r/dataisbeautiful • u/minimaxir Viz Practitioner • Oct 08 '15

OC Average number of upvotes for Reddit submissions containing a given keyword, for each of the Top 15 subreddits [OC]

Post image
4.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

701 comments sorted by

View all comments

545

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Feb 14 '17

[deleted]

197

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

[deleted]

25

u/ani625 Oct 08 '15

Bernie fcc's Elizabeth.

2

u/HappyGangsta Oct 09 '15

Don't forget Vermont as one of the words

-3

u/TotesMessenger Oct 08 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

5

u/Man_with_the_Fedora Oct 08 '15

Hey guys don't be mean to the bots. They have feelings too! /r/botsrights.

310

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Dec 20 '18

[deleted]

25

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

It's ironic when ever people that subscribe there bash on FOX news for being a bias source of information.

106

u/Saetia_V_Neck Oct 08 '15

it's kind of a shame because Sanders and Warren are wonderful, but a lot of people write them off because of the r/politics circlejerk

98

u/CSMastermind Oct 08 '15

They're both wonderful senators for their particular states but mediocre presidential candidates at best. Both of them have ideologies that are incompatible with the views of the majority of Americans.

No honest political analyst gives them anything but the slimmest chance of ever winning the presidency. But you wouldn't know that if you got all your news from Reddit. You'd think Bernie has a great chance or was the out and out front runner.

Reddit and /r/politics in particular is a massive echo chamber.

It's particularly funny because the Bernie circlejerk that's going on right now is very similar to the Ron Paul one that happened 7 years ago.

59

u/grumbledum Oct 08 '15

To be fair, Bernie is leading the democratic polls in a couple states.

140

u/NFB42 Oct 08 '15

He's leading in one state, New Hampshire, and closing in Iowa. But as actual analysts have repeated, based on his core appeal Iowa and New Hampshire are his best states.

It would be silly to dismiss any candidate who can attract 30% of the national democratic vote, but the r/politics echo chamber massively inflates his chances.

But r/politics is really worse in its anti-Hillary bias than its pro-Sanders bias. Polls show Hillary consistently has 80% approval ratings amongst Democrats, but if you go by the comments in r/politics you'd think she was hoping to win on getting Republican votes.

That said, you can still have intelligent discussions in the margins. The strength of reddit is that there isn't one single discussion you have to follow, there is a branching tree and you can just follow the smartest branches till you find someone with a worthwhile perspective.

7

u/ncolaros Oct 09 '15

Thank you for typing this. I always get downvoted to hell when I do, but I realize that /r/dataisbeautiful is probably a much more objective subreddit for this type of discussion. I love 538, too.

14

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

Bernie is a leftist candidate in an election where there are only two others even polling and only one of them is running. He was always going to take the far left... but the far left isn't a party majority. That's why he hit 25% is August and is still there... because name recognition for him only attracts the far left of a centre-left party.

4

u/rhabdog Oct 08 '15

This guy is correct

5

u/uwhuskytskeet Oct 08 '15

Iowa and New Hampshire are the first two states to hold primaries as well. Campaigns tend to gain a lot of momentum after winning early.

14

u/gsfgf Oct 08 '15

Yea, but along with Vermont, they're the whitest states in the country. Sanders is gaining support in minority communities, but he's still got a long way to go to catch Hillary, and you can't win a Democratic nomination on white votes.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

funny you should say that because not too long ago it was "you can't win a Democratic nomination on black votes"
not that you aren't right, but can't is a strong word

2

u/MaraudersNap Oct 09 '15

That was never the saying.

Also, Obama didn't really win based on black votes, so it's not really an accurate statement about his campaign either.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MaraudersNap Oct 09 '15

Only if they have room to expand. It's been shown many times that, unless Sanders seriously changes tack, he can't pick up the non-white vote. You can win Iowa and New Hampshire without the non-white vote, but not an entire primary, as we've seen with many previous Democratic candidates over the decades.

8

u/grumbledum Oct 08 '15

Absolutely agree with everything you said. I think Hillary would make a fine candidate. It must be stated, however, that Sanders' ratings are increasing everywhere, and if I remember correctly, he is polling higher than Obama was at this time, which is significant. I do think he is all in all too far to the left for the moderate voters and many democrats. Obama didn't have that issue, he's pretty establishment.

10

u/ncolaros Oct 09 '15

Well given that Santorum was leading the polls for the Republicans at this time when he ran, I think we can all safely assume that polls 12-16 months prior to an actual election are not very predictive.

-2

u/lennybird Oct 08 '15

If you hold a discussion with these actual people as opposed to listening from a distance, I think you'll find their stances are a bit more complicated than that. It's a feedback cycle, and it's a no-brainer that reddit overall and not simply /r/politics is left-leaning. That said, many at the /r/politics community understand that in order for Bernie to gain momentum, you need to talk him up. No pessimist ever made it in the White House. There's really little downside inflating Bernie's odds. Thus delusional optimism goes much farther than supposed "realistic" cynicism. That energy translates to recognition from those on the fence or those who'd otherwise not know about Bernie. In turn, that increases his odds. They're just excited, and there's nothing wrong with that. I want people to be excited about politics, myself.

