Hey r/news and r/politics mods, if you are censoring real news, fuck you.

I wonder if this will make them accessories to treason?

I wish people could see and understand what's going on. I feel really sad, so many people just can't see what's happening. I don't blame any of them, they are totally manipulated, and I was one of them. Probably the only reason I'm not still a liberal who thought Clinton would be much safer than Trump as president is because I got sick and had to spend a lot of time home, which allowed me to do a lot of research online, fact checking all news articles myself, and because I'd been so perplexed by people loving Trump so much that I made a concerted effort to get out of my echo chamber on social media.

So I can understand how people remain so brainwashed, I wish I knew a good way to help break people out of it, but unfortunately I can't even talk about this stuff to my own gf, who will just fly into a rage if I so much as question anything the MSM says.

I remember when Trump started gaining traction in the election. I didn't know much about him, but there was a couple posts floating around Reddit at the time, one of Trump and one of Hillary, both of which had them laughing at some point. Hillary sounded like a cackling, robotic sociopath and Trump sounded like an actual human being. For all his perceived faults, the fact he can still convince me he maybe hasn't sold his soul goes a long way. After all the scandals and condescending, hypocritical accusations, the fake outrage, labeling everybody who wasn't "with her" a mysoginistic Nazi including a green cartoon frog created by a Latino dude from Frisco of all places

Not the thing you're looking for, but it says a lot that you can't even prep an answer when going on air with CNN - which was a year after she first (?) got in "trouble" for not answering it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cant-name-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/

https://youtu.be/bMWZeLqwllY

https://youtu.be/v2oyxV6psrk

You have already downgraded your statement to "repressing information." How long until you admit your bias?

You mean like the millions of people who voted for Trump?

This isn't a red vs blue issue.

It should!

More down votes please. I like them.

Politics mods aren't - OP just posted a Google AMP link. The article in question is, in fact, already posted on r/politics here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/77iq57/in_new_obama_and_clinton_russia_probe_republican/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Then you must not know how to read rules or understand how to post.

My question is why? Why is it so important that you inform them, when officially it's been covered by multiple news sources?

Why is it if there's already two posts that have successfully been made, there needs to be a third?

I know r/news has a rule about not posting duplicate content, which doesn't mean an exact article, it means the news that the article presents.

If there's 7 news sources that cover the same thing, all 7 don't need to be posted so they? If someone is interested in learning more, can't they just Google after seeing one of the sources?

My point, why would you be spending "all night" trying to post something that's several days old? Nothing new has been posted, besides other news sources posting the same thing with their opinion being the main difference..?

And why did you make this post, when there's been dozens of people making posts here complaining about the same thing?

My question is why?

So OP can get his/her posts removed and then cry about censorship. Same as what happened after Orlando. Same as what happens over and over and over again.

Now if they only reflected enough to admit exactly what you just said.

I'm new here, but a long time lurker.. but I missed this, did the sub really go on for days about the injustices of them not being able to get a post in?

I mean, at the rate of complaints, there would be 82 posts about the same exact thing.. which I imagine is why they have ruled to prevent spam..

Have you read the top comment?

I don't know, I saw a post today that complained that top comments weren't in chronological order.. because heaven forbid, they do anything to keep top comments from always being the top comment!

I'll find the post if you want.. but you could always link to the top comment to keep me from rambling on so..

Fair enough, my technical understanding of how reddit works is shit. This is a copy/paste of the top comment of the post we r in now while sorting by "best."

"Fuck r/news

After the Orlando censorship, especially where to donate blood I unsubbed"

They absolutely were removing comments that had information about where to donate blood, etc.

Here's the thread in /r/news where the mods there got rid of one mod, blamed everything on brigades and never spoke of it again.

I'm permalinking the comment that mentions the deleting and banning of users posting blood donation information.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_subreddit_and_the_orlando_shooting/d46k733/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

By killdeer, you really mean HillDawg right?

Information is important.

Information is important.

Holy victim complex Batman

you're such an intrepid crusader, striving to show people hard-hitting news...from a year ago

There's actually been a new story on the subject with new developments every night so far. One was the original, one was about fbi informants being blocked, and the next was about Bill clinton meeting with russian nuclear something or other.

Just fyi.

Because they are trying to astroturf. Thats why they are spending all night trying to post the same thing 10 other people are spending all night trying to post and then when they can't post they make snarky screen shots and move to moderate subs and cry about how they can't post to astroturf those subs with the same story over and over and over while hypocritically claiming to be censored. It's honestly beautiful and horrible at the same time.

We've opened up mass information warfare with never before seen reach. Our generation will be the pioneers of weaponize mass manipulation. This is just stage one of the information war meta.

Anyone defending r/politics is just trolling you. Everyone here knows what they are.

How is pointing out that /r/politics did not "censor" OP "defending /r/politics"?

It's already there.

Why not at least make a list of the links you're trying to post and post it as a comment here.. See how long it lasts ...if it's even pulled to begin with.

Let users here weigh in on them

Stop trying to spam their sub with duplicate links. Go fucking upvote the original one and quit karma whoring.

politics subreddit is pure cancer, dedicated anti-trump circlejerk for 2 years now.

Remember back when it used to be nothing but pro Bernie? The Clinton campaign really managed to change that around fast.

Bernie v Trump was at minimum the debate we deserved

THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT. AT LEAST TRUMP KINDA/SORTA TELLS US HOW IT IS.

p.s. could you imagine Bernie leading the military? He wouldn't let us use anything with a piston until it's using a renewable battery.

Trump is constantly caught lying and often about things that aren't even worth lying about. Why would you see him as more trustworthy than anyone?

Making a mistake is not lying.

You seriously need to get a clue. If they were only mistakes no-one would care. He constantly is caught lying and doubles down. Do you need me to provide citations? If you do, your delusions are a massive psychological issue.

wat

He does lie about trivial things, but I don't feel like he has a hidden agenda and is filtering the information he tells us like Obama did.

I trust bernie 1000000000000000000000x more then Trump with the military. Btw nothing wrong with some solar power killer robots. We're making killer death machines at least the can be cleanly powered.

Ooooooook someone drank too my cough syrup before bed again

Oooooook looks like you drank too much cough syrup before bed again and tried to emulate your idol "Crazy" Bernie.

I will take "CrAZy" Bernie anyday. I don't think I would be hearing news stories about his Sec State and CoS talking about having to tackle him. Good chance Bernie wouldn't of handed the responsibility of commander and chief off after saying he had a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days.

I'm not going to argue politics on here.... but did you see ISIS' capitol just fell? ...interesting

290 days later after he subcontracted the job. I call that over budget and late. I kid. I kid. I saw that trump has already killed more civilains then obama did in 8 year and it makes me wonder how many of them did we radicalize in the process so I'm not sure this is the apporach I would like. Mix that with increases in troop deployment to there and our soldiers now getting killed in chad. On top of that you know as well as I do know we have to hold that piece or ground against a guerrilla faction a long and costly task. I guess I got to be happy 1 step closer to winning our forever war.

what a ridiculous statement.

Yeah that NewYork debate we deserved , Trump and Hillary both promised to do and then backed out because Hillary didn't want to lose NY to bernie.

One single fucking debate on Nation Wide Primetime TV would have changed the 2016 election we never got it Trump and Hillary both backed out if im not mistaken it shined a bright light on the quality of character of both of them. so rediculous.

IIRC Trump wanted a debate with Bernie himself before the general.

Not sure what happened but Hillary was NOT involved in that one.

theres absolutely no way bernie would decline a trump on sanders debate. he'd tear his ass open and expose him for the Moron he is lol

he'd tear his ass open and expose him for the Moron he is lol

well, i don't know about that, but I would want to watch it all the same, that much we can agree on.

having news networks and anchors host our debates is asinine.

Let's be realistic for a minute Trump's vocabulary and overall basic understanding of how society functions is minimal at best. Bernie on the other hand has been pissed off and fighting his whole life he lives to tear privileged people in power new assholes.

He's also has served the longest in the Senate

termlimitsnow

No. Why would I want to set term limits on the good ones. Vote out the bad ones keep the good ones otherwise we have to retrain people over and over again. Term limits are a crutch for lazy voters. Do I want some of the gezzers out yea totally but having trained people to do complicated jobs and seeing what it takes to mold talent I can't agree with term limits for congress. A pro athlet doesn't become pro over night it takes training and practice. same with being a congress person.

I guess what do you consider good or bad ones? i know some senile people that have the biggest hearts.

Lots of congressional members on Alzheimers medication, McCain is tumorboi, Nancy Pelosi is still around, Bernie is simply getting around that age. So is Trump.

Experience vs senility shouldn't be this hard to balance.

I fully agree they need to be constantly test by having to talk in public about exactly what it is they are doing and the direction they want to move in. You can tell in a person speech when their minds are souring. Replace them when they can't do the job. You can be old and not senile. I'm sure you've worked with someone untrained before. Imagine having to retrain 435 people constantly instead of only having to replace the bad ones while keeping the good ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl5Xb5XoGTU

Just because Justin can recite a fairly simple concept and clearly spoken, does not mean his intent is good. Just because someone is apparently intellectually superior, does not mean their vision is a good one or even that they are a good leader.

Trump's statement is a clear faux pas and fumbled like many things, but in essence it's still true. Uranium is used for some very bad things, like....classified weapons I just recently learned about....you know some very bad things.

Just because Trump fumbles his words, doesn't mean I think he is incapable of understanding how important cubits are

I guess I'm different from you in that regard. I judge people on they way they speak and think it's a accurate reflection of the way they think and how intelligent they are. If a person can't articulate what they are trying to express my view is they have trouble understanding the substance of what they are talking about. I do agree something can be high-minded and evil. The Devil wields both the intellectual and the imbecile will equal force.

When given the choice between someone who can speak well vs someone who can't all other things equal you would always go with the one that spoke well.

In Trumps case he's the president of the US. His words are suppose to carry great weight with them but he flings them out very carelessly. In my view and it's only a opinion we have in Trump the worst of both worlds not only can he not speak well but he is also a bad leader. I don't like the chaos and turn over in the white house or his foreign policy choices so far.

In my opinion, some of Trump's speeches have been very well executed, powerful, and no fuck ups.

The media NEVER covers those, and will always highlight the worst aspects. If the media wanted to, they could have covered Barack "uhh 57 states now" Obama the same way.

They could make Trump to look perfect, and I am so glad that they are not on his side like they would have been for Hillary.

He might of had a couple good speechs but his grasp of policy is severally lacking. There is years of tape on trump and he's never came across as very intelligent or well educated. (While he is on paper.) I mean look at telling Lyster Holt he fired comey because of russia when they had carefully set up the Hillary emails investigation as a scape got. He even catches himself half way through the word Russia. Even if the whole russia thing is bullshit that's not the actions of a smart man. Hiring the mooch. That was not a smart decision. I think if we had a scale and we put all the good trump decsions on one side and all the bad ones on the other the bad ones would be heavier but thats just me.

The Mooch

After SNL did the character assassination on Spicer, and he became a meme, had to do something to stop the parodies from overtaking reality. Mooch took the job and very quickly became basically the same target.

However, we've landed on this Sanders chick and the late night show types are simply unable to do the same to her for some reason.

I say this situation was expertly, and nimbly navigated.

Though, the Spicer skits were gold.

The mooch scandal did him no good and he could of but SSH in with out ever having the mooch she was doing the job before he was a thing. At this point from my prospective SSH doesn't have any credibility. She will outright lie and obfuscate on any important issue. Most people don't bother watching them because the information is so suspect. No reason to go after her because you know the next one is going to be the exact same maybe worse. SSH Imo has some comic gold thats untapped like her constant pivots to her kids or messy house but at this time it's a target rich environment. Sessions is back in the news. I love the SNL Sessions. I would love to see a Bannon VS Ryan McConnil Civil war skit where they both show up with confederate flags and fight about who gets the southern voters. Then they all three get flanked by a Roy Moore army made up of Christians and Scientologist that he some how united.

So at least you seem to agree that late night shows attempt character assassination.

Trump knows this, and has dealt with it fairly successfully these past few years.

Yeah I think you could say they attack trumps character. As far as how trump has dealt with it I'm not sure. I think privately he's not dealing with it well at all. Publicly he's got in to some kinda trashy fights. When we tweeted about megan kelly during the debate and Mika saying she was bleeding from her face he kinda went a bridge to far especial for the Potus. I think if he was doing good things those same people wouldn't be attacking him. Granted other people would start attacking him but he would gain liberal late night host support.

Huh. A Marxist conspiracy theorist. Do you root for TPTB?

He’s only fighting because as a bureaucrat, he gets rich from socialist policies. He doesn’t actually care about you or anyone else

oh damn, well i guess your right, thank god trump's our president he definitely cares about everyone.

How could a rich person get more rich from socialist policies?

Look at Venezuela. The rich bureaucrats are even richer and the poor are poorer

He's a rich guy with three houses who preaches socialism and massive taxes, while he himself pays a lower tax rate than any other candidate in the election.

If they had participated in the debate they wouldnt have been allowed to participate in any other debates sanctioned by the RNC or DNC

so it would have just been hillary sitting there or what? got a link?

Bernie isn't good at debates. Lyin Ted beat Bernie and Trump destroyed lyin ted

When was this ? bernie killed all the debates he was in

They debated tax reform the other day and I thought Ted won handily. Not basing that off of their policies but rather their ability to articulate their policies. It's not about what your message is, but how many people you can get to buy in to your message. That is where Bernie failed, and where Trump succeeded.

Bernie Crushed Ted on the healthcare debate and tax reform. Teds trying to sell stealing from the middle to give to the rich. Bernie is looking out for the middle class. Bernie wasn't lying. Ted was. That pretty much sells me right there. Trump lied to get elected and people believed him.

"I think Bernie's right so I think he won."

