[removed]

They dont even have the balls to do that. They just shadowban you so your wrongthink cant be seen by others.

They are too busy getting paid to do otherwise.

They're paid not to.

Well stop the Record (squeals) because this summer...

Correct it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

So true! Theyre really getting angrier and crude with their attacks. Anyone who says 'Trump' is open to attack, like you said.

Funny, since true Left leaders or liberals believe in the set of ideals that separates them from conservatives. Nowadays many Twitter Hillary supporters don't anymore care about those ideals than the right does.

The Internet just proves how fucked we all are, on both ends.

deleted ^{What is this?}

Popcorn? It's Sunday! Nacho night!

Dis gon be good .gif

Aussie here. Been fucking loving this shit guys. Keep it up pls.

We all just watched a very entertaining reality television show, that's why.

I am sad, personally.

Shows Trump's true character. He wants to be a dictator, not a president. Everything said prior to and after, "if I win, I'm going to throw my political opponent in jail," is irrelevant, because that is TRULY the lowest point in this election so far. We have a man who has praised dictators and is now using their same strategies running for president of the United States. And I thought GWB was bad.

Welp, looks like we're off the front page, guys! Due to "rehosted content". It was fun being uncensored.. For a little bit. See you guys later!

[removed]

r/poltics in a nutsehll

no1 Front Page

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2016 7,182 points (77% upvoted)

7700 comments

(unexpected commen section)

[REMOVED]

Quite, it is comedic because two camps are favoring due to differing perspectives

The best part is it's getting so many upvotes from both major parties for reasons that couldn't be more different

My man

I like the way he said it.

That's nonsense. The statute everybody's trumpeting has never been used to convict anybody outside of espionage. I don't want anybody—even Trump who I loathe—in prison unless due process determines it. It's just chaos if you put people in prison for being political opponents, as Donnie wants to do.

Well, this shows you that Donald Trump wants to be a dictator, not a president. I'm not sure why anybody wants that for the USA.

The funny thing is that this election is turning into a referendum on which candidate should be in jail more.

Hopefully most people are sane.

Not all of us want to forget them. I still refuse to vote for her. But I'm damn sure not voting for him.

Nobody forgot the allegations. The FBI certainly didn't. They investigated and cleared her of criminal wrongdoing. People remembered that.

the Bernie, now Clinton, supporters

No. Most of us switched to Stein.

I certainly don't. I supported Bernie. I could never support the person who cheated the American people out of a fair election and rigged the entire DNC for herself. I'm for Trump now. I'd rather eat my own shit than vote for someone who did that and can look me in the eye and tell me she's trying to help me when she cheated every step of the way.

More like plan A didn't work out. Now a good portion are on to plan B...

Exactly. So we still dislike Clinton.

Exactly. And everyone still dislikes her and thinks she should be prosecuted for her crimes. In addition to the whole DNC rigging and voter fraud.

[removed]

"We love our non-christians. Where are they? What are their names?"

No, it was only a joke because the crowd laughed. I have no doubt that if the crowd had responded with a "NO!" then he would have booted them.

Who is the criminal, and why does it require a new president to send that criminal to jail? It's not the president's job to indict or investigate.

Perhaps it's because it hasn't been that long since nonchristians have been openly attacked. Perhaps because we have a hard enough time without our fellow americans questioning our patriotism. We are nervous because we have watched and learned from history.

Just because we want everyone to feel that they are welcome in America, and that we don't want the divisions that are promoted as "jokes" doesn't make us fascists.

Who's calling themselves anti-fascist?

[deleted]

King of the Hill: Purge Edition

Sorry.

Include me out.

I intend to die with my integrity intact.

just looking back at all the drama before the election :)

and /r/PoliticalDiscussion and /r/Politics are overrun by Clinton independent contractors diligently correcting the record.

FTFY

there's /r/askthe_donald for that

/r/SRSSucks

Clearly The Rothschilds

Why are you wasting your time commenting here? r/Politics already corrected the record and removed this entire post

Springer was a politician at one time

Seriously Manning, can you throw in FRONT of your receivers?

No shit. Yesterday the Giants lineup had fewer RBIs than the Cubs' pitching staff. Shameful display.

Ugh

The thing about the Giants is, they always try an' walk it in.

Go Pack Go!

Thank you! Now I don't have to check.