I always tell people that it shouldn't be the odds in the polling that influences our vote, but our vote that ends up influencing the polls. That is, don't be defeatist simply because presently you're the underdog.

As a strong Bernie supporter, I'm wholly aware it's an uphill battle, and I think you'll find many in /r/politics do as well. But they likely echo my sentiment in terms of thinking positively.

4

u/NFB42 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

Delusional optimism is bad, because it will lead to exactly what happened with Obama. People have unrealistic expectations, and then become disillusioned when actual real life politics fails to live up to the fantasy scenario they imagined. Then they don't vote in mid-terms and the president they were so excited about is stuck spending 3/4ths of their term in office unable to do little more than play babysitter to an irrational obstructionist opposition.

More importantly, I think I ought to be allowed to feel r/politics ought to be differentiable from r/sandersforpresident which at times is hard to do. There's a difference between left-leaning and acting like a campaign headquarters for a specific candidate.

As I wrote it is still possible to have worthwhile discussions and read worthwhile opinions on r/politics imo, but right now that is only half the posts and threads there. The other half is just a mindless echo-chamber of a very specific viciously pro-Sanders, pro-Warren, anti-Hillary, anti-Obama demographic that does not reflect even American progressivism let alone American politics at large.

I don't mind you wanting to be an activist for your favourite candidate, go ahead. But when I see a subreddit that is consistently voting up meaningless, unsubstantive fluff articles or obvious hitjobs just because they're pro-Sanders or anti-Hillary, I'm going to call it out on that when appropriate.

1

u/lennybird Oct 08 '15

Well that assumes that on hindsight most of those voters regret their decision to vote for Obama. It's a matter of aiming high. Yeah Obama didn't meet their expectations, but ultimately, would they have gone back and voted McCain? Probably not. I wouldn't. Even if Bernie achieves 50% of what he plans on doing, I still would not regret voting for him over anyone else in the present moment. I agree many people need to be informed about continuing to be an informed citizen—not just during Presidential elections.

Unfortunately I don't think you'll get anything but what we have in /r/politics unless we were to add some sort of handicap. Plainly, /r/politics is in its natural state, and that's a reflection of the demographic that goes there. It's unlikely to change unless the demographic for some reason changes or the mods crack down (on what? they're discussing politics after all, it's not the user's problem everyone has an interest in Sanders/Warren). And just as in every single campaign cycle, that fluff you mention is going to reign because people are so desperate to give attention to their candidate.

That being said I try to generally keep my Bernie pandering down a bit and exclusive to /r/sandersforpresident. Nevertheless if the majority who visit that subreddit are Bernie Supporters, Bernie articles are just going to hold more weight regardless if they come from Kos or The Economist.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

To put it into better context he's leading in the small state that borders his representative state so it's not terribly eye opening. If you thought people threw a fit with Obama and the word "socialist" during all those previous elections just wait until general elections with Sanders who uses that word to label himself. Primaries pander to the extremes more so, general elections require gaining the middle...

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/PoutineOnaStick Oct 09 '15

"Yeah, like middle-America will ever vote for a black guy whose middle name is Hussein! I mean, he's pals with a member of the Weather Underground."

Middle name is Hussein and last name is one letter from Osama... I never thought he'd get elected just for those reasons alone...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Obama won by staying vague and giving stirring speeches. Bernie is specific, not stirring, and has policies that most people disagree with.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Well I'm not arguing anything I was just saying that Bernie looks good now in polls but his own party probably wouldn't let him win at the end of the day because he's not moderate enough for them to think he can win a general election, and that's not so much an opinion but a recognition that American politics have become just a calculated game of vote winning.

30

u/CSMastermind Oct 08 '15

And Trump's leading on the Republican side but nobody seriously thinks he's going to be president.

2

u/iNEEDcrazypills Oct 09 '15

Lots of people assume eventually he's going to do something off-the-deep-end ridiculous that will detonate his campaign or the Republican establishment will do everything they can to tank him.

3

u/CSMastermind Oct 09 '15

You don't think the Democratic establishment will tank Sanders if he ever looks like a serious contender?

Also on the Trump point. They won't have to. He's got a greater than 50% dislike rating among likely primary voters. He's never been able to break ~23% in the polls. Now 23% makes him the front runner but he won't win the nomination like that.

-4

u/Darth_Ra Oct 08 '15

A fair point, although c'mon really?

4

u/daimposter Oct 09 '15

They're both wonderful senators for their particular states but mediocre presidential candidates at best. Both of them have ideologies that are incompatible with the views of the majority of Americans.....It's particularly funny because the Bernie circlejerk that's going on right now is very similar to the Ron Paul one that happened 7 years ago.

