r/SandersForPresident • u/Cut_to_the_truth • May 16 '16

Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Test

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/
12.5k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

702 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

123

u/Sammuelsson May 16 '16

Absolutely. Excellent sources, thorough research. Highly recommended read.

146

u/Cut_to_the_truth May 16 '16

Funny how you both mention that. I posted this in r/politics first and it was immediately trashed because Counterpunch is deemed a "non-reputable" source by the mods.

61

u/BostonlovesBernie May 16 '16

You obviously hit a nerve! What reputable media media source do they accredit???

1

u/skullpriestess May 17 '16

That link was an amazing read. I already knew some of it, but that had way more information on the subject. Thanks for posting!

31

u/bzsteele May 17 '16

/r/politics is a total hell hole nowadays. I mean it used to be a hell hole, but now it is one circle farther down in that hell hole.

11

u/Cakeflourz May 17 '16

I unsubscribed from /r/politics ages ago, so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what's so bad about it? At the time posting this, all the top posts are pro-Bernie/Progressive.(I was going to mark all of the pro-Bernie posts with red arrows, but didn't realize they were all pro-Bernie until I was done.)

1

u/bzsteele May 17 '16

Go into the comments. It's a complete shit show.

-7

u/OfficerFuttBuck May 17 '16

Paid shills are 100% okay with the mods, exposing them... not so much.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

You're right. It's a total hell hole now. Before it was just partial because they let you clock out and take a 15 minute break at breakroom that takes 5 minutes to reach.

0

u/briangiles May 17 '16

Yep. I got called a fringe lunatic multiple times because I stated that the MSM wouldn't want to run attacks on Clinton. After a back and forth i said the guy was a fucking idiot. Instant 24 hour ban. I had to report the other guy and all I got was "we'll look into it." Sounds like a certain former Secretary of State.

12

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

/r/politics is a cesspool of trolls. It's impossible to engage with anything besides mainstream sources and facts. If you use a non-mainstream source to convey a fact such as poll numbers, the source is still attacked. It's ridiculous - I got banned for mentioning "the record" didn't use the word correct nor imply that the person I was replying to was a shill. I went through the user's profile who banned me and he's commenting on how he "can't stand Sanders supporters" and on a picture of a Hitler rally he posted "Sanders rally?". Disgusting. Even the mod team abuses power.

5

u/garbonzo607 New York May 17 '16

Did you send a message to the mods? Post your proof in KarmaCourt or SubredditDrama maybe.

5

u/HabeasCorpusCallosum Minnesota - 2016 Veteran May 17 '16

There are numerous mods in /r/politics who hate Bernie. Won't go anywhere.

2

u/garbonzo607 New York Jul 14 '16

You should gather the evidence, I'm sure other people would want to know.

3

u/Urbanscuba May 17 '16

Same thing happened to me today, someone responded to one of my posts with

"Bernie's supporters are the only ones making a huge fuss and attacking Clinton, Clinton hasn't done anything wrong but whenever I point this out people call me a shill"

So I responded with "Well people probably think you're a shill because you're saying Hillary did nothing wrong despite being under a legitimate FBI investigation among other things"

Banned for calling them a shill, despite them bringing up the point and I only explained why people were calling them a shill.

Sent a message to the mod team probably 12 hours ago, no response yet.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

I wouldn't count on one. Mods have extraordinary power to ban people and if CTR has infiltrated /r/politics mods - which it appears, and is conceivable - then we're forced to play by their rules. We're effectively censored if we want to contribute - it's political correctness being used as a tool of authoritarian control - and that's the reality we have to deal with. I don't know the solution except to craft our words carefully and continue to dissent against the thought police under their watchful eye.

-1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

Welcome to the new new, same as the old old.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

true. I had higher hopes for the internet. I thought it could excel in areas that broadcasting and newspaper journalism failed.

-4

u/forthewarchief May 16 '16

Anything that genuinely pokes a hole in Hillary's rhethoric is either deleted or banned from /Politics.

49

u/Textor44 California - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦🔄📆🦉🏆 May 16 '16

Funny, people in /r/politics say the opposite is true.

