Riiiiight, I get my news from the bought out r/politics or the heavily censored r/worldnews.

That's as illiterate as getting your 'news' from Facebook.

And if you do think any of those are legitimate news sources, you need to stop it. Now.

This has been a Public Service Mesaage

You're not wrong in the slightest, but you and I both know that a shit ton of people DO get their news this way.

With 3million subscribers and constant on r/all - it's really sad that many busy people don't know what's going on. I'm giving them benefit of the doubt - but this is was elite and Hillary are banking on. Please wake up America!

America isn't gonna wake itself up man, its up to people like you and I to fight the information war and beat back the propaganda. Start doing research into Edward Bernays, and Gustav Le Bon. Read their books. Look into George Soros and the Tavistock Institute. Fill your mind with information and use it as a weapon to fight back. The only way we're gonna take this country back is by changing the ideological paradigm. We all know this. No amount of violence is going to fix this problem. A revolution wont do a thing. All we can do is fight lies with truth. I do what I can. Please join me

Thank you. This is an excellent post!

I've worked in history and as a publicist for years. I know Bernays well. Sharing informative posts like this is what will give people seeds and inspiration to come to their own realization.

You've inspired me to get back to posting more informative comments and responses. I was getting shit on in r/politics and r/sandersforpresident before they went completely sour. I need to get back on it.

To join you, I want to share a challenge to research revolutions. Find the commonalities between current global political uprisings, and the revolutions that rocked the world approx 100yrs+ ago.

Including historical revolutions:

• Progressive Movement in US (were US officials & elite scared of rev. similar to Bolsheviks or French?)
• French Revolution ( very similar themes today, think about enlightenment = Internet)
• Chinese Revolutions

Why didn't other revolutions work? What can we learn from these?

• Revolutions of 1848
• 1960s movements

Brilliant, thank you for getting involved. i will be sure to research those movements you posted. A big part of this is we cannot let ourselves get bogged down by getting shit on by those who dont understand. I try and make rational comments to both subs you mentioned whenever possible, and I defend my positions. We should all do so, not only on Reddit, but across all websites, and in real life too. We have to fight this thing on all fronts. I for one am tired of living in a world run by the elite cabal and I'm going to do something about it or die trying.

What Edward Bernays books would you recommend?

Propaganda, Crystallizing Public Opinion, The engineering of Consent

Millions subscribe to both subs. Top comment here is retarded

I dont think I understand what you are implying, I might be a little slow. Can you spell it out for me please?

I miss Google Reader.

Yeah ... because Google doesn't censor their feeds in favor of their slanted, self serving, political bias. Which is why Google has been in the White House 300+ times under the Obama administration. Or were you being facetious?

Heh, you must be pretty new to the internet. Welcome. But Google Reader was a feed reader... With feed readers you choose which sites you subscribe to via RSS. You had to skim a lot more, but you didn't have to deal with vote brigading, click baiting and a bunch of other shit that's ruined journalism. Google closed it down because people started flocking to twitter, reddit and fb for their news instead. And now look where we are. Sad.

What is the best replacement now? Feed.ly?

Yep, that's what I moved to as Google Reader was shutting down. I still would prefer Reader though.

What are reliable sources of information?

I used to, but unsubscribed, it's become unbearable.

I'm still subbed to r politics because the censorship makes me see what "they" are trying to propagate.

Exactly! It's good to know what messaging you're up against when trying to lead ppl to the truth. The Socratic or psychology method work best IMO, I never push or force truth onto people.

In your own words can you define those methods? I want to know your definition so I can make my own.

It's different for every person. I'd just say respect people's current perspective, and current level of political awareness, and bring up issues that are important to them, and how Clinton's history may likely differ from what policies that would best serve their interests. Using facts and figures

I watch cnn everyday. It's important to learn what they are trying to indoctrinate us with.

I can't stand televised news. I feel so much negative energy and bullshit filters. It does give another perspective which I'll tolerate.

[deleted]

I got banned from /r/hillaryforprison for saying that I would vote for NEITHER Hillary or Trump because Trump is an absolute moron who is completely unfit to be our President.

My reddit mail response from the Mod: Yea...Dumb enough to be a billionaire!

what a bunch of fucking babies...which, surely isn't as bad as paid shills...but give me a break. as Trump would say, "they're losers."

