question been asked a 100 times already, /pol/ went hard for trump first as a joke then for real it seeped in here and took off, mods were pro trump and deleted or buried any negatives about him which furthered the trumptards expansion and agenda. mods were wrangled a couple of times (most recent a few weeks ago) and it's much better now. still way too many pro-gov't, trump dick sucking tards in here but some seem to be waking up finally.
You're train of thought supposes that people were spontaneously pro-Trump with no regard for the fact that every establishment figurehead, mouthpiece, and organisation felt threatened by his dialogue and disdain for them.
You're full of shit. Where are all the supposed "far right" posts or comments? Why don't you also define "centrist" because it sounds to me like you're just another far left SJW to whom everything left of that extreme is "far right".
Direct appeals to conspiracy heads by a candidate, surely recognized and amplified by operations like Cambridge Analytica, Giles-Parscale, Infowars, Breitbart, neo-Bircher, libertarian, fascist theorists, enduring Birthers and Jade Helmers, etc. Nobody thought it odd that he and Roger Stone were directly reaching out to the conspiracy community, when it should have always been a huge red flag.
The sub has since focused on dismantling Democrat establishment theories about Trump and/or Russia, amplifying revealed quasi-conspiracies about Clinton and DNC, and trying to prove all the others (Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Clinton Kill List, Charlottesville "hoax," now the Vegas "false flag"). A fair amount of "work" done on these have been fabrications, deliberately misleading, shitpost and meme-like efforts meant to be spread virally, regardless of truth or correspondence to sources or evidence.
Conspiracy theories have become an American political team sport, as they have been in multiple contentious political situations throughout the world.
If someone is directly targeting the protagonists of every conspiracy theory, MSM, intelligence agencies, deep state, then of course people studying conspiracies and facts will side with them. Trump was targeted so heavily by the MSM, aka the mouth of the establishment. Every classic swamp member of the establishment attacked Trump including Intelligence agencies. Now I'm not sure how new you are but the MSM and intelligence agencies are rooted in every conspiracy theory out there. Anyone they collectively attack is going to be the "hero" of every conspiracy theory and the one we should side with. Nobody has ever discredited the MSM like Trump has and thus, no political figure has fought against the establishment's interests like Trump has. You need to have a lack of simple critical thinking skills to not put two and two together.
sometimes things take another perspective, its not as simple as two and two. i think youve given a good explanation thats given me something to think about. one thing...
trump has berated the press in general, apart from fox? afaik. now fox are as bent as they come, they are the epitome of fake news. doesnt trumps open approval of fox news seem a little hypocritical? doesnt it seem like a bit of a double standard to laud him for attacking the left leaning media, but ignore his approval of fox?
Fox has been more fact based and less biased than other news sources. A recent study showed they had about a 50% positive /negative coverage, whereas other networks, not only have had 95/5 splits, but have been caught blatantly lying many times and engaging in the questionable practice of the loud lie and quiet retraction. If Trump was openly supporting news pieces that were demonstrably false than it would be worrisome. As it stands the media climate we have is extremely deceitful. Because it is so demonstrably dishonest it isn't at all wrong to point out which news shows or anchors give good reporting.
ooh i have trouble believing those figures, but i dont have the info to argue against them. this is reddit, so obviously i see a bias againt fox and a ton dishonesty pointed out, but if you disregard the bias for a second, it still shows fox cant be trusted. whether they can be trusted more or less than other news is open to debate.
Not saying that as a network they can be trusted. I think certain people there can definitely be trusted, especially if you know they are biased, you can hold them to the standard of providing primary evidence, having an honest standard of journalism, providing their analysis, which has a clear bias, and then you can make up your mind from there. Trump points the good ones out, like Hannity and Tucker. There is nothing wrong with pointing out honest journalists with standards.
God just quit whining. If anything, you guys just started getting offended by certain conspiracies. This sub is made up of the full spectrum of people, and yes that includes some people on the far-right. Get over it.
28 comments
1 HepAuSesthefJOrd 2017-10-07
Examples?
1 ConspiracyAccount 2017-10-07
There are none. He's only seeing what he wants to see.
1 SoHopeInLearningLove 2017-10-07
Why are you so upset by OP posting his thoughts? And to call him a 'far left SJW' for asking a question? Interesting.
1 Robert_Doback 2017-10-07
Haven't seen that dude around here until today. Now I'm seeing his moronic comments every thread I go to.
1 ConspiracyAccount 2017-10-07
Go back to /r/politics.
1 ConspiracyAccount 2017-10-07
You're one too.
1 SoHopeInLearningLove 2017-10-07
How am I one? One what?
1 ConspiracyAccount 2017-10-07
An overly emotional far-left SJW projecting your own insecurities out into the world.
1 SoHopeInLearningLove 2017-10-07
What have I projected? Sources please.
1 EpsilonDenarius 2017-10-07
I kept this one bookmarked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xni4f/did_jp_morgan_build_the_titanic_to_kill_off_the/
1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-10-07
How is that "far right bullshit"?
1 EpsilonDenarius 2017-10-07
It isn't.
That is from before.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-10-07
Okay? Now, how is that an example of how this sub is now "far right bullshit"?