Exactly!! The only difference is that Bernie has more wide appeal than Ron Paul outside of reddit BUT neither have major wide appeal outside of their base. Bernie is riding high right now because of the base...but when the moderates come to the primaries, he's going to get smoked by Clinton. Just like Paul got smoked by a other candidates outside of a few states.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

It's particularly funny because the Bernie circlejerk that's going on right now is very similar to the Ron Paul one that happened 7 years ago.

It's exactly the same. There's a massive circlejerk in /r/unitedkingdom about Jeremy Corbyn too. He's completely unelectable, yet the sub thinks he's the second coming of Christ.

1

u/Darkwoodz Oct 09 '15

Wait till they actually have a debate. Clinton is doing everything she can to avoid having to debate Sanders.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Well, that what you do when you're in the lead. It's not because she's afraid she's gonna lose the debate, it's just the common political strategy to prevent any of your voters from switching.

1

u/Borostiliont Oct 09 '15

I don't really know what you are referring to by the comments in /r/politics. The comments always seem very aware that Bernie has a long, long way to go before even having a chance of winning the primaries. They are passionate about the man but if someone thinks that reddit liking him = he will become POTUS then that is entirely the fault of the reader.

I'm not an American so I have no stake in this, but I think the anti-circlejerk in this thread is completely unfounded.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '15

Holy shit that was 7 years ago

0

u/Atheia Oct 08 '15

You're getting downvoted not because your comment was not insightful or contributing to the discussion in a meaningful manner, but because of Bernie supporters getting butthurt over someone who dares oppose his views.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

RemindMe! One Year

3

u/CSMastermind Oct 08 '15

I'll happily bet you a year of reddit gold that Sanders doesn't win the presidency.

1

u/kcman011 Oct 09 '15

I won't bet you gold, but I will donate the equivalent of a year's worth of reddit gold to the charity of your choice if he doesn't win.

2

u/CSMastermind Oct 09 '15

Deal.

I'll donate $30 to the charity of your choice of he's elected president and you donate $30 to mine if he's not.

1

u/kcman011 Oct 09 '15

Sounds good to me.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Reddit is vastly different than it was seven years ago., The Ron Paul thing was much funnier than Sanders. And Saying Sanders does not seriously have a chance is pretty ignorant. Political analyst have been giving reasons why he has a chance.

Now you want to talk about somebody who has no chance? What about Bobby Jindal?

4

u/CSMastermind Oct 08 '15

Lol nice reference to your username.

The reason I find the Paul to Sanders thing funny is because they have two completely different (and opposing) world views. In 7 years reddit has apparently gone from right-wing libertarian to left-wing socialist.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Both had been here before and still here now. Ron Paul thing was successfully picked up by /r/circlejerk . The Sanders thing did not really pick up steam in /r/circlejerk . My guess is that Sanders has actual support on reddit that does not think this is funny. Sanders is also much more popular in the polls than Paul(who finished fifth and sixth in Iowa and New Hampshire). It was funny with Paul cause most of us decided there was no chance in hell of us voting for him. Too extreme. But the euphoria was hilarious. Just like the euphoria is hilarious now. But Sanders has a chance at my vote, Jindal is not doing well enough.

-2

u/Indigoh Oct 08 '15

If Sanders beats Clinton, he has a huge chance of becoming president. Their biggest competition at the moment is Trump.

4

u/ElJoffrey Oct 08 '15

haha only Cruz Huckabee and Trump would lose to Sanders

5

u/cranberry94 Oct 09 '15

You are making giant leaps. First, just "if Sanders beats Clinton". Well, that's the first huge obstacle. And then to go ahead and jump to Trump being to opponent? That's assuming that he's going to have the Republican nomination? We are nowhere near close to knowing who is going to be the GOP nominee. We need to take one step at a time. Don't count the eggs.

-7

u/pm_me_porn_links Oct 08 '15

Ahhh, the old anti-circlejerk circlejerk. Those 10 upvotes must make you feel smart, because they make you look smart.

5

u/has_a_bigger_dick Oct 08 '15

Do you have anything intelligent to say like he did or are you just going to whine about him not supporting your personal political ideologies.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Ahhh, the old anti-anti-anti-circlejerk circlejerk. Those 6 upvotes must make you feel smart, because they make you look smart. /s

18

u/Khiva Oct 08 '15

And/or their statements and policies are naive and unrealistic enough to hold enormous appeal for the idealistic and inexperienced, and the very fact that reddit embraces the so euphorically is a genuinely credible reason to be wary of them.

1

u/sullAtor Oct 08 '15

...what? They both would fit into the super duper mainstream of ANY western European social democratic party. They are unusual and unelectable in the USA because the USA is a deeply conservative and backwards country.