Yes. Thats how this works right? The person you think is "right" wins. You think Cruz is right so you think he won. I'm fine with that if you are. We can debate certain points if you like. I'm always game.

No. That's not how it works. Ted was far better at articulating his points than Bernie was. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. This is why in debate class they make you defend arguments that you don't necessarily agree with. It's an art really.

Oh ok so on presentation? I hate Ted Cruz colloquialisms. He takes for 30 seconds about nothing to do with the subject. It feels like he tries to muddy the water before answering. It's clear Ted Cruz is a polished salesman. If I didn't understand the subject matter I would give it to him his delivery is good. Once you look at the substance of his arguments though I start to see glaring holes.

Bernie is looking out for the middle class.

lol

Ted perfectly displayed how dishonest Bernie is and he couldn't even refute it. Bernie's economic plan would cost a projected 13 trillion dollars. You could tax everyone making over a million at a rate of 100% and you'd only get a trillion. The other 12 trillion come from taxing the middle class and everyone else. Bernie has gullible people like you so fooled that I'm embarrassed for you.

Ted perfectly displayed how dishonest Bernie is

False. Please point me to a single sourced lie.

Bernie's economic plan would cost a projected 13 trillion dollars

Again false. Please show me Bernies plan written down anywhere. Has the CBO scored this? Has anyone scored this?

The other 12 trillion come from taxing the middle class and everyone else.

Again false. Please sight sources of your information.

Bernie has gullible people like you so fooled that I'm embarrassed for you.

You lie 4 times in 1 paragraph and then feel embarassed for me? You believe Lying Ted Cruz? I'm ready lets play. Sight sources and provide links I can't wait to eat up your responses.

sight

lol, just go away Shareblue. You could find all this in about a minute of googling. Furthermore everything I said was fucking discussed in their debate, which I'm guessing you didn't fucking watch based on how uninformed you are. Bernie is trash and doesn't understand basic economics just like his supporters.

Throwing a fit when called out. Childish. Thank you for proving my point. You are dismissed.

You lost when you proved yourself to be uninformed. Everything was discussed in the debate. Maybe go and watch it instead of looking stupid here.

I watched it. What you claim is there isn't. When asked to back it up you couldn't.

"BUT THE 1 PERCENT! EMOTIONAL APPEAL!"

Rinse. Repeat.

Um no he didn't.

The guy who just got schooled by Ted Cruz was going to expose Trump? LOL

You obviously didn't see the debate with Bernie and Lion Ted the other day. Lion Ted destroyed Bernie.

ted as stupid as he is, unfortunately, is smarter than our president. I'll watch it if you can get me a link of it i haven't seen it yet.

Ted is a nerd, but Trump is an emotional genius

Sanders is a timid little bitch who doesn't understand basic economics and Trump is a ruthless businessman. I'm picturing a lion vs a rabbit. It would have been entertaining at most.

Trump is a "ruthless businessman"? Since when is inheriting your daddy's millions and filing for bankruptcy numerous times considered "ruthless"?

Since when is inheriting your daddy's millions

Trump did inherit millions, just like all of his siblings. Why aren't they multibillionaires and household names?

filing for bankruptcy numerous times

Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy. Of his business that have (like 11 of 500) every corporation would kill for such turnover.

Do you just spout off every MSM hit piece?

Trump originally said he would participate in a debate with Bernie after Bernie challenged him. He backed out a few days later.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/05/donald-trump-backs-out-of-debate-with-bernie-sanders-223674

unfortunate for us all, but a winning move for Trump. Trump knew he had a better chance against Clinton

Debatable

as many things are.

which part though?

How about Bernie isolating the most important swing states with his socialist rhetoric?

not sure what you mean hillary won the primary.

hopefully no leaked emails reveal the entire DNC working against Bernie come out, phew.

he said he would debate if they got a news network to sponsor it for 10 million or something.

That was his way to save face. But let's be honest, he realized it was a bad idea and changed his mind.

A company did offer $10 million to host:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/tech-company-we-will-put-up-10-million-for-bernie-trump-deba?utm_term=.pw85APa9v#.grx6rEvlw

That is why I say it was rigged. Not because of anything Trump said during his many hissy-fits.

Bernie Sanders was shut out. Thanks DNC, for giving us That Donald.

What are you talking about? There was a New York debate right before the primary there for the Dems.

You must have missed it because the polls didn't change at all after it.

No it didn't have Trump and that was the ticket , Trump and Hillary would have been at each other's throats over personal accusations Bernie would have shined thru as the only clear choice after that I'mo

What debates did you watch exactly? Because that's not even how the Trump v Clinton debates went.

Well, we just got Bernie vs. Cruz, and the Zodiac cleaned Col. Sanders clock.

Who the fuck wants to hear trump "debate"?

i know right? It was HER turn!!

Wtf are you REEing about?

Millions of Americans

I meant not ironically.

Again- millions of Americans. You must be really insulated in a coastal city or a college campus if you aren't aware of how many average Americans- like the people who make your food and build all the infrastructure around you that you use everyday and take completely for granted- would drag their dick through a mile of broken glass to watch Trump speak.

Coal country born and raised.

Then I don't know how you could possibly believe what you just said.

Because ive literally never heard a positive statement about trump. Ive seen a few bumper stickers but 90% of the trump voters here simply hated hillary and didn't think much more about it. Since he has made an ass of himself eveyday after the inauguration people have pretty much dropped the topic of politics. Ive never seen such a collective "oops" in my life.

My experience has been really different. And just objectively, I don't know how anyone could not be aware that there are lots of Americans who are obsessed with Trump. Hate him personally all you want, but don't delude yourself.

He has lost support in literally every state.

That happens with every president after election

We deserved a Bernie v Anyone else but Trump debate.

those were the days. it fucking blew me AWAY how fast the daily traffic dropped and how quickly it became infested with r/enoughsandersspam type people.

When Sanders could be used to split the vote they Russain bots where spamming. Now it's died off since they've moved to hotter issues like the NFL.

It’s harder to understand you when you don’t use punctuation and correct grammar 😕

The only thing I saw that was wrong I typed a they instead of the. Please let me know the punctuation and grammatical errors. I don't think many people found the 2 sentences hard to read.

When Sanders could be used to split the vote, the Russain bots were spamming. Now it has died off since they've moved to hotter issues like the NFL.

That being said, I didn't find your post hard to read. To be pedantic, I could have added a couple more commas.

This literally made me lol. I don’t usually point out grammar mistakes. But having diction errors and no punctuation and does make something harder to read.

Or is this better? - Butt having diction errors, and, no punctuation does some thing harder too read?”

Why are you defending shills with nonsense?

Point to a shills migration pattern isn't defending shills lol.

Right, the fact that Reddit was hugely pro-Sanders before the CTR takeover of r/politics was due to "Russian bots." LOL

Reddit is still very pro sanders. Also lots of Russian bots pushed Bernie to split the Dem vote. isn't the old news? People in r/politics still love bernie. You can beat r/politics will be very pro-bernie next year to just maybe not so astroturfed. I never claimed all the hype was bots just point out the difference.

Also lots of Russian bots pushed Bernie to split the Dem vote. isn't the old news?

Sounds like an Establishment narrative based on no actual evidence, so its fake news, not old news.

-Everything I disagree with is fake- Low energy post.

Yea, that's not what I said. You would've provided evidence if you had any, so stop falling for the Establishment propaganda like a sheep. Wake up, man.

Evidence there was bernie bots? Did we live through the same time period? You don't remember enoughberniespam? Hey. It's cool. Fight the good fight.

I've heard a few people like you make vague accusations but you never seem to provide any evidence. Its transparent.

Would you like to deny everything russia just go ahead and get a good blanket denial out the way?

I keep banging my head against the wall trying to explain that the subreddit already leaned left. They just went for the only left candidate left. I donated to Bernie, I upvoted negative articles about Clinton, I also continued to post in politics after Bernie lost in support of Clinton. As did my roommates, I don't know how many times we have to tell you that's not a conspiracy and can be totally explained through organic means. Not like the guy we supported endorsed her right?

Anti-Hillary articles had two sides that wanted to see them upvoted Trump Voters and Bernie voters. When Bernie voters became Hillary voters then it was just Trump Voters. Is it any wonder you're not seeing anti Hillary articles suddenly when her negative demographic just got cut in half? It's not rocket science.

I think it's fair to say that like the_donald, Bernie had amassed a similar amount of keyboard warriors. As well as the bots, shills, and all the other players.

it was not the same, and its a fact that CTR was there when Bernie voters were consistently there and after. Its also a fact that ESS mods were mods on politics after as well as CTR basically taking over the Bernie sub itself. Reddit is a powerful tool for discussion, Hillary will never lose interest in power

fact

ahahahaa

whats so funny? have proof to the contrary? the daily traffic plummeted and there was a clear clinton takeover. I was in ESS/Clinton discords silently watching, occasionally chiming in to act like another one of them. this isnt just being overly cynical, but also it was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention there was a shakeup. the shills were always there to fight the berners, its not like they left when the berners did too.

You mean after a loss/win people get depressed/active?

Your proof to the positive is inconclusive at best. Is politics not already left leaning like most the rest of reddit? How many times do subs like /r/dankmemes and /r/me_irl posts reach the front page complaining about their own memes?

Heres a few hints: The_Donald's type was accepted in /r/politics due to their rabid anti-clintonism. More people already liked clinton over sanders. Sander's own slow loss and support for clinton after the DNC picked up many of his platform's interests resulted in plenty of his supporters joining clinton for the general

theres a huge difference between "left leaning" & being a progressive. there were tens of thousands of active progressives going to r/politics so goddamn often and after Bernie WON but had his victory stolen from him via voter fraud (ask Stanford abt that) those progressives saw the 6 months ahead, and were hurt. We weren't going to keep up against the shills on r/politics day to day because the blue tide a Bernie nomination would have brought was lost when Clinton & the entire establishment prioritized keeping the power with themselves. r/politics was infested with CTR from the moment Bernie followers started making that their homebase for online outreach aside from the Bernie subbreddit itself. If you really are arguing against that then I recommend you look into CTR & its budget, including how much it spent and what on.

so you're just ignoring all evidence that doesnt agree with your conclusion. Keep to your ostrich effect.

okay, reread it. shows evidence of voter fraud. I am not ignoring any evidence, the exit polls varied by more than 2% in over 20 states. CTR is a real organization that pays real people to type divisive chaos inducing BS into platforms of discussion like Reddit. The exit poll differential was so bad they made sure California wasn't even going to have one. What evidence are you referencing? No ostrich effect here, sorry to break it to ya.

It shows nothing of the sort. The report has such sampling bias that it can't be used on its own. They are not, there's been plenty written about that. Even the authors admit that it has not been placed under scientific rigor. That by itself should show you that this is pushing an agenda and not scientifically sound. Exit polling on its own is also regularly unreliable due to its sampling bias. Hell, you don't even know that their point was that exit polls varied from reality and that they were analyzing the difference between the percentage of delegates that voted for clinton and the reputability of the paper trail (or lack thereof) in the state's primary. You don't even know what the study is using as evidence. The assumption that states without paper trails swung to clinton and didn't reflect the states with paper trails is proof that the election was fraudulent is shoddy at best. They bring up no point or reason that would explain this difference presumably as that would weaken the already weak paper.

CTR is a bunch of people on twitter responding to tweets.

The fact that you think that bernie won despite all the evidence at your fingertips shows you don't want to accept reality. The fact that you're so deluded to think that CTR took over an entire subreddit so suddenly despite participants explaining exactly how your evidence is inconclusive shows you're ignoring reality. Especially your point that anyone on /r/politics that attacked clinton was a 'progressive' shows you don't know the first thing about how people act on reddit.

astroturfing is a huge issue across all platforms and to think your response is 'dismantling' that claim then you should really look into CTR more or you have an agenda to protect their reputation. They are on a lot more than twitter, and there are other organizations then CTR astroturfing. I didnt claim they took over super suddenly, I mentioned that they were there before Clinton "won" and merely stayed after the traffic of progressives plummeted. & there is a lot more to voter fraud then trying to squeeze the narrative into "paper trail or not". I knew what evidence they used, because their findings turned the paper trail into swiss cheese. Theres footage of voting machines highlighting HC when Bernie is selected. There has never been a dramatic difference in exit polling in our countries history. Any time an exit poll varies by 2% in another country our state department warns them of fraud immediately. There was never a primary where there was pressure to ensure there wasnt an exit poll done. The machines are beyond weak & the system is corrupt to the core. There are moves being made that clearly are over your head. Get out of r/conspiracy if you're just here to start arguments, pretty obnoxious.

Yea, you're just seeing what you want to see

you're going to give that half ass rebuttal? if anything just shows your hypocrisy. supply proof or don't reply at all.

half ass rebuttal shows hypocrisy

there's the good ol leaps of logic I like to see in /r/conspiracy

supply proof

You mean the thing you didn't supply? The closest thing being the 'study' that you don't even know what you're talking about?

I know you'll just move goal posts or ignore all evidence to the contrary anyways but here goes:

astroturfing is a huge issue across all platforms and to think your response is 'dismantling' that claim then you should really look into CTR more or you have an agenda to protect their reputation.

Your claim of their participation is completely lacking in any level of valuable evidence, especially on reddit. You're poisoning the well by claiming that I must either not know of their reputation or must be protecting their reputation instead of the more logical position of claiming that perceived opinions on a forum change are not representative of the forum's occupants. Which has been explained to you a number of times: attacking hillary = trump supporters + bernie supporters result in a drowning out of hillary supporters, bernies slow decline in the primary + dnc platform including more progressive positions = increase in progressive support for dnc candidate (aka Hillary), etc.

I didnt claim they took over super suddenly, I mentioned that they were there before Clinton "won" and merely stayed after the traffic of progressives plummeted.

The fact that you're so deluded to think that CTR took over an entire subreddit so suddenly despite participants explaining exactly how your evidence is inconclusive shows you're ignoring reality.