Surely Trump's level on intelligence must be through the fucking roof. All he got was a measly million dollars from his father and he managed, against all odds, to make more money with that money!

IIRC he did it in a time where every investor in NYC made profits.

Low energy losers!

Rule #1 on r/hillaryforprison is...

Don't fight the candidates still running against It.

Advocacy subs like hillaryforprison and The_Donald are not open discussion subs like r/politics or r/news. It's an important distinction.

I think at this stage it is hard-pressed to say /r/politics is a discussion sub.

🙏

I just read the comments to remind my self what an echo chamber looks like

That too ^{o o o o} ooo ^{o o}

The title aside the implication wasn't phony and the context is pretty damning.

Just remember what happened to Jo Cox in Britain after Brexit and after similar rhetoric was being bandied about.

I agree that the Seth Rich murder needs to be treated with more interest but it would never be bigger news than what Trump said, that's just being naive.

I know I know bring on the downvotes.

it would never be bigger news

Yup, because the media is complicit in the cover up and most of the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary. That's how it is, but that doesn't mean that it's good or that this is how it should be.

No arguments on that point at all from me, it should be bigger news, but in the current landscape within the media no not at all.

Maybe I shouldn't have used "never" but currently yeah this is the current reality, we shouldn't accept it but until we change it it's what we're stuck with.

EDIT https://youtu.be/PsdwLs-Psuo

Well I'll be damned... Fox news is actually covering it, no holding back. I know they're just as much of a shill as the others but at least its getting air time.

You're not wrong.

Thing is it shouldn't.

No matter how you interpret what Trump said, it shouldn't be a bigger story than this.

I haven't even heard of this story on the M$M.

A DNC staffer was murdered, no suspects, nothing stolen. Then you have the guy that has leaked countless important documents saying his death is "very suspicious".

But they aren't bought and paid for, for nothing.

I hate both the Republican and Democratic candidates equally, but when I woke up this morning to a bunch of posts about Trump and his "assassination" comment flooding the front page I looked at who has been posting these. I found that a lot of them were from new users who joined less than a year ago and majority of their posts are anti-anyone but HRC.

Just think it is weird that after hearing so much about how HRC wants to dominate the interwebs with her propaganda, and then this happens. I mean /r/politics is crap regardless, but this is just a low thing to do.

I received over 100 downvotes for pointing out that huffing hoes was a highly suspect source of "news"

One major candidate for the United States insinuated that his opponent should be assassinated. While it shouldn't be spammed all over r/politics, it's a pretty important moment for US news.

What it isn't is proof that /r/politics is being dominated (which might be true, but there are better ways to make the argument, IMO). If you think assassination comments aren't newsworthy, your own bias is hurting your critical thinking (not you, OP, speaking rhetorically).

EDIT: Your downvotes are pathetic when they don't come with a retort. Seems like too many people on this sub just want this place to be another r/the_donald safe space. If you were really conspiracy minded people, instead of pathetic partisans, you'd develop those critical thinking skills instead of mindlessly pushing anything you think will further your shitty candidates White Nationalist policies.

Hillary insinuated the same about Obama back in 08.

Ok, but I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between Trump and Clinton. I said "one candidate suggested assassination of another candidate, that's newsworthy" and you say "Yeah well it happened in '08 with Hillary" - does that make the insinuated assassination of Clinton the other day any less newsworthy?

I'm pretty sure you'd be able to dig up some posts in r/politics in 2008 shitting on Clinton for the same thing.

The hive-mind is strong with this one, it has been particularly fascinating to watch.

The media has brought out the usual guns - labeling this a "bonkers" "conspiracy theory" and "baseless claim."

Here, we have Assange, the leader of the organization that leaked the emails - so we can have a reasonable assumption that they are fully aware of the source (unless the source did what was necessary to conceal his identity) - basically telling journalists where to look for information relating to the hack, and offering up a $20k purse for information.

How is that "baseless"? How is it even a "conspiracy theory" at all? It's not, and the media attempt to negatively label it as such shows even more legitimacy to the situation.

The robbery claim posited for Seth Rich's untimely death is just as flimsy and circumstantial as his connection to the DNC, the leaks themselves and the time of his death. It is investigating 101, and instead of doing their jobs, journalists are dividing. Speaks volumes.

