MarchAgainstTrump STILL using bots to push narrative, even after now ex-mod publicly admitted he made bots for the sub after user monitored the sub and proved the use of bots
I can't really see the pic. It's super blurry when I pull it up on my Telly. Also, you said that someone publicly admitted to this, you should probably include it in the post.
The people they are appealing to are so vulnerable to propaganda that they're being turned into literal spastics. It will be interesting to see whether or not these spastics shoot themselves in the foot come 18/20 because everything hinges on the russia story which for those of us not caught in the soap opera know is unsubstantiated.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I just gave you evidence, not allegations. These are private messages from the founder of the sub when he was paying another user to "promote"(bot) his sub.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
You take things out of context and pass them off as truth.
You dismiss a mountain of evidence because you claim it's biased
.... STILL can't cite a single piece of evidence.
From your hugely biased "source": 11/20/2013 – Trump appears in a music video by the son of Aras Agalarov.
OMG IMPEACH! That's evidence if ever I've seen it. Lol
I don't dismiss a mountain of evidence, because there is no mountain. There's not even a small hill of evidence. Are you telling me "Trump appears in a music video by the son of Aras Agalarov" is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election? Are you joking??
What did I take out of context exactly? Go on, answer that, but I know you can't and won't. Pathetic
You're cited choice is part of establishing connections. Is it nothing? Possibly. Is it something? Possibly.
Your "evidence" is statements that are months old. Remember how TD said Comey cleared Trump? Comey spoke carefully. Then low and behold a week or two later Trump is under investigation.
Yes, it's nothing. Hillary sold Uranium to Russia, but somehow Trump appearing in a rap video is "possibly" hard evidence he colluded with Russia. You're a joke.
Here's a Washington Examiner article from YESTERDAY.
On a near-daily basis for the past five months, the national media published "bombshell" after "bombshell," incrementally building a narrative that President Trump's 2016 campaign coordinated with the Russian government and that when the feds were onto him, Trump tried to throw them off by removing James Comey as director of the FBI.
But following Comey's anti-climactic testimony earlier this month, and the testimonies of other intelligence officials, the subject is very suddenly not so juicy.
Writing in the Washington Post on Tuesday, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the far-left Nation magazine, accused the media of harboring a "myopic obsession with all things Russia" that amounts to "malpractice" in journalism.
True
When weeks and weeks worth of multiple investigations go by — the FBI and both houses of Congress are all investigating the same thing — with nothing to show for them
David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians."
That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false
Your belief is based on a liberal propaganda campaign that was forced on you for months, with anonymous source after anonymous source, and was wrong every time. Your belief is based on what you want to be true, not on what is actually true.
My belief is based on there being ZERO evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the wiretapping, the investigations, they found NOTHING - because there is nothing.
Then low and behold a week or two later Trump is under investigation.
This is WRONG. Trump's lawyer says he's not under investigation. You've fallen for fake news, AGAIN. Are you that gullible?
Oh my lord, before we even start with the rest of this crap:
Clinton didn't sell Uranium to Russia. The United States doesn't have a wealth of minable Uranium, and you're not allowed to ship it out of the country.
We actually import Uranium from Russia oddly enough. And the Russians bought a Uranium mine in America is what that story says.
And somehow that's still less worrying to you than Trump appearing in a rap video.
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Okay, what about Obama telling Russian officials they'd have "more flexibility" after the election? Imagine if Trump was overheard telling them that! :O
before we even start with the rest of this crap:
You didn't finish. You seem to have ignored the rest (majority) of the comment.
You do realize you're quoting what the article was debunking correct? The entire article is Snopes doing a piece on the accusation and rating it "False."
Clinton sat on a board of 9 that could vote to approve, or disapprove, but they couldn't veto directly. They could only recommend, through their vote, that the president veto the sale.
It is unknown if Clinton even voted.
There is little more than circumstantial evidence that that money was filtered through the Clinton Foundation. The Timeline doesn't match up exactly. Money was donated, and money was spent, but there is no direct link that the two were related.