Please show me where that excludes "them" already existing? Are you saying /r/politics was taken over by trump bots immediately after the the general election going trump? Because daily participation also dropped then? As it did when ron paul lost his primary. There is nothing about this that points anywhere near exclusively to astroturfing.

& there is a lot more to voter fraud then trying to squeeze the narrative into "paper trail or not". I knew what evidence they used, because their findings turned the paper trail into swiss cheese. Theres footage of voting machines highlighting HC when Bernie is selected.

No shit there's a lot more to voter fraud, yet there is nothing to support it. Their entire basis of evidence of fraud was about the paper trails vs no paper trails when you exclusively argued from exit polls. Show me those videos and their resulting changed votes, or you're just not going supplying literally any evidence at all?

There has never been a dramatic difference in exit polling in our countries history. Any time an exit poll varies by 2% in another country our state department warns them of fraud immediately.

You want to submit evidence of literally either of these claims? How does that 2% figure account for margin of errors included in the polls? Because exit polls are notoriously biased. I'll even give you a fellow conspiracy believer:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

There was a massive 8% discrepancy between the exit polls (52D-42R) and the recorded vote (48D-46R)

There was never a primary where there was pressure to ensure there wasnt an exit poll done.

So are you claiming there was one here? Want to submit evidence that supports that (both there had never and that this did)?

The machines are beyond weak & the system is corrupt to the core. There are moves being made that clearly are over your head.

They're not over my head, they're shitty talking points to rally counterculture /r/TheRedPill types with conservatism and baseless claims of cheating. Easiest to show this is the belief that trump was a suitable vote replacement for sanders voters that rotated during the election on reddit. Look at pizzagate, it was literally created on /r/The_Donald and 4chan. Then when there wasn't a scrap of evidence for it they tried to tie it into general pedophilia cartels that people have already existed with no evidence to Podesta. Hell wikileaks, the basis of many conspiracies during this election linked directly to /r/the_donald where literally any moderating discussion is removed.

Get out of r/conspiracy if you're just here to start arguments, pretty obnoxious.

Get off the internet if you're too stupid to see you've already fallen for such shitty baseless propaganda.

You are supplying just as much proof that I am wrong as much as I am for my own claims, which is the source of my hypocrisy accusation. You linked me some analysis of national election exit polls not even related to the 2016 democratic primaries. There is a lot more proof for voter fraud against Bernie & Pizzagate then you will ever let yourself admit to there being. Your cognitive dissonance is clearly pretty strong. Tell me, why did they have a basement at Comet and try to refute that later? Why was the exit poll differential in New York over 20%? What about Ohio? Arizona? Don't even get me started on the amount of polling stations that were closed down in Arizona just prior to the 2016 Election. How can I submit proof of something never happening before? You want me to spoon feed you on the rarity of forcing a state to not conduct an exit poll?

So you're just flat out ignoring that you are actually wrong about previous exit polls never being so off? Not back up your claim that other countries use 2% error in exit polls as a sign to look for fraud? Falling face first for the 0 evidence pizzagate idiocy and any other voter fraud but none of the moderating logical sources?

They never had a basement, that was 4 Chan larping. Why are you not backing up your claims with anything? You realize polling stations were closed in many more states than Arizona due to republican interference? You can submit a clear pattern of evidence to the contrary instead of the diddly squat you've used this entire thread.

I've actually had to spoon feed you information in this discussion on how wrong and misled you are/have been and yet you still insist on being wrong.

you aren't backing up your claims or spoon feeding me. Alefantis talked about the basement himself in an interview. you're falling face first for whatever narrative is given to you by your masters. foh already.

you aren't backing up your claims or spoon feeding me

then you haven't been reading my comments

http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/

Fair enough, he said he kept them in the basement. In one interview where he knew they didn't have a basement? Yet it couldn't have been in their residence's basement or anything? And this is somehow evidence of something?

[links]

What do you think these support for you? None of them submit the 2% exit poll error for evidence of fraud, only that it could be used. They each admit that exit polls have a serious case of selection bias to be compensated for. Here's some choice quotes from them to support me:

The following are examples of the most egregious, widely observed and reported examples of election-day fraud on November 21:

none of these accusations in the dnc primary

With the second approach, interviewing samples in a larger number of precincts, the margins of error in each precinct would be quite large. Mitofsky would not speculate on the sampling error in a precinct, because it depends on the size of the sample. But given sample sizes of 100 to 200 voters, the margins of error could be in the 8% to 10% range. When the data are aggregated into regions and across the state as a whole, the margin of error would still be substantial -- at least in the 2% to 3% range.

.

The exit polls have never been cited as primary evidence of fraud, but only as a reason to take that primary evidence to heart.

and yet there isn't any 'primary evidence' of voter fraud in the primary

Who is laura silsby again

"Nine of the ten missionaries were later released but NLCR founder Laura Silsby remained incarcerated in Haiti. By the time she went to trial on May 13 the charges had been reduced to "arranging irregular travel" and the prosecution sought a 6-month prison term.[4] On May 17, she was found guilty and sentenced to the time served in jail prior to the trial.[5]"

"In an interview, the United States Ambassador to Haiti Kenneth Merten, stated that the U.S. justice system would not interfere and added "the Haitian justice system will do what it has to do.""

In the days following the group's initial arrest, Dominican Jorge Puello falsely portrayed himself as the group's lawyer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/americas/16haiti.html

What foundation did Epstein start again? OH thats right, the Clinton Foundation.

Uhhh, you mean the presidential foundation that Bill Clinton founded?

How much money did CF receive for Haiti Aid?

30 million

How many houses did they build?

Is building houses the only thing done to repair a country after natural disasters? http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

Why was that aid going to sacrifice a chicken to Moloch? Who is Moloch exactly?

LMAO oh man you're full of it. Call me a shill and outright repeat alex jones level idiocy. Have fun being ignorant when you can't even read your own sources

No the CF raised more money then that, and I wanted to know how much of it they spent on building houses aka how many houses ended up being built?

It is basic fact that Epstein co-founded the Clinton Foundation

Your rebuttal on Laura Silsby includes no explanation on why she had 33 'orphans' some of which still had parents. Only included how the system was able to protect people like her.

& those links were just what I was able to pull up cause clearly you haven't read enough on exit polls. It is common knowledge that if they are off by dozens of percentage points, something is awry.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613#efmAMaANe?A

what did he mean by this?

coward

Do you think the discussions they're having are real over there? It's hard to take their rage serious. I remember the Bernie days on there.

No, the whole subreddit is currently CTR folks trolling each other. /r/politics is dangerous to your sanity now. Do not enter.

I believe that they think the discussions they are having are real, but in reality it's just a bunch of bored people getting off on the anti Trump hyperbole. The subreddit is essentially an anti Trump echo chamber masquerading as a bipartisan political boar. At least t_d is up front with its bias.

You're probably right. I wish there was a policy subreddit

It's pretty ironic because I think Sanders would likely have beaten Trump, especially with the amount of resources the party pumped into Clinton behind him.

you mean when Bernie was no longer an option?

Anti all but Clinton. It's the Wapo/CNN of Reddit.

/r/politics gave Hillary a free pass. Amazing how that happened.

The power of the shill. Manipulate posts up or down. Censor others via a post limit function.

The creator of Reddit, the one who passed, would be devastated. Probably good he did pass since he would not want to see what his vision has become.

you're kidding, right? Notice how this sub is incredibly pro-trump? It's the user base, not the mods.

Conspiracy is not pro trump. Im here all the time due to its open minded nature.

Yes there are pro Trump people here. And pro Bernie, and pro Jill and pro libertarian guy who I forgot.

politics is exactly like TheDonald except for Hillary.

Simply not true. By a long shot.

Thats so vague no response is possible.

What is not true and do you have cites to support this?

Mass number of pro Sanders threads.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=sanders&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all

Maybe try this one

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=russia&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all

Yep. Nice. Its a tragedy. Reddit was a cornerstone of democracy. The internet was.

I new this was going to happen. Its too much power to the people. All sites will be taken over like this.

So go to /r/unbiasednews. Reddit works on a fucking voting system. It's based on a logical fallacy that the majority of people know what 'good news' is.

'Politics' gives the impression its a forum to discuss...politics not a single candidate or the establishment narrative.

Right, but since there's a majority on one side then only that side will get exposure. You understand this, right? And you can tie the same logic to r/conspiracy and others. When 60% of the people downvote anything that's anti-trump then 0% of the material will be pro-trump. It's not reflective of actual views, the same way that r/politics is not.

Wow are you wrong.

Mass number of anti Trump threads. Youre a fkn shill. Fk off.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=trump&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all

I didn't even vote for hillary. Show me one anti trump post on conspiracy from today? Oh you cant they are all anti-clinton.

dumbass.

From today?? lol why from Today? The link I provided showed a ton of anti Trump posts.

Ok show me a pro hillary post from any Tuesday not following a full moon. See!

Take care.

analogy is the weakest form of argument.

And still better than any made by you.

alright, feel free to reply to this comment as soon as you see one, then.

/r/politics did that? I thought it was the Republican lead investigations that resulted in nothing that did that??

It didn't "result in nothing." We have the facts and they show Hillary and her cronies getting immunity for literally zero cooperation, hiding and destroying documents and phones, using programs to wipe her server clear of all information, people assisting her literally asking reddit how to delete a 'very important VIP's' email history, refusal to let the FBI view her servers, refusal to hand over all emails after government subpoena (which shouldn't even happen since they're government property and subject to FOIA requests), secret meetings with the AG where secret service stopped people from taking pictures, etc etc the list goes on.

Don't conflate resulting in nothing with innocence. It's almost as if corrupt government officials don't go after their own team.

Trump is a complete moron who makes news a lot for doing stupid things. People don't like him because he is an obese rich asshole that claims to be non-establishment which is completely nonsense and doesn't make sense why his supporters believe it.

If r/politics is an anti-trump circlejerk, then this sub is definitely The_Donald2

big difference is that rpolitics has millions of views and millions more people who use it as an actual news source.

rpolitics is one of the most carefully curated aggregates of news on the internet. The_donald and conspiracy are both half a mil and not nearly as prominent.

rpolitics is abusing it's mass reach just like CNN, NYT, HuffPo, Slate, Salon, MSNBC, Fox, etc.... and it cannot be compared to subreddits of barely half a million

How is it curated when it relies on the votes of millions of users....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_farm

Roflcopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXvzhYnlTU0 roflmao only russians hack, no other entity or persons would ever hack. long live the tsar

Not why I am laughing. I'm a network engineer and am fully aware of malicious behaviour on the Internet. I am laughing because you truly believe there are people willing to spend money to attempt to skew the upvotes of a subreddit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

EPIC LOLS ROFLMADALFATGAESGHSEWESEYHES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareblue

I am aware of this. You are being exceptionally broad in your claim they are doing this to moderate r/politics continuously. That's not a targeting campaign. The scale isn't even comparable.

if people weren't easily swayed by intentionally provocative headlines, we wouldn't have gone to iraq because "muh WMDs"

I will bet that the idiots swayed by that were the same ones swayed by Trump's nonsense. Considering a majority were against the Iraq war.

https://imgur.com/a/MUebK

damn idiots

Relevance?

Considering a majority of Americans were against the Iraq war.

Perhaps after the fact.

I was too young to have any meaningful opinion on it. All I remember are the hordes of parents trying to break into the school and totally encapsulated in the fear mongering complacency.

Nope. Not after the fact. Bush did it even though most people were against it.

Yeah well and Hillary had a 90% chance to win so.

Why do all you boys with the orange daddy always go to that? It's not even relevant to the argument at all.

I mean do you have some kind of official war poll from 2001?

You're welcome to Google it. Report back here with your findings.

https://imgur.com/a/Z1Uwt

Seems I was wrong. My memory sucks I guess and I guess not being friends with religious or conservatives placed me in an echo chamber.

52% is a bit sad. Most people I spoke with at the time knew the WMD shit was bullshit.

The media fear mongering power is very real. And in my humble instinct, they have been trying to use those same powers against Trump. it's been a relatively respectful chat sir and or madam in the current year

the difference is that the_donald is a sub about, ....you guess....Donald Trump, while politics always was a subreddit to talk about...POLITICS....at least before correct the record took over that place

Correct. Politics is about politics but is overrun by Trump haters. Conspiracy is about conspiracy theories but it is currently overrun with Trump defenders/Hillary, Soros & Obama haters.

that’s right, a lot of anti Obama Hillary folks here BUT if pretty much EVERY MAJOR NEWSITE doesn’t cover said politicians upcoming stories I think it is exactly the stuff that’s r/conspiracy worthy.

The majority of these kinds of posts are bullshit. Very few of the "lack of coverage" posts are nonsense and easily disproved.

LOL. What world are you living in dude? There is a reason that a lot of the conspiracy theorist members here are pro-Trump. Maybe it’s because there is a lot of stinky events that occur, and the media barely reports on them, and /r/politics and /r/news ignores them. The entire media (except a few) is a giant anti-Trump / Pro-Democrat circle jerk... that includes 98% of Reddit.

Everytime I see one of those posts saying "the MSM aren't reporting this." I google it and see the "MSM" is in fact reporting it. It's like most people can't be bothered typing a few words into a search engine.

There is a difference between an article buried deep for no one to see on 2 mainstream media sources website, and every mainstream media news station running a news headline as well as on the front page of their website. Any news source can throw an article up on their server so that it indexes Google, and they can say “Oh we’re not biased. We wrote an article about it!”. But they leave out the part that it wasn’t anywhere to be found on their front page or on their station.

This corruption coming to light with Hillary/Obama should be running headlines on every news station and news media website. If you replaced it with “Trump”, you know damn well it would be.

Trump is a complete moron who makes news a lot for doing stupid things. People don't like him because he is an obese rich asshole that claims to be non-establishment which is completely nonsense and doesn't make sense why his supporters believe it.