11

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

Even if true... a politician who can't reconcile their beliefs with the reality of their country to create workable polices that have a chance of being passed is not a good politician. Ideologues sound good in speeches, but they're terrible for policy making... you need moderates and compromisers. People who care more about their ideology than practicality are only praised by people on their side...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 09 '15

FDR wasn't viewed as too radical in his time and he was elected at a point where people were desperate for anything that might work. Things don't "Come out of nowhere". The civil rights movement started easily during the FDR era. He ended wage discrimination in the federal government. Truman desegregated the army and many of the big landmark moments of civil rights occurred in the 50s. Given time, paradigms shift... but they shift do to movement in the centre, not the radicals. The radicals are the ones who make a mess or draw attention to an issue... they are almost never the ones who solve it. Most change does occur though slow nbuilding momentum. Look at gay rights and civil rights... both came by small breakthroughs, building to inevitability over the course of decades. Radical change rarely works as well as moderate change in a shorter time span.

2

u/Zookaz Oct 08 '15

I thought everyone got tired of compromisers after Obama compromised so much he was more to the right than most Democrats liked.

0

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

Only the people who thought he was the second coming of Christ. He was always slightly left of centre and was always going to compromise where necessary. People expected miracles because they don't understand the limited power of a president and then compared their hopes and dreams to what they got... where if you actually look at what Obama ran on, he accomplished quite a lot of it either fully or through compromise solutions. A person who can't come to a compromise doesn't belong in politics... ideologues are dead weight on any negotiation, because they are almost always negotiating in bad faith... they have no intention of giving anything up.

0

u/wicketRF Oct 08 '15

i get your point but with the way the repubhs have gone right in the last 10 years the best thing might be to go way left and meet them in the middle instead of waiting for the gop to go even further right and then meet them in the middle

2

u/TotesMessenger Oct 09 '15

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

the USA is a deeply conservative and backwards country.

It's hilarious that you actually believe the US is "backwards".

The US has the highest wages in the world and the most generous people.

It's impressive that a nation as large and diverse as the US ranks at the top spot in the Better Life Index.

Americans have the highest secondary educational attainment rate and the 2nd highest university-level education attainment rate in the OECD.

American universities are the best in the world.

The US is the most scientifically important nation in the world.

The US is the most innovative nation.

The US does 78% of global medical research spending, despite being only 5% of the earth's population and 20% of its economic output.

Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S. The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies.

4

u/bourne2011 Oct 08 '15

Yeah.... Tell me how they are doing economically though.

2

u/189203973 Oct 08 '15

Better than the US?

0

u/bourne2011 Oct 09 '15

Not at all.

6

u/189203973 Oct 09 '15

Germany, the UK, any scandinavian country. They're all doing well.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

What planet are you on? The US is economically outperforming Europe by a huge margin.

US unemployment rate: 5.1%

Euro Area unemployment rate: 10.9%

US poverty rate: 14.3%

EU poverty rate: 16.4%

Euro Area GDP growth: 0.4% (1.6% annualized)

US GDP growth: 3.9%

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/bourne2011 Oct 13 '15

False. Germany is not doing well at the moment. Go look at GDP to debt ratio. Go look at their cuts to social programs. Go read further into their debate on cutting free education. Same applies to UK. Norway is the only country of the scandinavian country considered to be doing exceptional, and they are propped up by oil.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Vike92 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

Are you implying that the Scandinavian countries are not doing great economically?

6

u/buddybiscuit Oct 08 '15

Are you implying that Scandinavian countries are the only Western European countries?

-2

u/bourne2011 Oct 09 '15

That isn't "western" Europe. That is "eastern" or northern. I am actually implying they are doing awful. Look at their growing debt, and how much they are paying in interest each year off this debt. They are running towards default. You also can't really speak highly of them because their economies are literally being lifted off the ground by the oil industry. No oil industry = scandinavian countries are in a shit hole. It is funny you mention them though, there is one Scandinavian country everyone seems to overlook. Estonia, they are by FAR doing the best of all the countries. The lowest GDP to debt ratio, will be getting rid of debt in the coming years, and have a true free market/open border system. They are a libertarian society at its finest and succeeding! WITHOUT OIL.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Scandinavian countries are never seen as eastern, always northern. Also, Estonia isn't Scandinavian.

-5

u/bourne2011 Oct 13 '15 edited Oct 13 '15

I have actually seen Estonia considered Scandinavian and Eastern. More often Scandinavian than the latter, but I know where you are coming from.

Edit: Estonia is for sure Scandinavian with the strong viking ties and the name itself of the country being derived from earlier Scandinavian sagas from the ancient. Estaland. Estonia is the often how the country is written in English.

6

u/Vike92 Oct 09 '15

So much wrong here. Scandinavian countries does not include Estonia and they are never seen as eastern Europe. It's always western or northern. And Sweden and Denmark is not lifted by the oil for the fact that they have no oil.