Okay, what about Obama telling Russian officials they'd have "more flexibility" after the election? Imagine if Trump was overheard telling them that! :O
Yep, because he didn't have to run for re-election again. This was also at a time before Putin and the US started having tense relations, which were a result of us backing Ukraine and pushing for sanctions.
This was back when Romney was saying Russia is our biggest enemy, and the GOP, as well as most Americans agreed.
The difference between Obama and Trump is the volume of contact between those around Trump in contact with Russia and the actions he's taken at a time when we're at odds with them. You have people like Flynn and Sessions lying about meetings with the Russians, and Kuschner as well.
You have people like Flynn and Sessions lying about meetings with the Russians
The 'meeting' sessions lied about, have you seen photos of it? I wouldn't exactly call that a meeting, and I wouldn't expect someone to remember that one person they didn't even meet at a conference 6+ months ago.
James Comey told the American public that he, the FBI Director of the United States of America, couldn't trust the President to not lie. He believed, after he was fired that the President did so to because of the Russia investigation, and that he believe the President wanted him to stop investigating Flynn. That is pretty damning stuff right there.
No matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, Trump is a liar, and everyone knows it. But for your FBI Director to say that the NSAs can't trust him? That's pretty big shit.
Dismissing that is reckless, and un-American.
Trump isn't under investigation? Someone might want to tell Made for TV Rich Guy Precedent that:
While the screenshots certainly show that quote, we should remember that voting for someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting them. There could be all sorts of reason someone might vote for Trump and hate him..
They could view it as the only way to shake the system up. Or maybe they live someone like CA and their vote literally doesn't matter if it's not for a Democrats. Or maybe they just wanna watch the world burn. Or maybe they did like Trump during the campaign but have grown to hate his policies.
While he probably did support Trump, I'm not sure why we're surprised someone would cash on Trump's fame. If it's true that he's a Trump "supporter", what he did was cash in on the hatred for the man. Scummy or not, it's a smart "business" move.
True. I have no idea why he did this. I think the main reason why is to monetize the subs somehow.
The format of the sub is just like t_d, and at least in the beginning, alot of the memes were from t_d and actually made liberals look bad and made Trump look good, such as the Trump dancing video that was upvoted alot and often in the marchagainsttrump sub.
My own pet theory is that they created the sub as a way to "clearly show" how "liberals" are manipulating reddit with bots. Similiar to a false flag. I think eventually, the moderators are going to pull a prank on liberals or use it for nefarious purposes.
But, I can be wrong, and it's most likely as you said, probably just an opportunist.
But, I can be wrong, and it's most likely as you said, probably just an opportunist.
I wouldn't put it past some people to try and make "libtards" look bad. I find it stupid, as they don't need any help, but people are dumb :)
That said, I do think it was just an opportunistic shithead. Likely looking to get a sub built as quickly as possible, latching onto the hot meme (Trump is literally Hitler), and then sell it off to some Democratic person who can use it to gather information and shit.
I have no doubt that happens all the time, too, because data is both valuable and expensive.
Absolutely, from what I've seen in the shit you linked.
Likely either to fuel the flames of division (i.e: gov't actor from either US or elsewhere, troll, etc), or to create a network of different people for monetary reasons.
My little faith in humanity says it's probably both.
For sure. I've learned to just deal with it. I've stopped taking reddit seriously. Not that I ever took it that seriously, but now it's pretty much something to do between writing lines of code.
First of all, you did exactly what you accused me of by making that comment. Check out this whole thread.
Second, whether you said that to a mod or not it would have been on the cusp of being removed for being a personal attack. I was being nice by giving you the benefit of the doubt and leaving it as is.
I'd say that you more than wrecked any real conversation over the topic you submitted. But that's my two cents.
First of all, you did exactly what you accused me of by making that comment
Completely irrelevant. Rules are rules
Second, whether you said that to a mod or not it would have been on the cusp of being removed for being a personal attack. I was being nice by giving you the benefit of the doubt and leaving it as is.
No, it was an irrelevant comment. It was in no way attacking you personally. If you removed it, it would be mod abuse, you weren't "being nice" by not removing it.
I'd say that you more than wrecked any real conversation over the topic you submitted. But that's my two cents.