Really concerned parents would want to know the truth no matter how bizarre or how talked about their son's death is. No one is shitting on or sullying the reputation of their son.

The over reaction is what's suspect here. The fact that wikileaks put out a reward for any information should have made the parents more concerned than anything.

I agree.

i agree. Regardless if Wikileaks is doing this to spread Russian propaganda (MSM) and fear mongering (MSM) or for legitimate information, it needs to be followed up on. There is a piece of this murder that is missing

What I don't understand is why Assange is getting so much shit for what he said. If he knows who the source for the DNC leaks was, then he's basically telling us who it was without outright saying it (to go along with their policy of never identifying their sources), and the end result is that we know who the fuck leaked the DNC emails and why they were murdered. If he doesn't know who the source was (since he keeps claiming that all submissions are anonymous), then he's not lying that he's putting a reward out for information about the DNC staffer's death because it's highly fucking concerning to him that a huge DNC leak comes out and around the same time some DNC staffer that had his hands in DNC data systems gets gunned down in the middle of the night. If the source is truly anonymous, then I'm not sure why Assange is getting shit for trying to clear up wtf happened with that DNC staffer. There are two possibilities; either he got gunned down because he was the source, in which case the whole thing stinks and people complaining about Assange are imbeciles, or it was a random altercation and Assange gets to show that the guy didn't get murdered to calm the nerves of any potential whistleblower who'd like to submit to wikileaks in the future.

I really don't see any fucking scenario where what Assange is doing is evil or illogical.

It's the DNC's attempt to delegitimize WikiLeaks. The new narrative, if you have noticed on FB, is to claim that Wikileaks is a pro-russian propaganda machine out to get Hillary and ruin America. Sounds a bit like the Cold War, no?

Keep in mind some emails have come out showing media and party collusion but it's not a stretch to expand the idea that there is more colluding going on.

How about that;
-No news about the rigging she does.
-No news about that convo Bill had with the AG on her private jet on the runway while Hillary was under investigation.
-No news about the informants/spies that are going to die as a result of her unsecured email server.

-No news about that convo Bill had with the AG on her private jet on the runway while Hillary was under investigation.

-No news about the informants/spies that are going to die as a result of her unsecured email server.

This, these too have a lot of solid proof behind them.

Also how Huma lied about having access to Clinton's server under oath.

Meeting - Any Google search will tell you they met
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-bill-clinton-met-with-loretta-lynch/2016/07/02/a7807adc-3ff4-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
Informants - This source is much less reliable, but you can't believe that the hacks that gave access to HRC's private email server containing thousands of emails with classified information didn't endanger any spies which may or may not have been in those emails.
http://joeforamerica.com/2016/08/breaking-hillarys-email-delivers-first-dead-u-s-spy-video/

I still haven't seen anything that connects the guy that was killed to the leaks. Everything I've seen has been either a hoax or just clickbait.

I tend to agree. Aassange said nothing directly, but he knows what he's implying.

Either this is legitimate, and also aassange has more claimed leaks

Or he's full of shit and is just taking any opportunity to make headlines

I'll side with the latter until he proves his word is "pristine" as he likes to say. I really do appreciate assange. Im just hoping he's not becoming some loud mouthed lying attention whore.

Assange seems to have a hard-on for HRC. I wonder why.

His job was Voter Expansion Data Director in the DNC. It's assumed he could of had access to well.. data. If this was the first mysterious death surrounding Clinton then I doubt there would be much of an uproar but the fact that this is what, the fourth this month? And follows a long lists of others over the years further supports the murderous Clinton narrative.

These deaths are far too coincidental to be legit for me. It's fishy!

Fourth this month, got a link to any of them? Would like to read a bit further.

Shawn Lucas

Served the DNC with a complaint and summons in a fraud action. He was shot the other day in a robbery in which nothing was taken. sorry, it was Seth Rich who was shot. Shawn was found dead. No cause so far.

John Ashe

The former President of the United Nations General Assembly, accidentally dropped a barbell on his own neck, but originally it was ruled a heart attack (woops!)