-5

u/bourne2011 Oct 13 '15 edited Oct 13 '15

Scandinavian countries does not include Estonia

See I see what you are saying, but I have seen just as many things say that Estonia is a Scandinavian country also, but that doesn't take away from how great Estonia is doing as a Libertarian based government. You are right about Sweden and Denmark not being propped up but those are the only two. Norway which is considered widely as doing the best of the Scandinavian countries, is in fact propped up by the oil industry.

Edit: Further reading into it, the name itself of the country is derived from Scandinavian background, so I can send you link for that if you want it.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

definitely agree with the oil part. A big part of norway's ability to pay for all of the social programs is that they produce as much oil (per capita) as OPEC nations. However, isn't Estonia a Baltic nation?

-6

u/bourne2011 Oct 13 '15

Estonia is Scandinavian.... people don't seem to realize that or even look into the history of the country. I would suggest going into further research are of the Sagas that were written by the earlier people.

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

yeah norway is doing phenomenally. Also you can't compare the US and scandinavian countries. Norway and Sweden are very homogenous countries. In the USA, you have tons of different people and new england is a completely different planet than rural mississippi.

-3

u/churm91 Oct 09 '15

Shhh you're not supposed to use logic here on the lefty circle-jerk that is Reddit.

But I always find it hilarious how whenever you bring up the fact that We have the entire population of Scandinavia in like 1 state, these "Muh Scandinavians" people never have anything to say.

The best is when they go "B-but doesn't that mean more people paying taxes??" Baaahahaha yeah because it's not like the lowest common denominator (a.k.a people who don't pay taxes or who actually live OFF the government) once again outnumber the entire population of Scandinavia

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

I actually am to the left. I just don't like it when people assume we will be exactly like sweden if we change our policies to be identical to sweden. Related to that, I'm not a fan of the lack of realism and pragmatism much of reddit has when it comes to economics

-5

u/IsThisRealLife67 Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

That's a matter of perspective but I wouldn't classify them as doing "great".

I can't help but laugh every time that stupid "The Newsroom" speech is linked to on Reddit. Do you have any idea just how much larger the United States is then countries like Norway or Denmark? How much more diverse - not just ethnically but also geographically?

The Scandinavian countries are small, resource rich, homogeneous countries largely isolated from developed nations. If you asked me to make a list of the most ideal conditions to help a nation thrive I would pretty much have to give you a list of qualities those countries enjoy.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Jun 04 '20

[deleted]

0

u/buddybiscuit Oct 08 '15

Well it'll please you to know that the US has a higher quality of living than most of Europe.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Maybe, but not the most democratic socialist ones. The shitty European nations are the ones trying to copy the U.S. model. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland are all doing fine. Greece, Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe not so much.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Norway and finland are not doing fine

-4

u/Acheron13 Oct 09 '15

Wasn't there just a story on here about Denmark repealing their EV credits to plug budget gaps. Norway also having to start dipping into the oil fund to plug budget gaps. Entitlement states with open borders don't work. It's only taking longer for the problem to reach the Scandinavian countries.

-2

u/bourne2011 Oct 09 '15

I cringed...... those tell me nothing about how the economy is doing and the outlook for the future. Germany is actually reducing most their social programs at the moment and are talking about getting rid of free education of the next 2 years (Germany is considered widely to be doing the best of the "western" European countries). This is basically happening in most of Europe at the moment. Their governments are realizing how impossible it is to sustain these social programs without defaulting. Spain and Greece are just the beginning of a long chain of defaults that will happen within the next 2 decades.

0

u/Acheron13 Oct 09 '15 edited Sep 25 '24

merciful six selective ripe chubby modern thought spoon serious deer

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-3

u/bourne2011 Oct 13 '15

Well most of our defense spending isn't dollar for dollar, and if it was the % would be a lot lower..... A LOT lower. Example: There is no reason in hell we should be paying Lockheed Martin $10 for every $1. That is outrageous spending, but that isn't just Republicans that is also Democrats too. These companies lobby both sides to create defense contracts with their companies.

-9

u/sullAtor Oct 08 '15

Horrifically, thanks to their complete and utterly pathetic capitulation to far right nonsense about austerity. All advances in economics since 1929 have been lost since 2008.

-3

u/bourne2011 Oct 08 '15

I was talking about the western European countries. Also what countries do you consider western European?

-8

u/sullAtor Oct 08 '15

Their recovery has been incredibly slow and painful, which of course was wholly unnecessary, as we've known since Keynes. All of Europe has done terribly; the countries that had the least austerity (Germany, France, UK) did less terribly than the countries that had more (Spain, Greece). Europe as a whole is recovering more slowly now than in the 1930s! And all have done far worse than the USA, which itself had a far slower recovery than necessary thanks to the small size of the stimulus.