If r/politics is an anti-trump circlejerk, then this sub is definitely The_Donald2

Look at the titles on the front page of /r/politics.

Most of them are not about facts or events at all (news) - they're generally some variation of this format: "[politician/celebrity] said [negative thing] about [Trump and/or his policy/supporters]." Any current events mentioned are secondary or incidental to the main purpose - telling people what views to have.

It's not news - it's literal propaganda. Even when they're not "reporting" on opinions, the headlines about actual news are nearly always editorialized.

There are lots of Trump related posts but only 1 is a celebrity attacking Trump but a political one (Barack).

Your claim was disproved by simply clicking on the link you supplied.

There are lots of Trump related posts but only 1 is a celebrity attacking Trump but a political one (Barack).

Really? Only one?

These are some of the titles I see on the front page of /r/politics right now:

• Rep. Frederica Wilson: Kelly lied about FBI ceremony
• Barack Obama implies Trump has set US back 50 years in first political speech for a year
• New U.S. Budget Is a 'Hoax,' Says Republican Senator Bob Corker
• Brits Tell Trump to Mind His Own Business After Crime Tweet
• Winston Churchill's grandson calls Trump a 'daft twerp'
• Protester hugs Nazi outside Richard Spencer talk, asks 'Why do you hate me?'
• Khizr Khan, Gold Star Father Who Spoke at DNC, Wants John Kelly to Stop 'Mopping Up' After Donald Trump

All of those are examples of "this person has an opinion so you should have it, too."

They're technically appeal to authority fallacies, despite some of the opinions not actually coming from any authority at all.

Your claim was disproved by simply clicking on the link you supplied.

Nah, not really, based on the examples I just provided.

I also specifically avoided making any quantitative statements because the front page obviously changes, and I knew someone wouldn't be able to resist "proving me wrong."

Edit: I do agree there are too many opinion pieces posted though.

True. Like these, also on their front page right now:

• Gold Star families are coming out en masse and disputing Trump's claims amid his latest controversy ("en mass" is an obvious exaggeration)
• Three Richard Spencer Supporters Arrested for Attempted Murder of Protesters in Gainesville (attempting to blame politicians for everything their supporters do is a textbook guilty by association fallacy)
• Hilarious Paul Ryan Forgets to Mention That He's Concealing Trump Tax Returns (obviously editorialized title)
• Barack Obama Is Back and Reminding Us What a President Looks Like (obviously editorialized title)
• Trump’s mindless cruelty to a soldier’s widow speaks to the core of his character (obviously editorialized title)
• John Kelly’s defense of Trump was absurd. And he surely knows it. (obviously editorialized title)
• Donald Trump links UK crime rise to ‘radical Islamic terror’, despite complete absence of evidence to support claim (obviously editorialized title, with added hypocrisy considering how many other stories are merely unsubstantiated opinions)

They are all politicians. Case closed.

They are all politicians.

Gold star families are all politicians?

And so are all Brits?

And a random protestor?

Case closed.

Even if you were right (you're not), that wouldn't disprove what I said at all.

None of those are celebrities. Your goal posts keep moving. People responding to politicians is not celebrities attacking Trump.

None of those are celebrities.

Ok, maybe I forgot to include "regular people" in my comment, but it's absolutely clear from the rest of what I said that the focus on opinions at all (and using them to influence people) is the issue, not whose opinions they are.

Your goal posts keep moving.

Textbook hypocrisy right there.

If your point was that they weren't celebrities, then you wouldn't have first said they're all politicians.

But no, my goalpost hasn't moved; you just haven't even entered the field yet.

People responding to politicians is not celebrities attacking Trump.

You're focusing on semantics and ignoring the obvious point itself, because you don't have a legitimate counter argument.

Lol.

Removed. Rule 5.

You post is pretty subjective.

Trump's level of mental capacity does not fit the definition of a "moron" That is hyperbole.

Many people do like Trump. Some do not.

He does not fit the definition of "obese"

Trump claims to be non-establishment, because that declaration, however accurate fits his political persona. It does make sense that his supporters believe it, because that is the narrative that serves their belief model. Even if it is not true, it makes perfect sense.

I voted for Sanders. Trump behaves like he is a nitwit, though he is not. He lacks certain communication skills, which is a real embarrassment....it does not make him a "moron".

I can supply huge amounts of examples of him behaving moronic. A very obvious one is constantly claims of the size of his inauguration crowds. I think almost all rational people would classify that as moronic.

He is literally obese. By definition of obese in medical terms he is definitely obese.

Him claiming to be anti-establishment is nothing but a claim. It does fit his political persona at all. It doesn't fit his persona in general.

Trump doesn't just behave like a "nitwit" he is one. Again there are a huge number of examples and not only in regards to his lack of articulation. He is certainly a moron. He has never done anything in his life to prove otherwise. A silver spoon does not denote intelligence.

huge amounts of examples of him behaving moronic...

You sound angry....like an alt-left nutjob.

Most of what you say is hyperbole and moron is a measurable rating which does not apply to many people, even Mr. Trump.

Stop wasting my time....I didn't vote for him.

Moron is an attack on someone's intelligence. It's not a measure. What the hell?

You are full of shit.

According to the APA, "Moron" is a measurably low level of intelligence. Just because you are ignorant about that does not make me "full of" anything.

Merriam Webster Dictionary: Definition of "moron"

1. dated, now offensive :a person affected with mild mental retardation

Bahahaha. A term once used as a psychological term but is no longer used in that sense. There is no current measurement for the term moron. It is purely used as an insult for someone who behaves in a daft manner.

It is why the dictionary prefixes it with "dated."

2 scoops!

with sprinkles....

That's why I unsubbed. All it was, was Trump stuff. I'm not a fan of him either, but fuck is there nothing else going on in the world?

And what's this sub?

a sub of 511k

The_dumbfucks 2.0

To be fair, it's been WAY more than 2 years. Trumplethinskin is an utter fuckwit of an individual and not even remotely fit for the office of President of the United states and we have know this since the 80's. So, yeah, most people think he and his supporters are complete dipshits that don't deserve the time of day.

You need to lay off the CNN.

I don’t watch CNN. I watch C-Span though.

You think we haven’t known IMPOTUS is a shit bag of a human being since the 80’s?

No reply, just a down vote? Typical.

I didn't down vote you there, but it looks like others clearly did. Have another though.

Without answering my terribly simple question as well? Shocking from a conspiracy edgelord.

Still can’t answer my SUPER simple question?

Everyone in the 80’s knew Mango Mussolini was misogynistic racist simpleton. Where were you?

2 years of anti Trump? Wow the delusion has broken the space time continuum.

Reddit is owned by Conde Nast

of course they are. they don't care about truth. only the ability to feel smug and push their narrative.

They're not.

Of course they’re censoring. 90% of Reddit is full-on liberal dumbassery. Most of the mods in those subs are complete douchebags who promote low IQ groupthink.

They don't care.

They've been doing that for years now. I've had to stop making Reddit my first place to go to for news because of the shit mods there.

Deleting duplicate articles is not censorship. Go upvote the original submission and not this karma whoring cunt.

This site is already a slow cancer. Subreddits only want to become an echo chamber. If you have a view or want to debate an opposing viewpoint, you get banned.

Basically, if you don't sing with the chorus, get out.

OPs claims have been debunked. He didn't copy the URLs correctly

You aren't lying. I posted this article in /r/news and it's the same thing. It's a legit article by a credible news source. THE HILL isn't some pro-Trump news source by any stretch of the imagination. Yet people can link articles about unnamed sources all day long as long as it's anti-Trump.

I sorted by top of all month and couldn't find one anti-trump article. Please point me to one.

/r/news doesn't allow political posts.

Lol. You lie.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/search?q=trump&sort=top&restrict_sr=on

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

That’s a completely different search.

/r/news doesn't allow political posts.

keep up...

It’s a completely different search that you’re dangling up as evidence. Sorry that news and politics are inextricably linked to a degree and it hurts your feelings, but if you really do sort /r/news by top it really does do a surprisingly good job for a default sub of staying away from politics.

Anyway I wandered in here from /r/all because I was interested in learning about the story but the circlejerk about how much we hate reddit and are bad at finding appropriate subreddits to post in really undermines the truth.

'those aren't REAL political posts!'

So you searched for "Trump" instead of sorting for the top posts this month to prove that there are Trump posts in the top posts of the month... genius.

How is it a political post? It's not any more political than many of the other news stories. It's a story about facts, it includes sources and links to proof/evidence. I find it frightening that this stuff is being censored.

That's really weird and frightening. The article is just as much a news story, supported by facts, as any other. Also The Hill makes up a large amount of articles posted there.

"Facts are racist." -Reddit

Form what I remember Im pretty sure Ive read some decent articles in the Hill but I've also seen some clickbait titles so bad I wouldn't look any further and it kinda pisses me off when there isn't consistency at a big publication like that. However, on top of my own experiences getting banned without explanation from Hillary getting baited repeatedly by Correct the Record and Sharblue as well as getting my own vote count manipulated after criticizing them and the fact that there have been numerous posts in this sub talking about getting banned at /news for posting about this topic, I believe there is definitely a concerted effort to flush this scandal down the toilet.

What about Cambridge Analytics? Three times the funding of CTR and Shareblue, with Stephen Bannon on the fucking board of directors.

Shilling works on stupid people, and boy did it work this election.

That article has been posted there plenty...

The article came out a half a day ago. I just did a search using words from the article's headline. Nope, it hasn't.

lmao and look at the denial in the one thread they allowed to stay locked at 0 in their sub.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I was referring to /r/news and not /r/politics . Everyone with any sense knows /r/politics is an echo chamber and biased.

I found one thread about it using search.

This was the story.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/watching_fox/2017/10/19/why_fox_news_is_obsessed_with_a_story_about_obama_clinton_uranium_and_russia.html

only allowed because it's Slate and it takes a stab at Fox.

Those stories were all over r/news then poof they were all gone.

We gotta just keep posting it

Fuck r/news

After the Orlando censorship, especially where to donate blood I unsubbed

So brave, so powerful

jeez, he wasn't claiming to be brave or powerful, just that r/worldnews is shit & he unsubbed a long time ago.

why be a dick for no reason? what does it add to the conversation, or your life?

Don't feed the trolls bro/sis.

the infection has been spreading...

With you on that.

Pretty sure he dropped this /s

Nah, the sarcasm was implied. It's always im0lied when someone says "so brave"

I agree, but look at the votes

What was the Orlando censorship?

After the Orlando nightclub shooting, r/news mods locked the main thread and prevented other threads about the incident from being posted. Especially info on how/where to donate blood. That's when a lot of people went over to the_donald because there was live updates being posted. Once the r/news mods found out the shooter was Muslim I'm pretty sure that's when they deleted everything/locked everything

Wow that’s scandalous. Reddit is definitely not the same as it used to be

Scandalous and not actually true, especially the blood donation stuff. The page was being overrun and they had to lock it.

It's not just about them locking threads. They were specifically removing comments, some about blood donation, some having nothing to do with hate speech.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_subreddit_and_the_orlando_shooting/d46jg40/

Read all the comments.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

thats a nuke, and reinstated comments. learn to reddit

Upvoted so maybe more people can see your BS.

My BS. I couldn't understand the crazy claims about the blood donation comments being removed because at the time it took a few clicks to see that was a bullshit claim. Even if a lot of them were being deleted it was only because it was repeated information. Highly voted comments listed all the donation locations.

My mistake. Sorry.

its gone full facebook.

wouldn't "it's gone full myspace" be a better reference?

facebook was shit from the beginning. myspace got shit after investors took over.

Shit yes, but not totalitarian

I think it’s more like Facebook. MySpace couldn’t really control the content you see since it was like individual pages. They had problems with spam accounts

its also not what happened, it was released that the shooter was muslim, the thread got absolutely flooded in witch hunting and racism and got nuked and locked. The automod kept deleting similar posts due to there already supposing to be a main thread that was downvoted out of the front page.

Them locking it was because it was almost entirely a flame war once the identity of the shooter was found out.

The massive majority of comments were not trying to find how/where to donate blood, they were mostly responding to comments that were most controversial.

Riiiiiiight........

But I like having my fear and bigotry stoked.

Censorship does not serve society well. It is like these bigots that are pretending to be nazis. Let them spew their filth. They are their own worse enemies and too many people want to shut them up.

Then why are there more emboldened Nazis walking down streets than a couple years ago?

Wanting to shut them up when they are calling for the divide of your country based on religious or racial lines shouldn't be frowned upon.

I understand the importance of free speech, but I also understand when a dangerous political movement is gaining noticeable support all over the nation.

They are spewing their filth, and they are gaining support with it, do you think that will simply end?

Then why are there more emboldened Nazis walking down streets than a couple years ago?

Because they are getting attention.

Okay, but Nazis and white supremacists have always been covered by the media aggressively, as they are an easy story to spin and stir up hysteria. If there was a hate crime or a particularly brutal attack the media will hype that for weeks.

This is not a new phenomenon, yet recently there is a noticeable growth in the number of outspoken white supremacists trying to enact political change than there was even 2 or 3 years ago.

It is not a new phenomenon to be certain,..

We need a new approach...free marching permits and ignore them.

Severe penalties for physical assault during assemblies.

Fuck them.

In case you are wondering: self-posts, links to tweets, Facebook posts, and police scanners, is not news.

During the Vegas shooting there was all kinds of non-news stories about a newseorthy event.

• people creating massive update threads
• with people commenting links to Twitter videos
• and raw links to the police scanners where you could listen in to the new story as it unfolded

These things are not news; and do not belong on /r/news. News subreddit is for links to news organizations.

You are free to disagree with the rules of that subreddit. You are perfectly free to create your own subreddit, where can post pictures from the Marathon bombing, and figure out who the bomber is.

Ok, what about the comments? Can we only pay news articles to the concerned as well?

Your straw man argument is great.