Victor Thorn

Wrote four books exposing the Clintons, killed himself with a gun on his 54th birthday. Thorn had appeared multiple times on The Russell Scott Show and told the host, “Russell, if I’m ever found dead, it was murder. I would never kill myself.”

Joe Montano

An aide to Hillary’s running mate Tim Kaine, died of a heart attack on July 25.

If you want to go further back, here's a list

You are awesome, thank you, those c/intons and their trail of corpses.

But we need evidence here. Yea I agree it's all very fishy, but assange saying he has evidence connecting the leak with the deceased and hard documents making the connection are 2 very separate things.

Essentially, what assange is saying now amounts to speculation. No hard data = no conviction. We need hard data to put this bitch away for good!

C

Can you all recommend a better news source (outside of Reddit) to get your news from? This is a legitimate question. I used to rely on r/politics and r/worldnews and have seen the content change over the past few months. I also look at r/POLITIC now but there are not a lot of subscribers and the content also seems one note. As of late I've relied on CounterPunch and the Young Turks, but I'd like an internet news source that also discussed world affairs and news outside of only politics. Any thoughts???

Blacklistednews does a pretty good job of picking out pertinent stories, and the link box has a useful list of altnews sites. - http://www.blacklistednews.com/

For all the news you could ever possibly want in a lifetime, this site links it all - http://newzuniverse.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Democracy Now! is good too

Fuck the manipulative, censoring propaganda-shithole, that is the MSM plus r/politics plus r/worldnews!

Alternatives:

r/FreePolDiscussion

r/uncensorednews

r/EnoughPropaganda

Implying this entire website has any credibility left? At least when it comes to serious topics of social importance. The memes are fresh and great though.

I was surprised to see that a post about hacking voting machines was trending without being supressed. And one about the TPP its insanity!

and that's why all the lamestream subs are cunttrolled

Drudge is all over the Seth Rich Murder. He has more viewers than all MSM outlets combined.

I heard this on NPR during my lunch break

How about the rumors of Hillary threatening Bernies wife like she did with Ross Perot? Does anyone know on the legitimacy of that?

It was all over drudge

Trump is being the biggest distraction to this whole ordeal, Just has to keep saying more ridiculous shit, and that is all the news will run, its totally a con.

/r/politicas is a fucking joke and I've made it my duty to tell them so today, and get massive downvotes in the meantime. Little do they know I fap to downvotes.

There are techniques and methodologies to reply some of the replies at the top of each post to really destroy the zombies who are agreeing with the shillbots. Basically you appear neutral and ask questions using Socratic Method and fact checking with links/sourcing in replies.

They then breakdown and unravel

I will try this, thank you.

They then breakdown and unravel

at least until the mods ban you for no reason to silent dissent haha

I'm just waiting for the supposed wikileaks that will send Clinton straight to jail

They could leak video of her literally murdering Seth Rich herself and she'd still walk.

Yeah don't hold your breath on that one

It's amazing how this place has become a source for the truth.

There are actually a bunch of threads related to wikileaks' announcement that made it pretty far on /r/politics , but the overwhelming opinion is that Assange is a mother fucker who's only looking for attention and that you have to be really into tin foil hats if you think the DNC staffer's death was odd in any way.

It's bad to the point where reading those comment threads makes me doubt my sanity. Am I really crazy for thinking that the Clintons aren't a nice old couple that have America's best interest at heart? Apparently, according to most people on /r/politics , any sort of speculation/attempt at connecting the dots is complete insanity and crazy conspiracy theories; you are expected to stick to the facts and ignore any sort of circumstantial evidence (good example would be the rhetoric that they had on there for a while where a bunch of shills were saying that the Clinton-Lynch meeting shouldn't be a big deal because we don't know what they discussed and all we can do is assume they told the truth...).

mother fucker who's only looking for attention

Committed to freedom of information, equally reporting on corruption in all parties and countries, hated by the powers that be, to the point of exile in Ecuadorian embassy?

Yeah, just wants attention. Really, that's the best you can do? Your attempt at character assassination is transparently partisan.

...not sure if you're directing that at me, but if you re-read my post (bit more carefully?), you'll see that I wasn't voicing my opinion. If you want to argue that what I said isn't the general consensus about Julian Assange on /r/politics , I can go dig up a bunch of threads where the top comments express that exact feeling, but I'd rather not have to dig through that sea of shit.

sorry, read your first graph and spun off in reply, thinking you were actually ascribing Assange's motivation as attention whoring. should have read on. sorry.