You're not above the rest of us and we can criticize you if we want. No rule was broken unless you're interpreting rule 10 from a post-modernist perspective. You're implied threat is completely inappropriate. Shame on you.
The people they are appealing to are so vulnerable to propaganda that they're being turned into literal spastics. It will be interesting to see whether or not these spastics shoot themselves in the foot come 18/20 because everything hinges on the russia story which for those of us not caught in the soap opera know is unsubstantiated.
66 comments
n/a HomieBhaBha 2017-06-22
Proof, bro.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
How about 2nd on /r/all, posted an hour ago, 2 comments.
Also there's the mountain of evidence from weeks ago by the user who monitored the sub
n/a HomieBhaBha 2017-06-22
Where's the public admittance of the shilling?
I can't really see the pic. It's super blurry when I pull it up on my Telly. Also, you said that someone publicly admitted to this, you should probably include it in the post.
Excuse my skepticism.
n/a Midnight_Discovery 2017-06-22
Disgusting.
n/a Greatsussudio 2017-06-22
Hahaha. Could they be more blatant? Based off the astounding losses of effort and money in the special elections though it seems like a waste.
n/a Sara_Solo 2017-06-22
The people they are appealing to are so vulnerable to propaganda that they're being turned into literal spastics. It will be interesting to see whether or not these spastics shoot themselves in the foot come 18/20 because everything hinges on the russia story which for those of us not caught in the soap opera know is unsubstantiated.
n/a toxic_banana 2017-06-22
Sheople smh
n/a WooTs_67 2017-06-22
There should be a rule where if the comments are locked, it gets taken down from /all
Reddit is a place for discussion, or it used to be...
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Those days are long gone
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
Marchagainsttrump was founded and is run by a Trump supporter.
"What would these people do if they found out I voted for The Donald?Ha Ha"-deletedfor
The above quote is on page 12, fourth paragraph.
n/a AutoModerator 2017-06-22
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
I've seen your account around before. You believe Trump colluded with Russia. Nothing you say is of any value, sorry.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
I just gave you evidence, not allegations. These are private messages from the founder of the sub when he was paying another user to "promote"(bot) his sub.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
The title of the post you linked to says "allegations".
Screenshots of "real" private message are weak evidence.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
Believe as you wish. This all came out about 4 or 5 months ago.
n/a edgarallenbro 2017-06-22
So? Look at your own username, and your history.
You are clearly a sock puppet account with a clear agenda.
Your mind is clearly made up, and therefore nothing you post can be considered objective.
At one point recently the mods were even considering banning accounts like yours, which I hella support.
Despite what you or the visitors might think, no one here is taking you seriously.
Any 'evidence' you post is automatically assumed to be biased, cherry picked, or even downright fabricated.
You an assert the veracity or righteousness of your agenda all you want, it doesn't make you any less of a joke.
You'd be better off returning to your original account, or making a new one that isn't so clearly single minded.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
For the sake of arguement or debate, lets assume I'm not a sock puppet account or a shill or something like that.
Why shouldn't I or my voice or opinions be allowed here?
n/a edgarallenbro 2017-06-22
You are a sock puppet. I never called you a shill.
I think it's fairly likely that you're acting alone.
That doesn't make that account any less of a sock puppet.
Just like, if someone had a one man company, and they created accounts to shill for their company, those would still be sock puppets.
I think it's most likely that your account uses the karmanaut model
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
Uh...
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
....go on
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
So you believe there's no evidence between the Trump campaign and Russia?
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Yes. Care to fill me in?
I'll fill you in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqzEpRR4n8
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
I really shouldn't have to explain that video to you.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
You didn't watch it. It's 20 minutes long, I posted it 7 minutes ago.
If you don't want to watch it because it will make you realize you're wrong, sure.
You've still provided no evidence, even after request.
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
Watched it. What was that supposed to prove?
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Zero evidence. I've given more proof than you have
I'm not replying again until you give the evidence that led you to believe this lie
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpInvestigation/wiki/doc
n/a AutoModerator 2017-06-22
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
That's a link, not evidence. And a lot of that is just random quotes that proves nothing.