Been thinking that for the whole season so far. Sad times...

I needed 2 FUCKING POINTS FROM DARKWA. I GOT 1.1! I LOST BY LESS THAN A POINT. Also I'm a Giants fan so that game sucked double the amounts of dicks.

Not really.

Yeah, but since they didn't follow through with prosecution there's no double jeopardy. So they can investigate again and decide to prosecute or not again. They can basically do this as many times as they decide not the prosecute.

Just read NYT article. Something something Trump is threatening to cage political enemies like a dictator, something something.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/because-youd-be-in-jail

I mean, all the evidence is out there. There were classified documents. What she did was illegal if you actually understand what happened. You don't think there is a possibility that corruption has kept her out of prison this long? Or at least prevented another form of punishment?

Wow, that...honestly can be taken for either of them.

I don't like trump but it took me a second to realize which one you were talking about.

Why just Europeans?

There's thousands of comments just in this one thread on this one website agreeing with him. The parent comment right here has almost 900 upvotes. Many of these people perhaps aren't voting for Trump, but do agree that Hilary got off scott free for very serious crimes. It's not an unusual opinion to hold.

It's really sickening how biased /r/politics has become.

Or you do a run-off. Four candidates. Two with most votes go to next round. One with most votes wins.

Of course, what percentage of Americans actually vote?

Most reformers want a ranked choice voting system. I would give it a shot so if there is an actual movement to get that done, I'd probably join in. But not a lot of people are really thinking about it.

I have a question and this isn't me being confrontational or anything, I am genuinely curious. Let's say instead of 2 general parties we had 3 legitimate parties, or even 4, that people were willing to vote for. Would you be okay with the president and leader of this country only having ~40% of the vote? If there were 4 parties than they'd only need 26% of the vote, leaving a large majority of the country not having supported that candidate.

No you are entirely correct, there is not much of a realistic way to get to a two party system for the executive in the current constitutional set up (easily viable in Congress). The closest you can get without a complete overhaul is IRV which would still likely see only two parties ever get elected.

But here's the thing... you don't need to agree with every policy the candidate has. For example, I don't enjoy the fact that Clinton is anti-2nd Amendment. But then, I don't like Trump because what the fuck is wrong with that fucking guy.

If there were three, or even four, candidates, they wouldn't be so polar opposite. I'd rather there be able to vote for someone who supports pro-choice, pro-social-help, and also supports 2nd amendment rights. You can't get that with a Democrat or Republican.

Something tells me there are plenty of Republicans who aren't super religious nuts, and would be fine with less government control, but also okay with abortion, you know? Not every Republican wants abortion, or wants to end welfare, or end legal immigration, etc.

With a multiparty system you need to get rid of first past the post voting or you end up like us here in Canada where a party steers the country with winning 30-40% of the vote.

Our current ruling party has talked about changing that. I'll believe it when I see it but if they actually do bring in another form of voting then things will be a lot more representational.

If we only had one party then they could have all the support!

A +2 party system can not work with the current electoral college.

It is more than likely that no party would reach 270 electoral votes and then in the situation where no candidate earns 270+ electoral votes the House of Representatives pick the winner.

In that case it is more than likely the controlling party will pick their parties nominee without a second thought totally undermining democracy as we know it.

If America were to have a +2 party system (which I whole heartedly support) the current system of electing a president would have to be changed which would take quite a bit of work.

I think in either case you risk having a president that less than half the voters support. Just because they vote for them as a lessor of two evils doesn't mean they support them.

You have a great point. More political parties could allow for truly less popular or downright unpopular candidates to win elections by a perfect storm of wedge issues.

To be fair the president usually gets less than 40% counting people that don't vote and 3rd party or write in votes.

No, it makes sense. My highly uneducated opinion is that they'd have to, in agreement with you, overhaul the electoral college and basically the entire voting process. A single vote probably wouldn't work, yes, you'd end up with a large portion of the country feeling they had no voice.

That said, it's really no different now. I'll vote Gary Johnson and there's no way in hell he ends up president. I'll vote anyway and show my support. In the end, people have to vote for the person they think is most qualified to run the country; not vote because they'll win, but because the vote is tallied and heard. I'll be part of the percent that voices I want another choice. Whatever that means in the future is to be determined, but I feel like it has to be said in some small way.