If it goes off the rails posting rampant speculation then it will probably be removed.

In case you are still confused (you are still confused), here are the rules of from /r/news:

Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews

Your post will likely be removed if it:

• is not news
• is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
• primarily concerns politics.
• has a title not taken from the article.
• has a pay wall or steals content.
• covers an already-submitted story.
• violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

Which rule don't you like? Which rule confuses you?

H ere's what you do: take all that anger over those rules you don't like, let them fester for a while, squeeze them down into a ball, and post on the conspiracy subreddit about how angry you are.

Almost every thread on every sub goes off the rails with side discussions.

r/news and r/politics look more like a censorship shit-show to me.

It is rampant cherrypicking.

You're probably going to get downvoted to shit because this is /r/conspiracy, but I think you're 100% right in this point

I'm still on the fence whether conspiracy is serious, or a very clever parody of cukoo nut-birds!

I mean, a solid 10% of posts on here are stuff that I actually am interested in (whether or not I give it any real credence), but the other 90% is batshit insane and/or very antisemitic. I'll probably always stay subscribed here since I'm mostly a lurker anyways and there are some users that I think make very compelling cases, but I try to keep things in perspective hahaha

Trump supporters and their ilk have completely invaded and undermined the community of /r/conspiracy.

Sad when a vocal minority of a CONSPIRACY subreddit openly supports and refuses to question the Executive Branch. SAD. OUT OUT OUT.

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. The conspiracy community is pretty right leaning already, and has been since the 90s when I first started paying attention. But once you go down the road of "everything is a conspiracy except the things my guy in office does" you kinda become a propagandist, not a seeker for the truth. You have to be be able to question everything, including those you support.

T_D posted a lot of misleading and false info though... that is way worse.

False. Post screenshots. If this actually happened , there would be proof

Why would I take screenshots of an article that happened a year ago.. just google it and there's some articles written about it

That day blew my mind. I was refreshing /r/news, and seeing hundreds of posts get deleted in real time.

I've never seen such aggressive censorship.

I actually remember seeing this claim from right around the time of the Orlando shooting. However, I can't say I remember seeing any evidence. To me personally, if it's true, it important. Can u provide evidence to back it up? I won't discount it if you can't, I'm horrible at remembering to screen shot and archive stuff myself, but I'd like to know more conclusively and if it's true it would be nice to shut the naysayers down.

It's not true.

Ok, thanks for that I guess, I know it's gotta be hard, but is that the best defense? I mean this claim was made at least a few times after Orlando, if they had any smarts they'd have put together a copypasta them that they could use anytime this claim got thrown out there. Now I'm wishing I'd dug into it deeper myself at the time. Is /news so above everyone here in tinfoil hat country that they can't come down off their horse for a bit and help us see the light? I'd think it be quite a boon for them at this point to call this comment out if it's not true. As of right now your comment is about as valuable as his, but he's got a lot more votes and u r the only one disputing. This isn't just an ordinary claim of censorship, it's a pretty gross accusation. But wtf do I know? I will say I wish Tendies would give a little more context to back up his own claim as well.

It did happen, don't know if that guy is lying or ignorant, but r/news definitely nuked Orlando threads as the event was unfolding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/5ahzpf/rnews_still_pretending_they_didnt_censor_the/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I see people already are providing evidence to support this claim, and I just want to further anecdotally chime in to say it very very much did happen. I was a lurker on t_d for a while just to see what that side was saying. They always talked about their conspiracies which I would just shrug off and ignore. But I VIVIDLY remember visiting the thread in r/news that early morning and watching that post become a graveyard of removed comments all over the place. There was literally no information whatsoever on the event, only that something had happened. I remember going to t_d and subscribing immediately after lurking for so long as they had a very full description thread with blood draw info as well as many complaints that it got removed from r/ news. This event began the wakeup call that things are very much censored on reddit.

What do you mean?

People were having their comments about blood donation info removed.

This is one screenshot someone took after restoring removed comments: http://i.imgur.com/OGaPNij.png

And if you search this thread for blood or blood donation, you'll find a lot of people talking about it, among other things: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4nsiw1/state_of_the_subreddit_and_the_orlando_shooting/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/orlando-shooting-response-shows-reddit-cant-be-the-front-page-of-the-internet

here's a start.

What if you were to

• write a note to yourself right now to remember to screenshot and archive stuff

• go find links from reputable sites reporting on the topic of this week's revelation regarding the the Clintons being part of an enormous Russian bribery scheme under the Obama Administration

• post these links to the aforementioned default news and politics subreddits

• screenshot and archive the results

• post those results here

lol he's got a post karma of 1, I think that's probably going to be a little too much effort for him.

So prove your argument for you? Why would he do that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/4nri10/megathread_orlando_shooting_and_rnews/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Try archiving first

/r/news doesn't allow political posts. It's on their sidebar. They are getting swarmed with dumbshits spamming the same three news articles on their subreddit and probably just added their URLs to be auto deleted.

But it's a conspiracy to suppress our outrage at being suppressed! Let us express our suppression outrage dammit!

That's funny because the 2nd top post of all time there is a political Trump headline.

Is it not at all possible that the rules changed after that was posted?

20.8k

Trump rolls back access to free birth control (bbc.com)

submitted 13 days ago by Shanashy

News or Politics? As an aside, the headline is misleading, as is tradition. It's not a ban on access by Trump, it allows organizations to not provide free birth control if they decide. I won't be buying from those organizations, and I'm not mad at Trump because he gave them the ability to show their hand to the public so that I can make an informed deicsion to not give them my money.

But I guess it's possible the rules changed for the better.

Who's misleading now? It says rolls back, not ban, which is 100% accurate. It's not primarily political because it focuses on birth control for millions of people.

Primarily politics would be exactly what everyone here is freaking out about... a corruption case featuring politicians, that only affects politicians.

If it was something like "Hillary Clinton embezzles $3b in UAW pension funds, funnels them to Foundation" then you bet your ass it would be news because it effects actual people.

The Obama administration approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium reserves to a Russian company,Rosatom, who employed extortion and bribery to gain power over our atomic energy industty. SoS Clinton personally oversaw the transfer, and her foundation took a $145 million dollar check for her trouble. Obama's own AG had evidence of criminal conduct, and yet the deal went through.

This isn't just political commentary. It's a MAJOR news story. Uranium is critical to our energy sector, and our national defense. We control less than 1% of the global supply. Russia now has 9%.

No.

The original poster is half wrong. /r/news allows political posts but they don't allow reposts of the same story. So once a story gets posted the mods delete stories from alternate sources. They do this so that /r/news isn't swamped with 20 copies of basically the same article every time something big happens.

/r/news doesn't allow political posts.

Unless it's about how finished Le Drumpf is.

Point me to /r/news threads that are politically negative at Trump.

This week

[2nd highest upvotes post of all time is a "Sally Yates is Le Hero!" Post](

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The iq around here is loooooow. Thanks for pointing this out.

tips fedora

r/topmindsofreddit right here

already been posted on /r/politics which doesn't allow duplicate submissions.

LOL. There are 67 threads about "he knew what he signed up for"

/politics allows for any number of duplicate bad-Trump threads.

On /r/ news? Bullshit. Show me.

About half of them, dingusmaster.

It won't let you submit a link that's already been submitted.

The algorithm only looks for EXACT matches, and misses very slight variations of the url of the same story, such as the "amp" tag that tells the site to use the Google Accelerated Mobile Pages Cache, and other url tags that add crap at the end.

https://i.imgur.com/XsM1GLJ.jpg

This and This and This are the same story.

This and This are the same story.

This and This are the same story.

This and This are the same story.

etc.

etc.

The truth is that /politics is loaded with duplicates, but none of their subscribers seem interested in reporting them to mods (or the mods get the reports and dont delete them.)

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

politics doesn't allow dupes. What it does allow is 5 articles all with the same topic but with different headlines from hard hitting sources such as sharebule, buzzfeed and yahoo to be posted

It also allows Breitbart and other right wing sources. Why leave those out? Because it doesn't fit your narrative?

please show me a breitbart piece that has made it out of the bottom

Does /r/politics allow Breitbart? This is a yes or no question. They allow both left, middle, and right sources.

If you try to submit a link to /r/politics that has already been submitted then it just redirects you to the existing submission. You literally can't submit duplicate links.

The fuck you talking about? Look at the all-time top page. Tons of political stories.

/u/maxwellhill is a /r/news mod, and he's a huge abuser of that rule.

The Obama administration approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium reserves to the Russian-owned Rosatom, who employed extortion and bribery to gain power over our atomic energy industry. SoS Clinton personally oversaw the transfer, and her foundation got a $145 million dollar "thank-you" check soon afterwards. Obama's own AG had evidence of criminal conduct, and yet he sat on his hands and let the deal go through.

This isn't just another political dustup. It's a MAJOR story with grave implications . Uranium is critical to our energy sector, and our national defense. We control less than 1% of the global supply. Russia now has 9%. If a scandal involving raw nuclear material isn't "news", then what is? Shouldn't this be the top story on /politics, /news, AND /all?

The Obama administration approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium reserves to the Russian-owned Rosatom, who employed extortion and bribery to gain power over our atomic energy industry. SoS Clinton personally oversaw the transfer, and her foundation got a $145 million dollar "thank-you" check soon afterwards. Obama's own AG had evidence of criminal conduct, and yet he sat on his hands and let the deal go through.

This isn't just another political dustup. It's a MAJOR story with grave implications . Uranium is critical to our energy sector, and our national defense. We control less than 1% of the global supply. Russia now has 9%. If a scandal involving raw nuclear material isn't "news", then what is? Shouldn't this be the top story on /politics, /news, AND /all?

The Obama administration approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium reserves to the Russian-owned Rosatom, who employed extortion and bribery to gain power over our atomic energy industry. SoS Clinton personally oversaw the transfer, and her foundation got a $145 million dollar "thank-you" check soon afterwards. Obama's own AG had evidence of criminal conduct, and yet he sat on his hands and let the deal go through.

This isn't just another political dustup. It's a MAJOR story with grave implications . Uranium is critical to our energy sector, and our national defense. We control less than 1% of the global supply. Russia now has 9%. If a scandal involving raw nuclear material isn't "news", then what is? Shouldn't this be the top story on /politics, /news, AND /all?

That uranium can't leave the US. It doesn't matter who owns the company that mines it. Russia wanted the company because it also owns mining operations in Kazakhstan.

If it was that critical to national security then it wouldn't have received approval from the majority of the adminstration.

This is certainly a story but it still doesn't make sense to me because it wasn't Hillary's decision and didn't need her approval.

Hey man, don't take this the wrong way, but open your ****ing eyes. You don't need veto power to get a deal like this killed. All you have to do is raise a fuss about the investigation to the media. Hillary kept her mouth shut, then Hillary collected $145 million.

Your leader's don't care about you. Left, right, doesnt matter. They could give two shits about national security. If something happens, theyll know well beforehand

Jose Fernandez, not Hillary Clinton, kept his mouth shut at the state department, and so did the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Commerce, and more.

Why are you telling other people to 'open your fucking eyes' when you refuse to do basic due diligence to understand what actually happened?

Ever heard the phrase "cui bono"?

What makes more sense to you - some low level state dept guy unilaterally decided to conceal incriminating evidence from his boss, for no apparent reason? Or did he do as he was told, by a superior whose husband had just flown back from Russia with $500K in a suitcase; a superior who pushed for a Russian "reset", opposed the Magnitsky Act's sanctions, and whose department had just released 10 SVR spies arrested by the FBI back to Moscow?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/

Just like with the 2008 Wall Street scandals, its the people at the top who are guilty - even though their lackeys take the blame.

Oh, and Rosatom can ship the uranium back to the Motherland. As long as its used for "nuclear research and nuclear power production", it's A-OK for export! Because we can definitely keep track of it once it's outside our borders...

https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/104917.htm

*14 mid level guys from 14 different agencies

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) requires that significant nuclear exports from the United States take place only pursuant to an agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation with the recipient setting forth specified nonproliferation conditions and controls

Yeah, just leave that part out.

I didn't leave it out - I said as long as its used for power or research (peaceful purposes), Rosatom is free to ship the stuff back to Moscow. Do you really think they'll abide by these terms when Uncle Sam's not watching? Isn't this sub always talking about how Russia hacked our election? But you're willing to trust them with more of our nuclear material?

How do you think one ships Uranium? They just put it in a briefcase and walk onto a plane?

Like I said - the law ALLOWS Rosatom to ship uranium (not a proper noun, btw) back to Russia, provided they pinkie swear that they won't weaponize it. No lead shielded briefcase necessary.

I'd love to know how you can guarantee that this uranium will leave the US.

"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Honestly, I'm more bothered by the corruption and hypocrisy than anything else. It's depressing how often our rulers ignore their own regulations, as if they're above the law. But i guess they're right - they always get away with it.

Reddit is owned by Conde Nast. Big surprise. To fight our battles here is now an steep battle.

I, too, understand the struggles of harassing the owner of a pizza joint in real life.

Don't people understand that i spent time projecting my latent paedophilia onto a set of random emails?

i wonder if you actually took the time to read some of those random emails...

I actually did. We're all on reddit with time to burn, yeah?

For the record, which emails were the most convincing to you?

i don't remember the email ID, but the ones where "handkerchief" was clearly used as leverage to refer to an object, most likely an actual handkerchief, in the possession of the sender.

plz do -X-. oh, and don't forget the handkerchief i had to borrow you.

...

do you prefer hamburger or hotdog?

Reddit sold out a while ago and certain groups got the site in a firm grip.

Says the person who posts “dailycaller” and “WND” “articles” in a non-sarcastic manner :-)

Gotta diversify the ShareBlue echochamber

Bad news source=bad. Choose better.

Ranchers don't want the livestock rubbing on the fence.

they've been doing it for 2 years now. reddit is corrupt from the CEO down. Spez shadow database edit of comments is the worst.

