

There is plenty

Where?

Quit being a lazy ass and search it on Google. I'm not going to do your research for you

I did. And I found articles like these:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-5-million-illegals-cost-him-popular-vote.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-lawmakers-illegals-cost-me-popular-vote-n711136

All which argue that the claim is baseless. So why do you think millions of illegals voted?

Nice fake news articles.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

First of all, why are my articles fake, but yours are real? Just because they confirm what you already thought?

Second of all, the Washington Times article doesn't even back up the 'millions of votes' claim. FTA: “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Third, the Investors article is entirely hypothetical. They claim that it could have happened, but don't offer any hard proof of voter fraud cases committed in such large numbers.

she received millions of more votes than Trump.

That's not even a consolation prize.

3,141 counties in the US. Clinton won 57

According to the AP, the actual count was 487 to 2,626.

Regardless, I think it's a pretty poor argument for the electoral college. Who cares about counties? Counties don't vote; people do.

487 to 2,626.

Thanks.

Still stomped into the dust.

Again, by county. Why does it matter who wins the most counties? Shouldn't the people matter?

If counties are made up of people - then it can be said that people do matter through counties.

Sure, but if the goal is to get a fair representation of the people's interests, shouldn't the total number of votes be more important?

They are all different views. The electoral college breaks down votes to a state level people count. It is interesting to see how the breakdown would be if it was on a county level. Done that way, the results are pretty stunning.

Of course it is all just for conversation as the electoral college doesn't work on the county level.

Why does it matter who wins the most counties?

Because she lost so many and had very small rallies.

Shouldn't the people matter?

Again, not even a consolation prize.

Electoral college 4 the win.

The Electoral College takes away the people's right to choose their president. It's broken.

The Electoral College takes away the people's right to choose their president.

It certainly puts the kibosh on tard candidates who can't draw crowds or necessary votes as well as stops NY and California from choosing who will be president. Not broken at all.

Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The electoral college prevents corrupt city machines from being single points of failure for the entire system.

The people do matter... except to city machines, which are consistently producing broken cities ruled by vile elites. That's exactly the kind of problem that the electoral college helps protect people against.

WOW. that pic really puts it into perspective.

It's not necessarily scientific but come on man...you can't say it's not a decent representation who is more popular. And maybe even the fact that trump won showed that maybe he was liked?

you can't say it's not a decent representation who is more popular

It's not a decent representation because it's not a fair sample. Think about it, how many impoverished people actually go to rallies? Not very many, because they're living hand to mouth. But poor people are typically supportive of democrats, especially minorities. The point is that the sample is biased towards a certain demo, so it's not a good representation.

And maybe even the fact that trump won showed that maybe he was liked?

I have no doubt that Trump is well-liked by a lot of people, but it would be disingenuous to pretend like it absolutely hated by a comparable amount of people.

Donald supporters have amazing energy. You could see it in the rallies, and it is digitized in his t-d sub. He can travel to any venue in any state and fill it as has been proven.

He is liked, by a lot of people. I am neutral to him, but I can visibly see that the hate for him is MSM based. If they stopped the daily/hourly fear-based anti-trump rhetoric, maybe the average Joe could just calm down.

If they stopped the daily/hourly fear-based anti-trump rhetoric

It's the job of the media to be antagonistic to the administration when the President is being dishonest. It's an important feature.

no, not this antagonistic. They should always be looking for flaws, but not this constant assault.

As long as the president keeps lying, it is going to be a constant assault. You want to know how to get journalists off your back? You stop lying.

Gotcha. Thanks for correcting the record.

Rule 10

What has he lied about?

Just search for "running list of trump's lies" - I will eat my shoe if that doesn't return something relevant.

well i did say that i was speculating, i just wanted to see if i was the only one thinking that the frontpage seems rather "fake" lately but i guess it's just me. Good to know

Again, by county. Why does it matter who wins the most counties? Shouldn't the people matter?