You're right, we would need (and maybe do need) a serious overhaul of the whole thing.

But how can we even achieve the basic political consensus necessary to do that with the way things are politically? It has to happen after the election. I think Clinton should suggest support for some sort of bi-partisan commission to look into how we could improve our electoral system. After the election, things cool down for a bit and maybe we will have a brief moment to have a rational discussion about how we could improve the political structure of our government.

There are different ways to elect a candidate than simply tallying who gets the most votes. In a multiple party system, ballots could have multiple entries for multiple candidates, ordered by preference. If your favorite candidate gets the fewest votes, then your vote instead counts for your second favorite option, and this process is repeated until one candidate has a majority. That way, there is no disincentive to vote for a fringe candidate, because even if they don't win your vote will not take away from someone else who you would also support.

You want to have ranked ballots. So you can list in order who you want, so if you don't get your first pick, you might get your second pick.

You're very right. What we need is mandatory voting (you can still vote to abstain), a federal holiday on voting day, and proportional representation with the leading vote getter being the "head of state." Let's say we revamp congress, and there's now 100 seats in Congress. If 40% voted Democrat, you'd have 40 people in Congress. 35% Republicans, 15% Libertarians, and 10% Green Party. For Example. They'd need to work together in order to pass ANY legislation. I think it's much better than the "Red Team v. Blue Team," sort of school yard politics we have now.

Yeah, that leads to pretty big controversies. See: Andrew Jackson, John Q, Adams 1824. Back then, congress just picked the president if no one received at least 50% of the vote.

That's why first past the post voting is as much of a dinosaur as the electoral college. Ranked voting is practical and better for this very reason.

I guarantee you, if all voting was ranked and done with a paper ballet that is easily recounted and verifiable, our country would not have most of these political corruption problems that we seem to constantly run into.

One side currently equates the other side somewhere around the likes of satan. They wish to punish them.

If there were 4 parties than they'd only need 26% of the vote, leaving a large majority of the country not having supported that candidate.

nobody supports the current candidates either. they just hate the other one more.

A large majority of the country already don't support candidates, or only support them because they hate them less than whoever the other candidate is. That isn't really support, that's just choosing the least awful option. This election really drives that point home, doesn't it?

Compared to that, having multiple parties where people can actually find candidates that they align with, and that even stand a chance of being elected (unlike third parties today) sounds like a dream come true that anyone should want.

Except for the parasitic and co-dependent Republican and Democratic Parties, of course.

Have a parliamentary system where you have to form coalitions if you don't get a majority. Skips the problem entirety.

The parliamentary electoral system works pretty well for all the functional democracies in the world. Except for America, where a totally disfunctional system that promotes totalitarianism is somehow deemed better. But actually sucks.

CGP Grey's politics in the animal kingdom series is a great introduction to understanding what's so wrong about our current system and how other systems work. Politics in the Animal Kingdom: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638.

I'd like a ranked system.

An explanation as to how 2-Party Systems is actually undemocratic as fuck

The thing I like about a system with viable third and fourth parties is that you may get a leader who only got 26% of the vote, but at least 26% of the population would support that candidate, as opposed to now where you just need 51% to hate the other candidate. With the 2 party system (especially this cycle) it seems like everyone is voting for their candidate because of how much they dislike the other option, instead of choosing a person they genuinely agree with. More parties would allow the issues to govern again, instead of sound clips or accusations of wrongdoing.

.

leave us with a president that less than half the voters supported seems...wrong

That's realistically what's going to happen to you guys now. The two most disliked candidates in history.

I thought "a reform of the two party system" also meant replacing FPTP. That's really the only way we will be able to do it.

The most representative system would allow everyone to vote for as many people as they want. This way, the person who would win would be the most agreeable candidate for everyone, and it wouldn't result in people voting against the candidates they don't want. The problem is really the first past the post style of voting.

I also think that voting should not be optional. It is your civic duty, and you do not "have the freedom" to not vote.

Are you kidding?? Having a 4 party system as you suggest, each given equal air time, would energize everyone like crazy. People would care about politics again, cynics would repent, you would have true optimism that actual change might happen. The two parties as they are today are just two shades of the same thing - big capitalism and entrenched interests. At least that's what everyone I know who hates politics in the US thinks.

You're crazy. This is how every other democracy works.