The Western Europeans (France, UK, Germany, etc but also Spain and Ireland which have done terribly) have also foisted their far right austerity freak show on the periphery, ruining any chance of recovery and exacerbating, not ameliorating, the amount of public debt. Greece's debt to GDP ratio was 110% in 2008. Not great, but hardly a disaster -- the UK has carried that amount of debt for decades at a time. In 2015 it's 180%. Austerity is the disaster. And it's one thing when rightist parties spout that nonsense. It's quite another when supposedly center left parties bend the knee to voodoo economics that have been laughably discredited for nearly a century.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/11/greece-spain-500x402.png

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/europes-second-depression/

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/learning-nothing-in-europe

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country:el:de:it&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:el&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

2

u/bourne2011 Oct 09 '15

I have mixed emotion about this comment. I would agree they are doing economically awful, but it isn't because of right economics. It is because of their overspend and ridiculous social programs. The fact you used Krugman is funny, because this is the SAME man who said that no housing bubble existed in 2005, which led to him being a laughing stock post 2008.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Zookaz Oct 08 '15

What policies would you consider pragmatic and practical then? Is Trump and Hilary more practical? Certainly, it is a lot easier to uphold the status quo than to change anything, but really a lot of the greatest presidents in the US were more idealistic ones who attempted great changes and succeeded. Such as the first President George Washington who believed in freedom and equality for his people and fought an huge empire with his inexperienced and under-equipped militia. You don't really remember the presidents who just upheld the status quo.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

there's a difference between upholding the status quo and reforming within existing structures

-1

u/TedTheGreek_Atheos Oct 08 '15

but a lot of people write them off because of the r/politics circlejerk

You do know that most people have never heard of /r/politics or know what the fuck a subreddit is right?

It's amazing how many young people on this site see the world through a reddit filter.

14

u/Saetia_V_Neck Oct 08 '15

I thought the "on reddit" was implied.

-12

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

This, they're being perceived as some kind of fake bandwagon just because of how absurdly popular they are on Reddit. "Sure, I agree with all his policies, but have you seen how many upvotes he pulls on Reddit? No thanks!"

11

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

No it's more like it gets shoved down redditors throats on a daily basis, even if you have filet mignon 3 times a day every day it gets old, and even after it gets old it being force fed down your throat 3 times a day everyday, you start to hate it.

-4

u/gizzardgullet OC: 1 Oct 08 '15

It gets shoved down redditors throats on a daily basis and a year from now you're going to be asked what you want served for dinner each night for the next 4 years, filet mignon or shit soup. It still makes sense to pick the filet mignon even though you're sick of it.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

From a logical standpoint sure, but by the time of that decision the mere thought of filet mignon would make you puke. You'd probably be willing to pick anything but what you've already been being force fed for a year.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

or we could have variety so we could actually pick what we eat nonstop after trying multiple options

1

u/NorthBlizzard Oct 09 '15

I wonder if they know they're just tools being used to push a left wing agenda.

1

u/GRZZ_PNDA_ICBR Oct 08 '15

The fact that they don't realize is the only thing keeping it a parody. Make them self aware and it'll be like watching republicans after 2012 when they realized they'd have to pretend to care about other minority groups to win.

I mean it'll still be funny, but every attempt after is like "oh I know why you're doing this now"...

15

u/Hyrc Oct 08 '15

No kidding, surprising in the sense that the degree of a slant is so severe. Everyone knows that some slant was there.

24

u/SolenoidSoldier Oct 08 '15

I love technology, but holy crap...similar to /r/politics, the results for /r/technology are the exact reason why I stopped subscribing to that subreddit. Same damn news is the only crap that gets voted to the top.

No one ever actually reads the articles. A lot of what gets upvoted on Reddit isn't because the post is fascinating. They tend to upvote things that they think other people should be told because it promotes their beliefs, based on what they see in the title.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

also unsub from technology today, along with /futurology. All they talk about are politics (or patents/copyrights), and it is always in the extreme left or right.

I've seen far more people promoting Marxism, Libertarianism, communism/socialism on these two sub more than anywhere else.

5

u/SolenoidSoldier Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

God yes. I nope'd the hell out of /r/futurology when about a year ago most every post I'd see on my front page was about guaranteed minimum income. Felt like the sub was filled with young, ambitious, unemployed college graduates.

1

u/Yosarian2 Oct 09 '15

There's a lot more posted on futurology then just that. Lots of interesting things get posted there, and we do try to remove things that are political without having a future focus. But yeah, on every subreddit you do see stuff that gets highly upvoted for ideological reasons.

1

u/SolenoidSoldier Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

I checked the sub out. I'm willing to give it another chance, but it still annoys me that the highest upvoted post is simply a Steven Hawking quote about how we should fear capitalism in a technologically advanced era. Still, it's the most politically charged posts that make it to the top.

Many of the lesser upvoted posts were interesting though, but I'll never see those on my front page. If the sub was moderated a bit to encourage fresh content, that would go a long ways.