Got any HARD evidence? If you did, you'd just tell me instead of linking to a ridiculous wiki page for an anti-trump sub.
Do they have evidence that investigators do not? Leading democrats says there's no evidence.
It seems like you want to believe it, whether it's true or not. You can't even cite any evidence off the top of your head. Sad
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
You take things out of context and pass them off as truth.
You dismiss a mountain of evidence because you claim it's biased.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
.... STILL can't cite a single piece of evidence.
From your hugely biased "source": 11/20/2013 – Trump appears in a music video by the son of Aras Agalarov.
OMG IMPEACH! That's evidence if ever I've seen it. Lol
I don't dismiss a mountain of evidence, because there is no mountain. There's not even a small hill of evidence. Are you telling me "Trump appears in a music video by the son of Aras Agalarov" is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election? Are you joking??
What did I take out of context exactly? Go on, answer that, but I know you can't and won't. Pathetic
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
You're cited choice is part of establishing connections. Is it nothing? Possibly. Is it something? Possibly.
Your "evidence" is statements that are months old. Remember how TD said Comey cleared Trump? Comey spoke carefully. Then low and behold a week or two later Trump is under investigation.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Yes, it's nothing. Hillary sold Uranium to Russia, but somehow Trump appearing in a rap video is "possibly" hard evidence he colluded with Russia. You're a joke.
Here's a Washington Examiner article from YESTERDAY.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-russia-collusion-fades-from-the-media-headlines/article/2626994
Your belief is based on a liberal propaganda campaign that was forced on you for months, with anonymous source after anonymous source, and was wrong every time. Your belief is based on what you want to be true, not on what is actually true.
My belief is based on there being ZERO evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the wiretapping, the investigations, they found NOTHING - because there is nothing.
This is WRONG. Trump's lawyer says he's not under investigation. You've fallen for fake news, AGAIN. Are you that gullible?
I hate to cite the Crappy News Network: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/18/politics/jay-sekulow-donald-trump/index.html
Trump tweets: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
That tweet was in response to a Washington Post story that ran with five unnamed sources. Trump's lawyer says President isn't under investigation.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-attorney-president-not-under-investigation-n773751
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/12/kudlow_its_fake_news_to_claim_trump_is_under_investigation.html
http://defiantamerica.com/liberal-fake-news-trump-investigation/
Understand yet? Got that in your head? I'm sure there's room in there.
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
Oh my lord, before we even start with the rest of this crap:
Clinton didn't sell Uranium to Russia. The United States doesn't have a wealth of minable Uranium, and you're not allowed to ship it out of the country.
We actually import Uranium from Russia oddly enough. And the Russians bought a Uranium mine in America is what that story says.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
And somehow that's still less worrying to you than Trump appearing in a rap video.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Okay, what about Obama telling Russian officials they'd have "more flexibility" after the election? Imagine if Trump was overheard telling them that! :O
You didn't finish. You seem to have ignored the rest (majority) of the comment.
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
You do realize you're quoting what the article was debunking correct? The entire article is Snopes doing a piece on the accusation and rating it "False."
Clinton sat on a board of 9 that could vote to approve, or disapprove, but they couldn't veto directly. They could only recommend, through their vote, that the president veto the sale.
It is unknown if Clinton even voted.
There is little more than circumstantial evidence that that money was filtered through the Clinton Foundation. The Timeline doesn't match up exactly. Money was donated, and money was spent, but there is no direct link that the two were related.
Yep, because he didn't have to run for re-election again. This was also at a time before Putin and the US started having tense relations, which were a result of us backing Ukraine and pushing for sanctions.
This was back when Romney was saying Russia is our biggest enemy, and the GOP, as well as most Americans agreed.
The difference between Obama and Trump is the volume of contact between those around Trump in contact with Russia and the actions he's taken at a time when we're at odds with them. You have people like Flynn and Sessions lying about meetings with the Russians, and Kuschner as well.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
The 'meeting' sessions lied about, have you seen photos of it? I wouldn't exactly call that a meeting, and I wouldn't expect someone to remember that one person they didn't even meet at a conference 6+ months ago.