Weren’t you guys leaving?

If by leaving you mean getting banned, yes. in droves. Much better to keep it to "you're racist" and censor any counter-argument.

No I meant I thought that I read something about “we are going to voat, we don’t depend on reddit”.

it's probably the same reason trump doesn't delete his twitter. the same reason twitter doesn't ban trump

the same reason the_donald doesn't leave reddit the same reason spez doesn't ban the_donald

Everyone hates on spez so much but he quickly admit what he did, and that sub was posting that he was responsible for child rape. I'd be pissed too if hundreds of people accused me of shit like that constantly

he quickly admit what he did

Shadow editing a comment so that it appears as original is absolutely abhorrent. There is no room for forgiveness here. He was accused because they removed the Pizzagate subreddit and removed the_donald from ever showing on front page.

terrible human, terrible ceo, and like the slack chat leaks, even his staff was surprised he was able to get the database to even work.

Yes and I'm sure you would have just let everyone call you a pedo rapist and not lashed out in any way

It wasn't even an effective way to lash out and made him look like a petty fool who can't ignore internet trolls.

Spez has the power to shadow edit a comment, put CP, and call the cops and say it was an original comment. fuck that.

Reddit is owned by Conde Nast

I too posted to r/news and it didn't show up. My source wasn't particularly popular but it wouldn't even accept a mainstream source as they had already "been posted." Funny though cause they were nowhere to be found.

Also worth pointing out r/politics has neen censoring the Awan brothers scandal for months. Several posts I made on that were quietly removed as well.

LOTS OF POSTS GET REMOVED, THERE ARE STILL POSTS ON BOTH THIS ISSUE AND THAT ON THOSE SUBS

That's incorrect. Link some posts from r/politics (redacted) that you believe illustrate "lots of posts."

I'll wait.

I just searched "fbi obama" and saw 10 articles about the issue... From today.

You're lying... I just searched the exact same thing.

There's 6 posts that come up under "FBI Obama" within the last week with a karma total of around 1600 combined. Now search "awan" or "awans" and you'll see it's even worse. You're pretty oblivious man.

You just said you saw 6 posts.. up vote them to get them higher....

I'm not saying is perfect or has no censorship, but it's not impossible to have a discussion there

Go search the Awan brothers controversy on there and show me where there's been any discussion whatsoever about one of the largest political scandals of the decade.

And before you tell me to go post one or upvote them... you can't post them.... I've tried. Go ahead and check for yourself.

Ok I'll investigate that more

I'm not saying this sub has no purpose I love it, but people get over board with victimization of themselves too much

More lies from r/conspiracy. It's pretty funny that this subreddit itself is part of an active conspiracy involving the sitting President of the US, the Russian government, and millions of bots and paid posters.

You fucks will never extinguish the flame of liberty, try as you will.

Lies? Prove it by making the post on news and politics, see if it gets deleted by the end of the day

Nice try, Assange.

One fifth of an ounce of uranium ie 10 grams you tool.

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

At least read the article before commenting next time, you fucking moron.

Please don't feed the trolls.

You mean this story that is now near the front page?

Guess you were lying about "Reddit" censoring it.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Isn't it wild how Reddit is overrun by Russian bots promoting Trump, yet there's never been a single pro Trump article at the top of politics, news, world news, etc?

They're waiting for something "pro" to discuss.

Wow, on a hugely left-leaning site? Ya don't say

They have tried, everything gets downvoted more than the bots can handle. Then they say reddit is censoring.

Yes there has. One of the only good things trump has done which was getting rid of TPP was at the top of reddit.

Self proclaimed liberal that espouses government oversight and expansion.

Tries to virtue signal by proclaiming "You fucks will never extinguish the flame of liberty, try as you will."

I think you dropped something.

BAHAAHAHAHAHAHA you losers are still trying to say Trump colluded with Russia?!?! Hoooly shit don't you morons ever get tired of banging your head's against a wall?

You're getting desperate and it's showing...

Another book of wisdom placed into the hands of fools for safekeeping.. no other way about it tho.

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility." Medvedev: "I understand. I transmit this (inaudible) to Vladimir." (muffled thereafter)

Who's conspiring again?

It's not conspiring if you're already President and you're not executing an agreement you made with Russia before you became President, which is what Trump is doing.

They gave Trump help in the election. In exchange, he promised them he would lift sanctions and weaken NATO/American alliances as President.

That is a textbook criminal conspiracy. It's a quid pro quo. Also, moral treason.

Maybe. Still havent seen the proof.

Meanwhile "It's not conspiring if your already President..." is an absurd statement. Yeah - thats totally what our founder's wanted when they gave the executive power over foreign affairs.

As long as the corruption occurs AFTER the election, everything's all good. Come on man...

It's quite odd isn't it, by picking and choosing what news they let through they just add credibility to the same thing they are trying to fight. Thus funneling more people to support Trump.

Anybody here knowledgeable in the technical aspects of how Reddit works able to compare and contrast the levels of censorship of users posting comments regarding Trump/Russia collusion vs Clinton/Russia collusion?

I've seen plenty of articles about the fbi investigation under Obama years, which is the new information on this, posted by real news sites

They just remove posts with titles like "proof Hillary sold uranium and laundered money!!" or shitty news sites

Seriously this sub isn't the only bastion of free speech you guys think it is sometimes

Yes some of the mods on a lot of subs suck and have bias, but I doubt all and certainly not all discussion is censored, I just saw the articles there

The problem is Reddit has turned into gatekeeper hell with power tripping mods. The agenda pushing has gotten out of control and has turned obnoxious. Reddit used to discuss all sorts of interesting and uninteresting shit but now 80% of the top posts are Trump bashing. We are sick of hearing about it.

I don't know, I see a shit ton of Trump supporting whiners posting stupid posts like this, yet it got to r/all.

does someone have a list of articles that are a "good" source to send to friends of mine to show them something is fishy? so for example not fox news. thanks if anyone already has a "collection"!

The Hill broke the story. Send your friend there. Their articles on it so far have been well written and non-biased.

Because you are annoying and stupid.

Nobody cares about her or her fucking emails anymore.

People interested in seeing equal justice under the law still care.

lol

You are retarded.

Equal justice under the law.

Support Trump.

You can't have it both ways man.

Ooops, you're mistaken. I never said anything about trump here. If there's something to prosecute trump over I'm fine with that. It's not republicans vs dems, trump vs HRC for me. Again, it's about equal justice under the law. If somebody broke the law, prosecute them.

Well I assumed, and then checked and see that you are a fervent supporter. If you support him as President then you have no feet to stand on as far as "equal justice under the law" goes.

bullshit, I'm saying right now right here to you, if he's broken the law, prosecute him. You can't be prosecuted for tweet or an executive order you don't agree with. Please tell me what he's done, that we have proof of that he can be legally prosecuted for and I'll support it.

Your free to post all those as much as you want here? I don't see a problem.

Another top post complaining about other subs.

Another top comment complaining about how unfair it is that nobody takes their fake news seriously. Smh.

So reddit isn't blocking all news about this. Why are you making such a sensationalist title?

Because it wouldn't be /r/conspiracy otherwise.

I like how the title manages to prove itself wrong

Because /r/conspiracy has been overrun with bots and shills and the mods can't crack down without triggering "muh cover-up" reactions. Pretty simple actually.

How do we know you're not a bot?

How do I know I'm not a bot?

If I were I'm pretty sure all my responses would start with bleep bloop.

This is supposed to be a conspiracy subreddit and instead it's filled with people who refuse to question the overwhelming evidence of corruption in the CURRENT administration, demanding that we waste our time reflecting on the FORMER.

You mean the complete lack of any evidence?

It's like you put your head inside of your own ass and entered some kind of opposite world - through a 'worm hole' if you will

By complete lack you must mean outright admission, right?

You guys are willing to believe the Head of the State department knew every single active FBI investigation currently underway, to the point that they’d be able to preempt collusion as part of a collection of government agencies approving the sale of an unrelated Canadian Uranium company, BUT you same people refuse to believe Trump knew that the pretense of his son directly meeting with a Russian informant, explicitly for disinformation.

Classic.

By complete lack you must mean outright admission, right?

What evidence of corruption and collusion is there again?

Meanwhile, what evidence is there just recently uncovered about corruption with the Clintons and Obama admin?

Well lets see, there was the IRS targetting conservatives, Eric Holder who was fired for Fast & Furious, Obama admin unmasking of political enemies, and now we have Uranium 1

Compared to

Nothingburger of Trump Jr meeting with a russian

What's classic is that you're still deluded along the same political lines that you were 6 years ago because you're living in a liberal bubble of stupidity

It's okay bro - I was in that same bubble when I was in my early 20s too.

No, you're the one in a bubble of denial. Stop claiming there's no evidence of collision when there's an ongoing fbi investigation. We won't know all the details until it's complete, so claiming over and over that there's no evidence and "nothingburgers" just shows you bought partisan narratives.

So, how long until Mueller (the guy that was part of the uranium one deal) actually finds something? What are we up to a year?

What are we up to a year?

Are you really asking if it has been a year yet? You can't possibly be American if you don't know when elections happen here.

Either that or you're deliberately lying about how long it has been for political reasons. Either way you're a shill.

I have no idea when the investigation started off the top of my head. Guess that makes me a shill!

LMAO!!

No, you're the one in a bubble of denial

Stop claiming there's no evidence of collusion when there's an ongoing fbi investigation. We won't know all the details until it's complete,

HAHAHAHAH

"stop claiming there's no evidence when there's no evidence, we still have to find out the evidence"

In other words, no evidence of anything has come up, all reports about Mueller show that he's trying to go after Trumps circle for non-Russia related things - and you just believe whatever you want

hahahahahahahahahaha

just shows you bought partisan narratives.

omg my sides...the irony

And you're oblivious to it all

Buttery males!

Actually, this sub is a wide range of people. Of course you have democrats, republicans, trump supporters, people with no real political affiliation, skeptics, freaks, fundamentalist materialists, hoaxers, larps, trolls, shills, you could go on and on.. oh and you know that many many people from outside the US also frequent here who don't give much shit about this psychotic american political theatre

waste our time reflecting on the FORMER.

Dude we are still talking about JFK and 9/11... That point makes no sense here.

You missed my point. Is anyone saying “don’t investigate current political corruption, investigate JFK instead!!!”

But they are with Hilary.

The surfacing of the story has massive implications and is a current even.

If it's not about Trump, sweep it under the rug, I say!

What transferring of uranium?

I'm fine with investigating Trump on whatever.

This story is bigger than anything Trump has done.

Better title should be

"Broke a subreddit's rules and they deleted my post. This is Censorship"

or

"My post got downvoted. This is Censorship"

Yeah but that doesn’t have the same oompf he’s looking for

To be fair.

r/news and r/politics are very much notorious for their censorship. Many of the rules are selectively enforced against content that they don't like... also its pretty crazy that the story isn't on the front page considering how big of development it is.

Can you find me a reddit link to news about this? I've been looking to see if OP is bullshitting but honestly I haven't found any besides t_d

One of the links OP posted is still available because it wasn't posted from an amp link which is against the rules. Check his post history and you'll see one is still up which hasn't been "censored", it's just been heavily downvoted because people detected his stupidity.

This is it lol its not even a news article lmfao.. http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2017/10/graham_hillary_implicated_in_russia_probe

Probably because the story is mysteriously absent in 5 different forms on /r/politics, meanwhile anything anti Trump is posted 10 times from 10 sources repeating the same "anonymous source"

This was his post from the Boston Harold..... Its not a news article....http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2017/10/graham_hillary_implicated_in_russia_probe

"News" from Fox "News"

Fake news is against reddit rules, nazi.

I read about this one worldnews so it's hardly reddit doing the censoring. /news probably just wants to keep politics out

Unless it's Trump bashing or HRC/Obama supporting of course. All good in that case.

Look at the /r/news front page right now. That comment makes no sense at all.

Hilary Clinton colluded with Russia to lose, fuckin' LOL!

Currently the stories are being censored from "News" and "Politics"

You mean "News" and "The_Hillary".

Ha, probably because it deeply weakens their shitshow propaganda they've been building on and building on for the past year and more.

The Newsweek and Fox News links you submitted start with google.com/amp. That's why they were removed. The Boston Herald post is there just looks like it was down voted.

Yeah think back to high school. Citing sources. You can't put Wikipedia down now can you? Same concept. You have to put in the direct link to the site nothing else. And also if people don't have interest on don't see a story that does not mean it is a conspericy. I have posted stuff on reddit and never once had a front page hit. Its all about timing and interest. Next time post the right damn links and then we will get the pitchforks out if they give you the same story.

I always thought that them not accepting wikipedia was stupid and just them not wanting to update with the times. If the article has zero sources and has things that look fishy, sure call out the source. Many wikipedia articles, even back in it's early phases, had long reference lists. Back in the early 2000s the older generations honestly thought the internet was a fade that couldn't replace books, it's been years since I've held a paper book and I read/listen to 2-3 books a month.

Using Wikipedia as a source negates sourcing your information in the first place. It's like you wrote down "The Library" as your source. Wikipedia's articles are written per-sources cited (go to the very bottom of any Wiki article to find the sources for pretty much the entire write-up). It is up to the author of a paper (in this case, a student) to review and collect information from the sources within the Wiki article, and then make their best decision/judgment.

If you wrote down literally just "wikipedia" as the citation but we knew back then to include the link, I assumed that went without saying today. Also going through all the sources in a wiki just to get tidbits is just a make work exercise. It's a waste of time and not teaching someone how to actually get anything done. The information is compiled already, why are you making some recompile it? In what field is this a useful skill to have?

The only time I can see this being advisable is if you need further information in a certain area. Like say you want the early life of a historical figure, the wiki has a short piece on it but links to 1-2 books on the subject. Sure, go refer that specific information. If your paper just needs something citing a brief overview of that person's early life though there's no reason to go read those 2 books to come away with a little more useful information than what's in the wiki.