Maybe, just maybe, neither of them should be trusted?

The real problem is not Clintons killing everyone trying to expose them, its the media and law not brave enough to investigate and report. I guess I don't blame them.

I'm so tired of hearing about Trump or Hilary anymore, I just hide the post if I see it refers to either of them.

They are both corrupt liars of the "Top big to Fail" class.

Only interest I have is in 3rd party candidates.

Gary supports the tpp, Jill is a socialist. Neither are going to get the presidency. I don't know how you could reasonably think hillary and Donald are in the same boat. Hillary is a lot worse.

Depending on how you look at it. But both are really bad.

I don't think a third party has a chance to win really, but they have a chance to get enough of the vote for federal funding, and thus add to their legitimacy.

Socialism isn't necessarily all that bad, especially when used to balance out rampant capitalism.

Good observation, thank you. That ol' Trump's putting on a heckuva show for his sponsors.

Yeah except http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/4th-mysterious-death-connected-to-the-dnc/

Typical of right wing media - no facts, just 'suggestions' of something.

Still waiting on the facts. And still waiting on an email that shows hillary armed isis (no one seems to be able to actually show anyone said email but people swear it exists).

6 people in one month though..

[deleted]

Good man, Winston.

MSM reaching reeeaaaalll far to turn Trump's statement into a call for Hilldog's assassination.

The quote should merit ~90 seconds of airtime, but now we are going on day 2 of intensive "coverage."

Fkin NPR driving me up the wall recently with this shit.

It's hardly news that the /r/conspiracy content is vastly different from content in mainstream subreddits, mainstream media, mainstream living room conversations or any other kind of mainstream.

Living room conversations, not sure who you talk to, thankfully no one I know believes the shit they see on tv

There's a difference between knowing media is primarily an entertainment product ("It's amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper"), and, well, whatever's going on around here.

Pure propaganda. What a terrible puppet they're using.

If you live in the right-wing media echo chamber you're hearing more nonsense devoid of evidence about Hillary murdering people. Not only that but perpetuating a narrative that is offensive to the family of the murdered man. > Rich’s father, Joel I. Rich, said he was offended by what he termed “bizarre” reports that are circulating on Internet discussion and message boards.

If you're exposed to any other media you've undoubtedly heard Trump's most recent inflammatory remarks and have the ability to draw conclusions yourself. Maybe if he could go a day without proving himself to be a fool Reddit wouldn't be flooded with anti-trump posts. Donald Trump is imploding so r/politics must be run by CTR shills /s.

Joel I. Rich, said he was offended by what he termed “bizarre” reports

To be fair, I would say I was offended just so I didn't get suicided.

He's not playing politics with his son's death, you're just an asshole

Is that a copy pasta CTR response? He didn't say the guy was playing politics. He said the guy was scared of being killed too.

How did you come to those conclusions?

I'm surprised he didn't come out a day later for gun control

Everybody knows, Trump is payed by Hillary to be sufficiently hilarious so only her can get elected,
at least that's what my filter-bubble tells me ;-)

it would never be bigger news

Yup, because the media is complicit in the cover up and most of the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary. That's how it is, but that doesn't mean that it's good or that this is how it should be.

EDIT https://youtu.be/PsdwLs-Psuo

Well I'll be damned... Fox news is actually covering it, no holding back. I know they're just as much of a shill as the others but at least its getting air time.

You're not wrong.

Thing is it shouldn't.

No matter how you interpret what Trump said, it shouldn't be a bigger story than this.

I haven't even heard of this story on the M$M.

A DNC staffer was murdered, no suspects, nothing stolen. Then you have the guy that has leaked countless important documents saying his death is "very suspicious".

But they aren't bought and paid for, for nothing.

Ok, but I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between Trump and Clinton. I said "one candidate suggested assassination of another candidate, that's newsworthy" and you say "Yeah well it happened in '08 with Hillary" - does that make the insinuated assassination of Clinton the other day any less newsworthy?

I'm pretty sure you'd be able to dig up some posts in r/politics in 2008 shitting on Clinton for the same thing.