Replaced with STV. Please.

I'm not suggesting that additional parties would change politicians or the public, but I believe that having the media cover each party more equally because they're recognized would be a benefit to the American people. I mean, I suppose that just changing the media coverage would do the trick, but I think that the media will always cover the story... and right now the story is with two politicians that want to be president because the two parties we recognize are controlling who you're going to vote for. The debate rules are defined by Republicans and Democrats. It's no secret that unless you're a republican or democrat, you're getting less coverage. How can we expect someone with so little coverage to get the 15% required to debate? The committee knows that.

Yeah, I'd love it if they'd do that. Seriously.

I agree, but I'd still vote for him before Trump or Clinton. Maybe it's a matter of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. Maybe he'd do the same for me, too, if given time to debate. But I know what I've seen and I know his history compared to the other two idiots. He's the idiot I'd vote for when the three are lined up. It sucks to look at it that way, but yeah... I can't for for a bigot or a liar that should be in jail. They're both crooks.

Without a doubt correct on A. I'd never expect a plea to the mass media to be heard coming from one voice. -But they need viewers. Enough pissed off people and they have to start adjusting the content. But no, that wont happen over night.

B - It's an opinion. I believe Hillary Clinton is what's wrong with America. She has gotten away with a crime that should have landed her in prison. But, you know... she's rich and powerful, so as Trump said, she can get away with anything. Trump is in the same category for me, of course. Either way, dumb and dumber.

This is true, but I feel like a multi-party system gives that dynamism that the American system is lacking. Of course, that may mean alliances between parties you really don't want, but it's no different here in the US now, so I don't think there's anything to lose.

The mass media pushes its own agenda. It covers people in a way that pushes that agenda. If it can't spin a topic, it will either not cover the topic at all or cover a related topic that does work in their favor.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say the mass media knows what its doing or not with this statement, but I believe the mass media does push its own agenda very clearly. Watch Fox news, then CNN and tell me they're not bias.

I'm aware. That doesn't change the need for coverage. I'm not saying they'll give it to us, but I believe that they need a consumer just like any other product. If we stop watching, they stop making money. We have the power to change the way they hand the news, but it won't happen for a long time because people are apathetic until election time and even then, most just do what they're told.

There is one more big factor that you're leaving out.

[deleted]

Or most Bernie supporters did the logical thing and aligned with the next closest candidate to their ideals. Just because we didn't win the battle doesn't mean we lost the war. Politics is give and take like that.

It's not hard when she's paying 6 million a month for shills.

More like Bernie voters watched Trump for a moment and realized they can't hop on that Train. Then they looked at Gary Johnson and realized while he smokes weed - he stands for nothing that Bernie did. Then they looked at Jill Stein, and very likely a small % have possibly went toward her, but it is obvious that everyone is ready to say: We can't let Trump in to the office.

Or maybe it's just reflecting the national trend to not support Trump.

Also that Clinton is AstroTurfing the shit out of this site

lol i love how suddenly there are so many people who love clinton.

could it be that trump is that big of a turd? no, it's just paid shills! it's all a conspiracy!

Woste echo chamber ive ever seen on reddit

That, and the millions of dollars a certain pro-clinton superpac put into controlling the narrative on social media websites like this.

More more like paid shilling became more prominent.

I know right. It's strange, almost like our statements were being purposefully corrected?

[deleted]

The primary voters who chose a different candidate are ultimately responsible.

Or, you know, once the actual voters screwed him. It's a massive conspiracy, the masses stole the election from Sanders by voting for someone else!

Bullied those Bernie supporters into * having* to vote for her. And then they defend with the weakest arguments.

which is why i wont vote for her. well one of the reasons. im curious to see how fucked up we can make america if trump wins. enough to make a change?

Like when she screwed him by getting 3 million more votes?

As an ex Bernie supporter, he wouldn't have won anyway

more like once the DNC screwed him

Sanders lost by 3.7 million votes and didn't have enough delegates or superdelegates. The DNC being biased doesn't explain 3.7 million more voters choosing Hillary over Bernie.

Sure Donald

The record seems to have been changed.

Wait, like, of records? Maybe with a cloth?

Its almost as if, when choosing between Trump and Clinton, people can see the lesser of two evils.