This skill is almost purely limited to scholarly ventures which the vast majority of us will never be working in.

See, I agree on a lot of your points. The only issue here is the crowd-sourcing that Wikipedia offers: anyone can edit anything. There are alienable contributions, and academic research isn't considered complete with Wikipedia citations for that reason. This is another reason why going through the article and finding the sources cited is a better alternative. Sure, it's an extra step, but research shouldn't be "get my information as quickly as possible" in the first place.

I do agree with you, though, that Wikipedia is a great place for gathering huge portions of research citations pointed in the right direction, I just feel I understand professors more when they say it isn't a reliable source to cite.

I think the bigger issue is if they're giving work that can just be explained by a wiki article they aren't teaching their students anything of actual value. It would be much better if they were teaching people how to filter information, how to properly find good sources through google rather than just telling them some sources are off limits or making individual students produce work that is not going to be close to the work we have available for free in our pockets.

I get upset thinking back to the classes I spend thousands of dollars on that I passed by basically rewriting a wikipedia article. The classes I remember as being actually valuable are the ones that thought me how to think and how to find relevant information but that's difficult and why most of my professors didn't do it. Nevermind high school, they were irrelevant to the demands of the market years before I even took their classes.

So how's that different than a written encyclopedia? Or any written form of writing?

I'm not sure which direction you're going with this. Are you saying an encyclopedia is or isn't a valid source?

It isn’t, and it’s the reason why you can’t site the encyclopedia in class after age 12.

I think this may be a reason professors ask for sources cited that aren't a Wikipedia article. The articles are great for finding the information, but digging deeper into the citations is where a student can build their own foundation of character about a topic or opinion.

I'm not really saying one way or the other, because I agree that it can sound like a waste, but the idea that I believe scholarly instructors are trying to instill is that more fluid, and complex research can sometimes even lead to an epiphany where a change of stance on a subject could occur. Again, I'm not saying one way or the other, I just think that a quick answer using Wikipedia articles can often lead to a quick conclusion.

Any fake news site can write fake news too

This is why published works are often taken into more consideration than an online work. Online works aren't really set in stone, while published works are usually static. This could be considered a subjective opinion, so don't just take my word for it, but I do believe that this is how the large majority of scholars feel towards online citations.

Learning how to read/critique primary information to reach your own conclusion is one of the most useful skills anyone can have. A good school/class/teacher isn’t concerned with a students ability to read and memorize a wiki article. The goal is to train you on how to critically think.

This skill is necessary in academia l, and in order to become a engaged and informed person. Especially when media companies write for political purposes: “Oh this author is claiming that immigration related crime is skyrocketing? Let me look at his source... ahhh he used the statistic that counted entering the country illegally as a crime. But it looks like violent crime has only risen slightly”

That's why you use the sources in the bibliographical footnotes instead of wikipedia itself.

Herp derp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Citing Wikipedia is absurd given that what's written on it can change at any time, and it frequently will change.

Accepting it as a source is already questionable, a long reference list is not exactly better than a single strong source, it's just harder to check. But citing something that you can't expect to remain for long is a terrible idea.

This is what happens with most topics it's just wiki the source itself changes while with books you need to find ones with updated information. Look at the food pyramid as an example. If you found books on nutrition from the 70s to 90s it's probably going to go on the idea that a low fat, high carb diet is best. If you go with books after Atkins came out in the early 2000s the books will show a high/moderate fat, low/no carb diet is much better. Wiki can update automatically to adjust to this change is new research while if you're only using book sources and don't know about these new developments you could write a work that's completely false by modern research while using all proper sources.

Everyone leans on wiki being live updated as a bad thing when it's one of the biggest strengths it has. It changes when new information is discovered. There isn't a wide spread problem of wiki having blatantly false claims except when people are trolling and even that usually gets corrected quickly.

You're making entirely valid points in support of wikipedia, the important point I want to make is that a citation is used to support an argument, and context is incredibly important to doing so. Remaining static is a fundamental part of what a citation is.

Everyone leans on wiki being live updated as a bad thing when it's one of the biggest strengths it has

I 100% would not say that wikipedia being live updated is a bad thing in regards to wikipedia being an information source, I would however 100% say that wikipedia being live updated is a bad thing when you are using it to defend a point you are making at a specific moment in time.

If you cite it in your writing, your writing does not change with the times like wikipedia does. If I cite a book in a paper that I write, and later new information becomes available that completely invalidates my point, I don't want my citation to provide the most up to date information available, I want my citation to provide the best information available at the time that I made my point.

If you found books on nutrition from the 70s to 90s it's probably going to go on the idea that a low fat, high carb diet is best. If you go with books after Atkins came out in the early 2000s the books will show a high/moderate fat, low/no carb diet is much better. Wiki can update automatically to adjust to this change is new research while if you're only using book sources and don't know about these new developments you could write a work that's completely false by modern research while using all proper sources.

This is a completely valid point, but I would argue that it supports using wikipedia as a resource to research a topic. Given that had you wrote your paper using the best information available in the 70s to 90s, but you had (lets pretend Wikipedia was available in the 70s to 90s) cited wikipedia, if someone read your paper today, they would be reading a paper that supports a low fat, high carb diet, that cites something that supports the opposite.

The point is that all information is built on what comes before it, a citation is not provided to give your reader further information, a citation is provided as context for your argument.

You're taking the argument to a different realm. I'm talking with papers in high school and college which are going to be completed and graded in a week or two. Even with how quickly something like social media updates there's just not field that's developing on a weekly or monthly basis in dramatic ways.

If your book is based on wikipedia articles, it's not whether or not it's reliable, it just makes it irrelevant and no one is going to want to buy it. Why would I pay money for a book that could be summed up better by a wiki article? Why would I read a 100-200 page source when a 2 min browse of wiki gets the same thing done.

Creating actual work based off wiki is a stupid thing, if someone wants to do it that's on them and they'll see the results of doing so. Doing a paper for a class is a whole other medium.

I'm talking with papers in high school and college which are going to be completed and graded in a week or two

If we're debating what is and what isn't an appropriate source to cite in a paper, I'm exclusively referring to these types of papers. A significant purpose of these papers is to become acquainted with research standards, the entire reason a professor would bother restricting sources is that they take these papers seriously. Even if the vast, vast majority don't go into academia, establishing research habits is a fundamental part of education.

The reason you don't cite wikipedia is the same reason that citing any obscure source is frowned upon. Citing a local newspaper would probably have been frowned upon in the 70s, but today you can easily provide a link to some archive, making it a potential source. I would even ask your teacher/professor if citing an archived wikipedia page might be appropriate.

If your book is based on wikipedia articles, it's not whether or not it's reliable, it just makes it irrelevant and no one is going to want to buy it.

If your book is being bought, people are probably going to notice that it is no longer up to date and not buy your book. If you write something general enough to make sense in the face of new information, you probably aren't making much of a point at all. This also doesn't address the point that providing information to an actively updated source is something I would encourage, but it is not a substitute for a citation.

Why would I read a 100-200 page source when a 2 min browse of wiki gets the same thing done.

The same technology that enables a 2 minute view of wikipedia enables a link to a page of a book providing the same. I'm really not trying to make a case against technology here, a journal article or hell even a blog are reasonable.

If you still feel that I'm not really arguing within the scope of the point you wanted to make, I would like to add that I fully support (I mean, we all do it), pseduo-citing wikipedia by writing something as if you were citing wikipedia, then checking and running all the wikipedia sources for the relevant section through easybib and citing them in your paper just as wikipedia does in the article (with proper MLA/APA/whatever formatting, of course).

Its not an issue with Wikipedia itself, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source. Many teachers either dont know, or dont bother explaining the difference, but you cannot use encyclopedias in academic research at all (baring a few limited exceptions). The reasons that stop you from using wiki are going to stop you from using Britannica as well. They arent considered scholarly sources, and they arent primary sources, so they dont count. They are a wonderful way to get introduced to a topic, however, and are often recommended as your first line of research. The reason is they are trying to teach you how to conduct research, not just make you learn about the topic itself. If they wanted you to learn about the topic, they would just assign a textbook (like many classes do).

Sorry to go on a rant, this is just a popular misconception (that a lot of bad teachers reinforce) and so I wanted to take a second to clear it up.

Its all about timing and interest

Could not of said it better

On the google amp page, click the link icon 🔗 to reveal the original news link. That can then be copied out.

This person links!

I suspect reddit blocks this so people can't repost the same article with a redirect link.

Most subs frown upon or block redirects and link shorteners for obvious reasons.

IIRC link shorteners (e.g. bitly) are explicitely forbidden by reddit content policy.

/r/uncensorednews we allow it and all other news stories. Comment section is not for the sensitive or politically correct though.

lol to act like that sub is actually a "bastion of free speech" like it's patrons pretend to act is a joke. They are just another echo chamber that is largely filled with moronic far righters posting bullshit. But sourced news from left leaning sites or news that makes the GOP look bad is absolutely not allowed in there.

Just stepped into that sub. See this.

Retired ‘Navy SEAL’ praising Trump on Fox News was a fake (washingtonpost.com)

But honestly, what do you expect the sub to consist of when the people you are complaining about are banned from the mainstream subs?

It's got 3 upvotes despite being front page elsewhere because it's pretty considerable fraud. It won't gain any traction there. They don't ban things like that because it would be obvious, but they've definitely removed posts for BS reasons because it makes the GOP look bad before. But I guess a more appropriate thing to say would be that it's an echo chamber because none of that news is every actually seen on the sub, they only circle jerk right wing propaganda regardless of how false it is.

But the illuminati!

/r/quityourbullshit

It's not even bullshit, a lot of people don't know what AMP is.

I mean OP should quit his bullshit

This is his Boston Harold post lmfao, he can't be serious right.... Its not even a news article....http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2017/10/graham_hillary_implicated_in_russia_probe

google.com/amp.

Is considered a URL shortener and has been illegal on reddit since the beginning when people used them to redirect people while trolling.

Why does all media protect this gangster?

Reddit: "Gods forbid that anyone say anything bad about MUH Hillary."

They now know that Hillary is a crooked cunt, but they don't want that information to get out so they are censoring it. Fucking pathetic.

I got a temporary ban in r/gifs for talking about cathy o brien and how hillary clinton raped her

And censoring the rest of the alt-facts parties bs, I would hope.

Reddit had lost the plot

They left this post up because most people are inclined to doubt the shit they read in this sub.

It’s the mods of those two subreddits. I see plenty of stories about it on smaller ones. /r/news and /r/politics have been useless for years. Clinton’s correct the record took over politics during the election and never left. Anything pro-Sanders or pro-trump are immediately removed.

So that's not reddit that some mods of a couple of subs.

Why do you lie and exaggerate?

Does this post have any content? It must be blocked for some reason. /s

Hey you know how this sub has rules... yeah so do all the other subs... it's not reddit it's mods. If you want to get upset at anyone be upset with the mods. Which I absolutely agree with being upset about, the mods of reddit have been given far far to much power.

B/C it's BS.

Why do I keep using this shit site??

Fucking garbage liberal echo-chamber.

Anyone that thinks in conservative and liberal has no business being here. This used to be a place for people that actually understand what an Oligarchy is. Not this brainwashed left and right bullshit.

Not covering this story is a liberal agenda. It is being picked up by the right.

Your argument would be true when discussing the NSA spying on every civilian and none of the MSM talk about how ridiculously illegal it is.

Or the Vegas shooter stories that are obviously buried.

This story however, is not one of those circumstances.

There is no such thing as a liberal agenda at the top[, that is whole fucking point. You are just buying into the next level of mind control. The left right bullshit was whipped up worse than any time in modern history including the Reagan era. Trump gave money to the Clinton foundation and was Democrat most his life. Wake the fuck up.

lol, k.

It makes me sad you are so far away from getting what is really going on.

Sorry kid, I'm glad you just woke up, but I know all about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, etc. I've actually read the Creature from Jekyll Island from cover to cover.

But I've also listened to guys who have spoke at Bilderberg, and while I do believe the rich put their interests first, I don't believe there is a concentrated effort to destroy the world. You give them too much credit. They are looking out for themselves and trying to get richer, no doubt, but they aren't trying to round you up into concentration camps. That could very well be a side-effect of their efforts to enrich themselves, but it isn't written in stone anywhere.

Also, and probably for personal reasons, I'd love to see Clinton rot in jail for all the horrible things she's done. Hence why I want the MSM to cover this story.

You need to read the book How to Win Friends and Influence people. Because spamming someone with a lot of URLs (none of which I will click on) is not the best way to convince anyone of anything. And your tantrum was also a complete derail from the entire topic of this thread.

You can have your own government propaganda thread, and feel free to correct anyone who says something wrong, but seriously, this is a thread about Clinton and Russia, so please, fuck off.

Starting out calling someone kid and spouting some popular phrases reduces credibility, but I hate to break it to you, but the warning of the NWO and Military Industrial complex was not dreamed up by some reporter or conspiracy person. In fact those warning came before the words conspiracy theorist had any public usage at all, and they came from the Presidents of the USA. Eisenhower warned us about exactly what has happened. JFK spelled it out in greater detail and took a bullet for it.

Second, those links are called sources and evidence, you use those in a debate, credible people expect them.

And Finally, it is not even a question of the US being under an oligarchy, it has been stated outright, so here is some more sources you can ignore, so that you can continue with your own closed minded road of mind controlled BS.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html

Do you expect someone to read all those links just because u/RagingBoner posted them?? I am done with this nonsense. I actually have a job.

I don't give a shit about what you think is some scary conspiracy.

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-donald-trump-a-democrat-3367571

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/index.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/28/426888268/donald-trumps-flipping-political-donations

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/aug/28/david-plouffe/yes-donald-trump-donated-100000-clinton-foundation/

Yet somehow I see this post on /r/all.