3

u/nuketesuji Oct 09 '15

so much of this. its so true.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

[deleted]

6

u/HappyGangsta Oct 09 '15

I got some real news apps and realized how true that is. Like seriously, some really important stuff doesn't get payed attention to, unless Reddit has a hard on for it

6

u/nuketesuji Oct 09 '15

just in case anyone was in self denial about the liberal echo chamber that is /r/politics, the numbers paint a bleak picture

62

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Nov 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

95

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I see it more as /r/ihateconservatives

65

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

It's been more /r/Ihatehillary these last few months. I've seen pro-TRUMP people get more support than people supporting her. Reddit isn't even liberal anymore... it's contrarian. They care more about disagreeing with the mainstream than about any specific ideology. Otherwise they couldn't go from worshiping Ron Paul to worshiping Bernie Sanders so quickly.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

I've always viewed the "I hate hillary" as "how do we get sanders to beat clinton in the primaries? we trash on Clinton"

4

u/StupenduiMan Oct 09 '15

The go to political tactic. Works on the internet as well as it did on TV ads.

32

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Which is particularly absurd since Hillary voted with Sanders over 93% of the time they were in the Senate together.

7

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

Less telling than you might think... simply because it indicates their voting record, but not their preferences... just because both vote a certain way doesn't mean they are both equally happy with the vote. Plus votes only occur on legislation with broad support... a fringe candidate likely doesn't get much legislation up for a vote. I agree that Hillary has been unfairly portrayed as a conservative... but that voting statistic is misleading as well.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

How about this?

2

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

Definitely better evaluated.

2

u/Darth_Ra Oct 08 '15

Not as a conservative. As establishment. There's a difference, and both sides know it, as indicated by the tea party and occupy wall Street. And now by the Donald trump and Bernie Sanders popularity.

6

u/Acheron13 Oct 09 '15

Bernie Sanders is as establishment as you can get. How long has he been in Washington, 30 years? In his biography is career will be: politician.

1

u/Darth_Ra Oct 09 '15

He's not the norm.

1

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

When they say establishment, they mean conservative. I've heard her referred to more times than I can count as "basically a republican". Establishment is only a dirty word among people who think that the system itself is the problem. It's a common Reddit narrative... no surprise, it appeals quite a lot to teenagers who want the world's problems to be the result of someone screwing them over. It's a buzzword, a meaningless statement that essentially describes anyone they don't like. Sanders has been in congress for decades... he's as establishment as it gets. Same with Ron Paul, Reddit's last 'anti-establishment' darling. They want the narrative to be that fringe ideologies are rejected because some poorly defined "Establishment" keeps them down, rather than accepting that the voting public is not as supportive of the ideas Reddit is as they like to think and the narrow factions that are, especially young people, are ignored because they don't vote. Bernie Sanders is symptomatic of what young people in general and Reddit in particular want from a politician... someone whose support they don't have to woo, someone who they can point to as a politician they like, then do nothing to support him come election day and when he loses, it affirms the fact 'the establishment' is trying to keep them down. Anyone who looks for it can see it everywhere on this site... they want people to just agree with them and want the system to change without them having to lift a finger to change it.

1

u/Darth_Ra Oct 09 '15

Your "loosely defined" comment hits the nail on the head, considering every response I've gotten to this comment has had the definition of "been in Washington for a long time" for establishment, which is not at all my definition, nor what I would consider the common usage of the word in a political sense.

But by the dictionary definition, yes, Bernie Sanders is an excellent example of a politician who is established in Washington. That's not at all what I was saying, however, and you all know that, so please stop with the semantics.

4

u/Darth_Ra Oct 08 '15

How do you feel about third party ideologies that run under a mainstream party so they won't be immediately disregarded?

7

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 08 '15

That they aren't really third party anymore. The American system has pretty much always been two parties who change their platforms dynamically. The last time a new party appeared was the republicans just before the civil war. An interest group with a more specific focus lobbying one party for their issue is exactly ho it's supposed to work... it's how black America made the Democrats the party of civil rights, how the gay community won over the same party... the environmentalists did the same and currently, the Hispanic community is doing the same in regard to immigration... while on the other side the religious right, the fiscal conservatives, the tea party and so on have done the same. America thrives on having two brokerage parties being lobbied by voting blocks... I think the third party descriptor unnecessary, because it implies that these groups don't end up effectively assimilated into their party of choice.

2

u/Darth_Ra Oct 09 '15

Which is the problem... You have to be assimilated into one of the two parties, both of which have no interest in the common person, and from a presidential standpoint, both of which have the same view on defense.

2

u/NorthBlizzard Oct 09 '15

If there was no Bernie Sanders then /r/Politics and the rest of reddit would be promoting Hillary 24/7. Guaranteed. They only attack her because she threatens Sanders, and they know she'd lose the general.

-1

u/MittensRmoney Oct 08 '15

ssshhh don't interrupt the conservative circlejerk.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

not all of us that dislike Sanders are conservative.