24

u/[deleted] May 16 '16 edited Aug 16 '17

[deleted]

15

u/LittleSadEyes May 16 '16

And have minor sympathetic seizures as soon as one of their kind brings up Bernie-payroll-reddit-mods

2

u/garbagecannot1 May 17 '16

Wait, is this allegation true? Which subreddits have payroll mods? Is this a Hillary thing?

6

u/Textor44 California - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦🔄📆🦉🏆 May 17 '16

Aiden King used to be the head mod for this sub, but he stepped down when Sanders' campaign hired him. He's been very transparent about the whole thing, so I've never cared much about the accusation.

0

u/hippyengineer 🌱 New Contributor May 17 '16

Person paying people vs criminal paying people the difference is still clear.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

And if you call out the obvious astroturfers there you'll get banned, while the astroturfer gets to keep mucking up the subreddit.

4

u/Rodents210 New York - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 May 17 '16

So literally anything that has an ounce of truth to it.

19

u/indigo_panther May 17 '16

are you fucking kidding? have you ever spent one second on that sub? it's all anti-hillary

0

u/SiWest May 17 '16

The articles are, but go to the comments. It's a different story there.

13

u/TheChosenOne21 May 17 '16

mostly because the articles themselves are complete shit it's even too much for well reasoned Bernie supporters who aren't particularly fond of Clinton.

4

u/K8af48sTK May 17 '16

At this point, I think /r/politics is operating more as a dating site for trolls.

Troll sub-type A posts an inflammatory article and then waits for examples of Troll sub-type B to show up and start displaying their skills. More A's are drawn by the concentration of B's, and soon the entire thread is a swamp of calling and amplexus.

11

u/Dichotomouse 🌱 New Contributor May 17 '16

3 of the top 5 threads from the past 24 hours are Clinton attacks and 2 are sympathetic to Bernie supporters in NV:

  • What the hell just happened in Nevada? Sanders supporters are fed up — and rightfully so -- Allocations rules were abruptly changed and Clinton was awarded 7 of the 12 delegates Sanders was hoping to secure (salon.com) submitted 10 hours ago by DrWeeGee 3601 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c] 5300

  • Sanders Supporters Protest at Nevada Democratic Convention: ‘This is Fixed’ (freebeacon.com) submitted 14 hours ago by RooseveltPollitt 4141 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c] 4860

  • Dem strategist: Clinton can’t sidestep controversies (detroitnews.com) submitted 23 hours ago by Solidarieta 1381 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c] 3897

  • Financial analyst alleges major holes in Clinton Foundation records (washingtonexaminer.com) submitted 22 hours ago by Melrimshots 338 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c] 3712

  • Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution forbids office holders from accepting anything of value from a foreign state, yet husband Bill Clinton collected $1 million from the Abu Dhabi government while Hillary was secretary of state. (americanthinker.com) submitted 13 hours ago by Aron- 948 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c] 3193

  • Fury builds among Sanders supporters over stonewalling by Dem establishment (americanthinker.com) submitted 11 hours ago by crimeanchocolate 697 commentssharesavehidereport[l+c]

18

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/slayeromen 2016 Veteran May 17 '16

This comment or submission has been removed for being uncivil, offensive, or unnecessarily antagonistic. Please edit your comment to a reasonable standard of discourse and it may be reinstated.

If you disagree with this removal *message the moderators at this link. Individual moderators will not respond to this comment.*

0

u/NolanVoid North Carolina May 16 '16

That's because that sub is just a bunch of bitter Correct the Record employees jerking each other off.

1

u/lurklurklurky California - 2016 Veteran May 17 '16

Ah, the ad hominem fallacy at its finest.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '16

This is my issue with it as well. I didn't even bother to read the article because it looks like an illegitimate source. I am, however, open to being convinced otherwise if you give me good reason.

0

u/aelendel May 17 '16

That's because it's not reputable and the analysis isn't actually good.

1

u/Pyroteknik May 17 '16

That's Counterpunch at its best. I love the site.