Weird.

It changes depending on current events and his admin doing deals like this is why it says "busted."

I get why you would think it's a right-wing circle jerk because of that. A large amount of us are staunchly leftist Sanders supporters.

I was just about to ask...why are thousands of people upvoting this if it's not really what the headline says it is?

Bot promo.

We get brigaded by t_d pretty regularly

As with most conspiracies it is an inciting claim but without full analysis or understanding. There may be some blocking or censoring but I've seen articles posted from professional news groups. If anything is being actively censored its bad links, links that break known rules, that sort of thing for example redirects, link shorteners, etc are usually blocked for obvious reasons while linking to the article directly is fine.

Russian bots and useful idiots. People that are so convinced that there is some organized effort to silence a topic that they ignore anything, even common knowledge, common sense, and basic reasoning, so long as the conclusion reinforces their existing biases.

a good question!

in general, why do we often see threads like this heavily upvoted, while the content is refuted by the top comments.

A botnet upvotes 'friendly' threads and likely downvotes 'unfriendly' threads automatically but is unable to parse comments is my guess. this sub is too obvious

Now we have all these people saying this wasn't censored yet I haven't seen it reported anywhere but here. Censorship on Reddit is very deceitful and posts don't have to be banned to be censored (that's just one method)...bots and algorithms rule. As far as the Obama picture, not sure why you'd even mention that (off topic). Many conspiracies are political. It's a huge story, and should definitely be heard by more. It is obviously being suppressed across many channels.

I don't think I have seen articles on reddit on it at all. If there are, they are downvoted to zero instantly. There is a clear a agenda here, a mix of bots and legitimate delusionists. Reddit is a private site though, so they can push whatever agenda they want.

Damn it, how dare reddit prevent you from spreading propaganda and fake news. People are onto you and won't let what happened during the last presidential race happen again.

Yeah not buying that honestly the Clinton's are plenty corrupt but people grasping at straws .

Good god, you fucking retard...

This went off the rails.

Is Reddit blocking and censoring news about Clinton Russia probe or not?

There was a lefty guest on Tucker Carlson saying it was all fake news.

And that we need to focus on how the russians hacked the election.

No suprise there, they are damning allegations that expose how htpocritical the globalist puppetmasters who really run the Democratic Party really are.

Melting snowflakes the whole way down.

Are you blind or just illiterate? The story has TONS of posts all over Reddit. Maybe Reddit is just censoring you because you know too much.

Hillary lost, we get it, no need to expose anything, nothing to see here.

“News” or wild speculation and broad, selective correlations to make certain individual’s narratives incite more rage amongst themselves?

I don’t think Trump really cares about anyone, but that’s what America is about. We are free not to care about each other. Btw Bernie will never be president- time for a new username

we should all post links in this comment chain and continually post them to r/news, etc. all day long. maybe do a dump if 10 links every hour or so. if a enough of us did it would they be able to stop us all?

Since I’m reading this on r/all I’m gonna assume you’ve just been posting spam the rest of the time.

I thought Trump was going to lock her up?

He promised to do it so it'll happen any day now...

So silly, there really is no point now, cat's out of the bag. Lots of people are talking about.

They're also scrubbing them from T_D without anyone knowing.

Moron

I don't get it... how could Obama have blocked the sale of a Canadian company?

Politics is a forum for Democratic views. Why is it shocking they don't want negative news about Clinton? My first time in there I thought it would be a good mix of everyone on the political spectrum, but I learned very quickly it wasn't.

No one's stopping you from posting in there. The mods don't censor any links for partisan bias.

I didn't care about being downvoted into oblivion, but I did care about being called an idiot/shill/troll with every post.

Lol

Ever think there's a queue?

Ever think its getting killed?

We know the drill. Hillary good and the POTUS better!

Of course I've thought of it getting killed, that's what your post is about, I had to read that to offer my 2 cents.

I was just having a discussion, about a question, but I'm quite sure you aren't worth anyone's time and did you ever think Reddit can tell that you're not worth anything, an your opinion even less so?

Ohhh. You got me!

Im going to borrow Hillary's SafeSpace!

Isnt this it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/76xn7i/fbi_uncovered_russian_bribery_plot_before_obama/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

One day and 3 days ago. Now is out of site and out of minds.

Good night!

Reddit gettin dat soros cash yo

Opens r/news and r/politics and I see a bunch of these stories. Oh look someone on r/conspiracy is posting without looking first yet again. We should change this subs name to r/unresearchedrandomclaims...

FFS OPs fucking story is on r/news currently. Jesus Christ on a fucking crutch why is anyone upvoting this fucking idiocy?!?!?

OMG.....You are so wrong! Were is it trending?

It's not trending, but it wasn't taken down like OP claims. Do your own research jack ass and click on his fucking profile. God damn do you need me to teach you the potty next?

Oh I have! She will NEVER be the POTUS!

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6mj1hs/have_we_jumped_the_seth_rich_shark/

You think I want Hillary in office? God damn we are fucking doomed. You have perfectly illustrated literally everything wrong with people these days. Thanks!

How long you guys think until r/conspiracy goes under?

I'm sure I'm one of hundreds but I'm just commenting to say I've noticed the same thing. Literally the only thing I've seen or heard of it was someone on twitter retweeting Hannity. I'm neither a R or D, think they're both repulsive but ignoring this story is blatant arrogance on the medias part and censorship on Reddits part.

I just simply can not understand why people continue to believe in these us vs them constructs when it comes to american politics with regards to the R's and D's as a functioning body.

Reddit has become ridiculously extreme w/r/t Russia. At least one subreddit (probably a lot more) also block RT news entirely.

That's not organic. That's top-down. And it is an actual, real life conspiracy, because you have to conspire with other mods to make the decision that you won't leave this choice up to the people, but that you'll make that decision "for" them – without telling people, unless they try to submit an rt.com link.

Our plan is working perfectly Hillary. Our online army is making everything believe it was me. Thanks for the Yellow Cake!

The Clintons have BLOOD on their hands!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqYJRc0TJkQ

Why are people just now figuring this out? Reddit is fake censored news.

This board is heavily censoring this topic as well.

As of now there are 2210 Russian bots and deluded morons here today.

full meltdown mode from the elites

You're #7 on my front page.

Guess it's not as bad as you thought?

Think it's about time I unsub from this sub..

Facebook already does this with anything banking / rothschild related.

You're dumb OP

I'd assume with the Republicans having all three branches if there was any truth to the story an investigation would be on going. However, since it is not a true story there are no investigations on going.

Even assuming your horrible reasoning was correct, Reddit not allowing you to say something is not censorship. Only the government can censor you. People and organizations simply disagree. You made a voluntary choice to use Reddit and must abide by their terms.

Really now? Because its on all right now

Well since this made it to r/all, it's pretty easy to say that it's not true.

u dum af

The Clintons really have some heavy hitters backing them up. They are spending many, many millions trying to connect Trump and Russia, and then there is all this obvious, right in your face most likely illegal stuff the Clintons have done that is swept under the rug by just about every news source. Used to be you could get some straight news from Youtube but Google is taking care of that right now. We are really getting like North Korea when it comes to being told the truth. Very sad.

Fuck it. Thats it. I am tired of these mother fucking bots on this mothrr fucking forum. Every 3-4 days (as if on a timed interval...) someone claims that Reddit is censoring their posts, yet we can post it on this sub. this is becoming really obvious Russians. Bot harder or btfo!

No it isn't. You know as well as anyone that breitbart is 100% bullshit 100% of the time.

Propaganda

Um, no? The first post on my conspiracy multi is about clinton and putin and the uranium. Maybe you should follow the submission rules of the subredits you're posting to before you jump to ZOMG ITS CENSORSHIP

That's the funny thing about probes. You don't realize they're there until it's elbow deep up your ass collecting intel.

Posted it on news and they just shadowbanned the post as a whole.

This exact thing happens every time you post a link to David Brock's confidential Media Matters memo.

No word from any moderator. The post containing it just gets removed. Even in the comments.

Anybody else think it's weird that this post has over 2500 upvotes, but all the comments are pointing out how the OP is just ignorant of how reddit works?

I hear balalaikas....

It’s actually amazing how crazy you people are lmao

Same thing happened to me yesterday on Facebook. I got around it by posting the message about the link, and the link in the comments section. They even deleted a post about the young man elected in Austria with no explanation.

They are as fed up as me.

R/ conspiracy has become the front page for disinformation.

Good I'm tired of hearing aboit this shit

not only! I was banned on /politics for the statement that

"The head of Russian troll farms Surkov is a informer and agent of the State Department of the United States, old wikiliaks reported. Russian trolls are a project of the United States."

R/politics was bought by the clintons a couple years ago

It is all over T_D

I love Democrats. Hung up on Russians spending a few hundred thousand on Facebook ads then when Russia gets hold of 20% of our uranium supply due to blatant corruption, it doesn’t even get a story in liberal media. Not to mention that if this information were known by congress, there’s no chance in hell Obama could’ve forced the Iran deal down our throats.

My question is why?

So OP can get his/her posts removed and then cry about censorship. Same as what happened after Orlando. Same as what happens over and over and over again.

Information is important.

There's actually been a new story on the subject with new developments every night so far. One was the original, one was about fbi informants being blocked, and the next was about Bill clinton meeting with russian nuclear something or other.

Just fyi.

Correct. Politics is about politics but is overrun by Trump haters. Conspiracy is about conspiracy theories but it is currently overrun with Trump defenders/Hillary, Soros & Obama haters.

Roflcopter.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Because they are trying to astroturf. Thats why they are spending all night trying to post the same thing 10 other people are spending all night trying to post and then when they can't post they make snarky screen shots and move to moderate subs and cry about how they can't post to astroturf those subs with the same story over and over and over while hypocritically claiming to be censored. It's honestly beautiful and horrible at the same time.

We've opened up mass information warfare with never before seen reach. Our generation will be the pioneers of weaponize mass manipulation. This is just stage one of the information war meta.

The majority of these kinds of posts are bullshit. Very few of the "lack of coverage" posts are nonsense and easily disproved.

The power of the shill. Manipulate posts up or down. Censor others via a post limit function.

The creator of Reddit, the one who passed, would be devastated. Probably good he did pass since he would not want to see what his vision has become.

/r/politics did that? I thought it was the Republican lead investigations that resulted in nothing that did that??

Trump is a "ruthless businessman"? Since when is inheriting your daddy's millions and filing for bankruptcy numerous times considered "ruthless"?

you're kidding, right? Notice how this sub is incredibly pro-trump? It's the user base, not the mods.

Sorry kid, I'm glad you just woke up, but I know all about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, etc. I've actually read the Creature from Jekyll Island from cover to cover.

But I've also listened to guys who have spoke at Bilderberg, and while I do believe the rich put their interests first, I don't believe there is a concentrated effort to destroy the world. You give them too much credit. They are looking out for themselves and trying to get richer, no doubt, but they aren't trying to round you up into concentration camps. That could very well be a side-effect of their efforts to enrich themselves, but it isn't written in stone anywhere.

Also, and probably for personal reasons, I'd love to see Clinton rot in jail for all the horrible things she's done. Hence why I want the MSM to cover this story.

You need to read the book How to Win Friends and Influence people. Because spamming someone with a lot of URLs (none of which I will click on) is not the best way to convince anyone of anything. And your tantrum was also a complete derail from the entire topic of this thread.

You can have your own government propaganda thread, and feel free to correct anyone who says something wrong, but seriously, this is a thread about Clinton and Russia, so please, fuck off.

I didn't even vote for hillary. Show me one anti trump post on conspiracy from today? Oh you cant they are all anti-clinton.

dumbass.

Would you like to deny everything russia just go ahead and get a good blanket denial out the way?

I was referring to /r/news and not /r/politics . Everyone with any sense knows /r/politics is an echo chamber and biased.

None of those are celebrities. Your goal posts keep moving. People responding to politicians is not celebrities attacking Trump.

I'm talking with papers in high school and college which are going to be completed and graded in a week or two

If we're debating what is and what isn't an appropriate source to cite in a paper, I'm exclusively referring to these types of papers. A significant purpose of these papers is to become acquainted with research standards, the entire reason a professor would bother restricting sources is that they take these papers seriously. Even if the vast, vast majority don't go into academia, establishing research habits is a fundamental part of education.

The reason you don't cite wikipedia is the same reason that citing any obscure source is frowned upon. Citing a local newspaper would probably have been frowned upon in the 70s, but today you can easily provide a link to some archive, making it a potential source. I would even ask your teacher/professor if citing an archived wikipedia page might be appropriate.

If your book is based on wikipedia articles, it's not whether or not it's reliable, it just makes it irrelevant and no one is going to want to buy it.

If your book is being bought, people are probably going to notice that it is no longer up to date and not buy your book. If you write something general enough to make sense in the face of new information, you probably aren't making much of a point at all. This also doesn't address the point that providing information to an actively updated source is something I would encourage, but it is not a substitute for a citation.

Why would I read a 100-200 page source when a 2 min browse of wiki gets the same thing done.

The same technology that enables a 2 minute view of wikipedia enables a link to a page of a book providing the same. I'm really not trying to make a case against technology here, a journal article or hell even a blog are reasonable.

If you still feel that I'm not really arguing within the scope of the point you wanted to make, I would like to add that I fully support (I mean, we all do it), pseduo-citing wikipedia by writing something as if you were citing wikipedia, then checking and running all the wikipedia sources for the relevant section through easybib and citing them in your paper just as wikipedia does in the article (with proper MLA/APA/whatever formatting, of course).

You need to lay off the CNN.

Right, but since there's a majority on one side then only that side will get exposure. You understand this, right? And you can tie the same logic to r/conspiracy and others. When 60% of the people downvote anything that's anti-trump then 0% of the material will be pro-trump. It's not reflective of actual views, the same way that r/politics is not.