Trump has a way of altering perceptions of his opponents. As in, "at least that candidate hasn't called for 'torture and a lot worse', families of military enemies to be killed, ground invasions of syria and libya, said that climate change is a Chinese hoax, appointed supporters of Alex Jones, believer in multidimensional aliens, to his campaign staff, etc, etc". Funny how things work out like that.

Almost as if everybody understands that Trump is by far the worst option.

No no everybody just switched

it's called ppl discovering what donald is.....

Almost as if democratic voters will still vote the democrat if their preferred choice doesn't get past the primaries.

Either that or we'll take a criminal over hitler-lite

I've been told we don't exist though. Bernie supporters fell in line. We're with her !

Hillary 2016: Yeah, I guess.

Nonsense. Just wait for good news to break for Clinton. There will be three megathreads from the moderators who insist that megathreads are to prevent duplicates.

Any polls on who Bernie supporters support now? I know he told his supporters to vote for Clinton

Well he said going to keep trying to be the nominee, even at the convention, but gave up

That she cheated for.

Evidence?

No shills. No rigging.

Anything about policy?

What about Bush's or Cheney's crimes? He is only interested in Hillary because she is politically relevant.

[deleted]

It is absolutely because she is a political opponent.

Ah, so the fact that out of the 300 million Americans, the one he wants to go after specifically is his political opponent is just some freak chance right?

I mean what are the odds, the one person he wants the Justice Department to single out and pick on is his political opponent, so funny, I mean what are the odds???

It's not because she's a political opponent.

You've got to be kidding me.

...Would you honestly, truly think that at this point?

Yeah, sure it's not. It's just what, coincidence?

She's already been through the legal system and the FBI, run by a former Republican US Attorney, declined to even even recommend prosecution. Putting someone through the legal system again, for the same alleged crime, with the same evidence and the same facts, is persecution.

And that AG would totally be unbiased and fair right? Definitely not Trump's puppet?

[deleted]

I dont disagree with that. I disagree with flippantly saying it as a power move on live television while running for office that will give you the power to effect the outcome.

Yes. In order to have a different opinion or idea than you i must be completely ignorant of things and just typing to hear keys click.

I dont think you understand how our justice system works.

He said he'd appoint a special prosecutor to indict her. Which is fine, if we already hadn't tried her for that time. In the US, you can't be tried for the same crime twice, which means either that trump has no idea how the US law system works, or that he doesn't care and will do it anyways by replacing everyone from top to bottom.

There was extensive investigations and nothing. Trump calling her the devil, saying he will throw her in jail (what happened to separation of powers?) is absolutely disgusting and clearly motivated by nothing more than his political ambitions. His election will be the death of democracy in the US.

absolutely. trump should also face justice for the hundreds of people he didn't pay for the work they did. or the sexual assaults he's committed. or the illegal immigrants he employed.

we need LAW and ORDER.

I was one of the people that was hoping the FBI would recommend indictment if they found something. I believed that there was probably something there. When the FBI came back with nothing, I accepted it and dropped it.

I don't care about the campaigns, I care about policy.

The truth is, no matter how much you hate her, if you're a liberal - Clintons policies are vastly superior compared to Trumps.

Ooh, they are. But, it's our duty as Americans to pick between one of these dumpster fires

I don't know how you would define something like that but Trump certainly fits that mold better than Hillary.

Well, you're partly right. I do think that a lot of Sanders supporters were pretty immature, and many his policies were goofy. But Hillary's only the candidate I support because her opponent is absolutely the worst human being who has ever been in the running for President.

Jesus. Shit like this is making me really consider voting for Trump. And I'm in a swingy.

[removed]

If Clinton wins it's going to be like this. All over the Internet. For four or more years. Speak badly about her? [DELETED]

If Hillary wins it will be the official online Pravda of her regime

The censorship we're experiencing will become the new norm in this country unless some internet regulations and lawful freedoms come into play. And even then, people in power will find a way around those regulations.

It's a scary thought. Even if Trump is elected, there are always going to be people and powers at play actively censoring what we see when we Google search a certain person or subject.

He died for their spins

Dicks out for Bernrambe

And what is a Bernie?

-Gary "not in the debate" Johnson

Wat

I thought he was just granted more debates... what month is this?

Dicks out for Bernie?

Dicks out for Sanders?

No refunds

Wew lads, these mods will be busy tonight. Wew.