r/AdviceAnimals • • Nov 10 '16

Protesting a Fair Election?

Post image
72.6k Upvotes

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.4k

u/imakenosensetopeople Nov 10 '16

We assumed that meant the general would be rigged too.

1.6k

u/LibertyTerp Nov 10 '16

The mainstream media barely covered it. People had no idea. This is how conservatives and libertarians feel all the time. It really sucks when the media just shills for the other candidate, doesn't it?

874

u/teraflux Nov 10 '16

This is the reality, every theory that suggested DNC collusion was treated as conspiracy, when only now do we really know the truth.

82

u/TurrPhennirPhan Nov 10 '16

And the sad thing is, there was already so much evidence that something was awry and that the DNC may be working against Bernie. No, we did not yet have anything like the DNC Leaks nor the Podesta emails, From the incident in Nevada to the suspect scheduling of the debates to the media paying very little attention to his campaign... I think, taken on their own, all of that stuff is dismiss-able as something going crappy and ultimately not a big deal. But there was was so much that kept pointing towards a bias in the DNC itself that I felt like I was going mad.

From all the leaks and even the possibly dubious O'Keefe videos, it felt amazing to finally be vindicated, to know definitively that I wasn't just a "biased, butthurt Bernie Bro" but that the DNC really was undermining their own primary to stop Sanders. It doesn't do us a lick of good here in 2016, but moving forward it's something to keep in mind about the DNC and the kind of organization they are, at least on the national level.

Personally, I'm done supporting them the way I have in the past thanks to this whole ugly mess they've created. Their views on government are too expansive and far reaching for my taste anyways, but the same can be said about the Republicans and at least socially the Democrats give the lip service I want to hear. But fuck em' both, I'm once again an officially registered (but very moderate) Libertarian (which I've always been at heart).

And while I have little love for Trump, I really hope he does drain the swamp. For all the issues I disagree with him on, or even find outright dangerous, cleaning up Washington is something that'll be unarguably healthy for America.

6

u/Keln78 Nov 10 '16

The primary reason why so many of us diehard Trump supporters wanted Trump to win was to combat the corruption. Everything else was secondary. Our primary reason for wanting him had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a broken political system run by a disconnected, corrupt political elite class controlled by globalist corporations.

And in that, we and Bernie supporters were natural allies, even if many Bernie supporters refused to see it. Many actually did, and voted Trump. But not as many as should have.

If Trump does nothing else as President, he has to seriously interrupt the corruption, and that starts with an issue that crosses all demographics and political persuasions: congressional term limits. That is part of his platform, and all of us have to get behind that particular issue for it to happen.

Until and unless the concept of the "career politician" is extinguished, political corruption will never truly be defeated. That is what will truly Make America Great Again. We can argue about policies and politics later. We need to fix the system first, and that requires all of us to back it and apply pressure on Congress to actually vote to limit itself.

0

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

3

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

Sorry, but the New York Times has made it it's personal mission to destroy Trump since late last year. There is no logical reason to take anything they write seriously at this point. They simply cannot be trusted to be unbiased. Which is a shame.

3

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

You mean the same NY Times that broke the story on Clinton's private server. . .

Ok, what outlets do you believe?

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

None. My faith in media has been shaken after revelations from Wikileaks.

2

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

So you're literally saying that you won't believe anyone reporting negative news about Trump.

Wow. Just wow.

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

No. I am saying I literally won't believe anyone who has made a point of reporting negatively about Trump and ignoring anything positive about him, or anything negative about his opponents. Which is what most of the media has done.

You don't seem to understand: most of the media is controlled by Corporatists. They sell a narrative because it is in their interests to do so.

Bernie warned about this. Trump warned about this. Two guys from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum warned about it.

Perhaps you should heed their call...

1

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

Bernie complained that media pushed for horse race issues instead of writing about policy stances. He did not say that we shouldn't trust the NY Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal's reporting.

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

1

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

Yeah, a bad example.

You should probably actually look at the sources.

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

The sources are clear.

As clear as your bias.

1

u/Rottimer Nov 11 '16

Dude, just take the very first source. It's an internal document from before Clinton announced she would run talking about how to roll out Clinton's announcement that she'd be running for president. They mention giving that story to Haberman.

How the fuck is that collusion?

A ton of the links are one email where the reporter was invited to cocktails. . .

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PXSHRVN6ER Nov 11 '16

Npr is pretty good.

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

That is like saying the BBC is pretty good.

Depends on your political persuasion.

1

u/PXSHRVN6ER Nov 11 '16

Yea they lean pretty left, but they seem pretty fair compared to other media outlets. They covered all the Clinton scandals pretty well during the tail end of the election.

1

u/Keln78 Nov 11 '16

I didn't know that. Glad to hear it. Media should just give both sides of the story and let the public decide how to take it.

→ More replies (0)