1 bannana 2017-10-07
question been asked a 100 times already, /pol/ went hard for trump first as a joke then for real it seeped in here and took off, mods were pro trump and deleted or buried any negatives about him which furthered the trumptards expansion and agenda. mods were wrangled a couple of times (most recent a few weeks ago) and it's much better now. still way too many pro-gov't, trump dick sucking tards in here but some seem to be waking up finally.
1 FoxxTrot77 2017-10-07
Lol wahhhhh
1 bannana 2017-10-07
which part is wrong?
1 reltd 2017-10-07
You're train of thought supposes that people were spontaneously pro-Trump with no regard for the fact that every establishment figurehead, mouthpiece, and organisation felt threatened by his dialogue and disdain for them.
1 bannana 2017-10-07
this is funny.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-07
you answered your own question...
1 ConspiracyAccount 2017-10-07
You're full of shit. Where are all the supposed "far right" posts or comments? Why don't you also define "centrist" because it sounds to me like you're just another far left SJW to whom everything left of that extreme is "far right".
1 Shlokusmadockus 2017-10-07
Wahhh wahhh
1 paulie_purr 2017-10-07
Direct appeals to conspiracy heads by a candidate, surely recognized and amplified by operations like Cambridge Analytica, Giles-Parscale, Infowars, Breitbart, neo-Bircher, libertarian, fascist theorists, enduring Birthers and Jade Helmers, etc. Nobody thought it odd that he and Roger Stone were directly reaching out to the conspiracy community, when it should have always been a huge red flag.
The sub has since focused on dismantling Democrat establishment theories about Trump and/or Russia, amplifying revealed quasi-conspiracies about Clinton and DNC, and trying to prove all the others (Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Clinton Kill List, Charlottesville "hoax," now the Vegas "false flag"). A fair amount of "work" done on these have been fabrications, deliberately misleading, shitpost and meme-like efforts meant to be spread virally, regardless of truth or correspondence to sources or evidence.
Conspiracy theories have become an American political team sport, as they have been in multiple contentious political situations throughout the world.
1 Robert_Doback 2017-10-07
Damn. Nailed it.
1 agent_dnv 2017-10-07
keep crying fuckboy
1 reltd 2017-10-07
If someone is directly targeting the protagonists of every conspiracy theory, MSM, intelligence agencies, deep state, then of course people studying conspiracies and facts will side with them. Trump was targeted so heavily by the MSM, aka the mouth of the establishment. Every classic swamp member of the establishment attacked Trump including Intelligence agencies. Now I'm not sure how new you are but the MSM and intelligence agencies are rooted in every conspiracy theory out there. Anyone they collectively attack is going to be the "hero" of every conspiracy theory and the one we should side with. Nobody has ever discredited the MSM like Trump has and thus, no political figure has fought against the establishment's interests like Trump has. You need to have a lack of simple critical thinking skills to not put two and two together.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-07
sometimes things take another perspective, its not as simple as two and two. i think youve given a good explanation thats given me something to think about. one thing...
trump has berated the press in general, apart from fox? afaik. now fox are as bent as they come, they are the epitome of fake news. doesnt trumps open approval of fox news seem a little hypocritical? doesnt it seem like a bit of a double standard to laud him for attacking the left leaning media, but ignore his approval of fox?
1 reltd 2017-10-07
Fox has been more fact based and less biased than other news sources. A recent study showed they had about a 50% positive /negative coverage, whereas other networks, not only have had 95/5 splits, but have been caught blatantly lying many times and engaging in the questionable practice of the loud lie and quiet retraction. If Trump was openly supporting news pieces that were demonstrably false than it would be worrisome. As it stands the media climate we have is extremely deceitful. Because it is so demonstrably dishonest it isn't at all wrong to point out which news shows or anchors give good reporting.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-07
ooh i have trouble believing those figures, but i dont have the info to argue against them. this is reddit, so obviously i see a bias againt fox and a ton dishonesty pointed out, but if you disregard the bias for a second, it still shows fox cant be trusted. whether they can be trusted more or less than other news is open to debate.
1 reltd 2017-10-07
Well take this Harvard study instead of my word: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/
Not saying that as a network they can be trusted. I think certain people there can definitely be trusted, especially if you know they are biased, you can hold them to the standard of providing primary evidence, having an honest standard of journalism, providing their analysis, which has a clear bias, and then you can make up your mind from there. Trump points the good ones out, like Hannity and Tucker. There is nothing wrong with pointing out honest journalists with standards.
1 KatexKate 2017-10-07
Sometime at the end of 2015.
1 Robert_Doback 2017-10-07
...
Well, there's your answer.
1 apricotasd9 2017-10-07
Turns out right wingers are just really fucking stupid in America. Well. In most places really.
There's a reason the republican party is still around. And it ain't good policies =.
1 weedstocks 2017-10-07
They ran out of meds
1 Shillin4Shekles 2017-10-07
God just quit whining. If anything, you guys just started getting offended by certain conspiracies. This sub is made up of the full spectrum of people, and yes that includes some people on the far-right. Get over it.
1 SoHopeInLearningLove 2017-10-07
Why are you so upset by OP posting his thoughts? And to call him a 'far left SJW' for asking a question? Interesting.