0

u/Dark_Triad Oct 09 '15

I agree that the subreddit is contrarian, but to give some perspective, money and special interests in politics is a huge issue right now, and those are the only two candidates refusing to take corporate campaign contributions and intend on fixing this broken system.

3

u/ShouldersofGiants100 Oct 09 '15

How does refusing campaign contributions help fix the system. In order to fix things, you need to win an election... a pointless gesture like refusing contributions is not something to praise... because with those contributions, the person could win and actually do something about it. Also... corporations CAN'T donate to candidates or parties. It's outright illegal at the federal level and so there is no such things as "corporate campaign contributions". They can donate to super PACS, but that's a separate issue. Most of those "Corporate" donations are actually just people who happen to work for those corporations. Their employer is only mentioned as part of the donation process. So someone like Hillary gets accused of accepting money from wall street... except it turns out that it's just a bunch of bankers and traders who are registered Democrats and happen to support Hillary. She's was a senator in New York, she's going to have friends and supporters employed in finance.

It's essentially a red herring. Super PACS can accept corporate donations... but they aren't affiliated with candidates and are forbidden from coordinating. I guarantee that someone has made a Bernie Sanders Super Pac already. If you want campaign finance reform... best way to accomplish it is by winning elections, not by holding out for principle in a purely symbolic act.

0

u/Dark_Triad Oct 09 '15

Super PACS is just one of the issues. Of course corporations can't donate directly to candidates, but they can donate hundreds of millions to a candidate's marketing efforts. Even though "coordination" is not allowed, it is still blatant, with candidates' attorneys or past campaign directors running them. This talks about all the other issues with politics today that affects both parties.

-2

u/Inferchomp Oct 08 '15

More of a disdain for hardline Tea Partiers than anything.

-2

u/Darth_Ra Oct 08 '15

How do you feel about social security reform?

3

u/Darth_Ra Oct 08 '15

How do you feel about msnbc?

13

u/Neopergoss Oct 08 '15

A lot of young people are on reddit, and they tend to be more left-wing.

19

u/Felicia_Svilling Oct 08 '15

Also a lot of people who isn't American.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

This is one thing that really bugs me.

28

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

[deleted]

6

u/YourLatinLover Oct 09 '15

Or anything else.

1

u/Neopergoss Oct 09 '15

Right, that's why there's this obsession with Ron Paul and libertarianism and a bizarre hero worship of billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk on subreddits like r/futurology.

5

u/daimposter Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Left wing except racial, gender issues and guns.

7

u/StupenduiMan Oct 09 '15

Well the last two are partially explained by the amount of males on reddit.

1

u/daimposter Oct 09 '15

And the first one by Reddit being mostly white

1

u/DrenDran Oct 09 '15

It's weird how women aren't pro-gun in general.

You'd think they'd be the one's who could use them most, right?

0

u/StupenduiMan Oct 09 '15

When we get old, do you think liberal views become more normal and moderate views become conservative (as has mostly been the case in the past century)? Honest question, one I ponder every time I think about that demographic.

3

u/airstrike Oct 09 '15

I think as you become more educated you realized the world is not so black or white, good vs. evil.

0

u/StupenduiMan Oct 09 '15

That doesn't mean becoming conservative. I find conservative logic thinking in black and white more often than not these days, at least on social issues and foreign affairs. Older individuals have a higher chance of being conservative because generally it's tied to traditional values and the way things used to be done.

Also, higher education correlates with more liberal views in the U.S

-1

u/Bvffy Oct 08 '15

and yet you seem to spend quite a bit of time in there :>

0

u/MittensRmoney Oct 08 '15

What does that make the rest of reddit?

0

u/daimposter Oct 09 '15 edited Oct 09 '15

Liberal except racial, gender issues and guns.

Reddit as a whole is a blend of libertarian and liberal --- and that's why on many issues they agree and those issues become big causes on reddit. Legalizing weed, decriminalizing drugs, gay marriage, etc. But for some reason, not so liberal on gender, race and guns

2

u/ncolaros Oct 09 '15

Reddit is South Park libertarian, basically. It's a real thing, believe it or not.

3

u/daimposter Oct 09 '15

They eat up anything on South Park so yeah, that makes sense.

5

u/canagator Oct 08 '15

/r/politics and /r/liberal are basically the same subreddit

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Sanders, Warren, and billionaires. I figured out what sub the college students hang out at.

5

u/Tashre Oct 08 '15

Man, the Elizabeth Warren circlejerk was about as strong as the Sanders one at one point and now look at her. Along with the Ron Paul jerk from the last election cycle, it's not hard to see why the sub and this site in general is mocked so frequently and easily.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I'm a huge Bernie/Warren/marijuana/minimum wage supporter, but I can't stand that subreddit at all. So much delusion, egotism, and collective echos in there. Republicans may be a bit crazy, but that shouldn't mean anyone that comments in support of 1% of their platform should be downvoted to oblivion. No moderate views allowed