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
James Comey told the American public that he, the FBI Director of the United States of America, couldn't trust the President to not lie. He believed, after he was fired that the President did so to because of the Russia investigation, and that he believe the President wanted him to stop investigating Flynn. That is pretty damning stuff right there.
No matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, Trump is a liar, and everyone knows it. But for your FBI Director to say that the NSAs can't trust him? That's pretty big shit.
Dismissing that is reckless, and un-American.
Trump isn't under investigation? Someone might want to tell Made for TV Rich Guy Precedent that:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875701471999864833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4821334%2Fpresident-trump-confirmed-investigation-comey%2F
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
He also testified (which holds more weight than 'believed') that no one had tried to stop an FBI investigation because that would be a 'big deal'.
And what do people say about the ex FBI director? They're afraid to speak out, that's something you need to look into.
Pfffft. Nice try, but not american.
Wow you're daft. Trump tweeting he's under investigation does not mean he's under investigation. Neither does WaPo saying he is, when he's not.
It's obvious you're still incredibly salty/butt-hurt from the election results.
Going to be a long 8 years for you, darling!
Still no evidence of Russian collusion. HA! Makes you wonder what your beliefs are based on.
n/a XDiabolusExMachinaX 2017-06-22
I'm so proud of the tag I gave after reading your comment dismissing his comment based on the person.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
His username says it all
n/a XDiabolusExMachinaX 2017-06-22
Yeah he believes Trump knew about Russians using fake news about Clinton to get him elected.
You seemed to have bought it.
n/a HahThatsSilly 2017-06-22
While the screenshots certainly show that quote, we should remember that voting for someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting them. There could be all sorts of reason someone might vote for Trump and hate him..
They could view it as the only way to shake the system up. Or maybe they live someone like CA and their vote literally doesn't matter if it's not for a Democrats. Or maybe they just wanna watch the world burn. Or maybe they did like Trump during the campaign but have grown to hate his policies.
While he probably did support Trump, I'm not sure why we're surprised someone would cash on Trump's fame. If it's true that he's a Trump "supporter", what he did was cash in on the hatred for the man. Scummy or not, it's a smart "business" move.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
True. I have no idea why he did this. I think the main reason why is to monetize the subs somehow.
The format of the sub is just like t_d, and at least in the beginning, alot of the memes were from t_d and actually made liberals look bad and made Trump look good, such as the Trump dancing video that was upvoted alot and often in the marchagainsttrump sub.
My own pet theory is that they created the sub as a way to "clearly show" how "liberals" are manipulating reddit with bots. Similiar to a false flag. I think eventually, the moderators are going to pull a prank on liberals or use it for nefarious purposes.
But, I can be wrong, and it's most likely as you said, probably just an opportunist.
n/a HahThatsSilly 2017-06-22
I wouldn't put it past some people to try and make "libtards" look bad. I find it stupid, as they don't need any help, but people are dumb :)
That said, I do think it was just an opportunistic shithead. Likely looking to get a sub built as quickly as possible, latching onto the hot meme (Trump is literally Hitler), and then sell it off to some Democratic person who can use it to gather information and shit.
I have no doubt that happens all the time, too, because data is both valuable and expensive.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
Yeah, true, that would make sense as well. I think he was trying to make a network of different subs.
n/a HahThatsSilly 2017-06-22
Absolutely, from what I've seen in the shit you linked.
Likely either to fuel the flames of division (i.e: gov't actor from either US or elsewhere, troll, etc), or to create a network of different people for monetary reasons.
My little faith in humanity says it's probably both.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
Stuff like this really depresses me. This type of shit is so overwhelming.
n/a HahThatsSilly 2017-06-22
For sure. I've learned to just deal with it. I've stopped taking reddit seriously. Not that I ever took it that seriously, but now it's pretty much something to do between writing lines of code.
n/a Balthanos 2017-06-22
I don't miss Obama. He was just as horrible as Bush and Clinton. He set the precedent of murdering US citizens (and their children) with drones.
So when Trump inevitably starts killing civilians remember Obama gave him the tools necessary.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Completely irrelevant comment. Go derail elsewhere
n/a Balthanos 2017-06-22
Don't go accusing a mod of derailing bubba.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Sorry you're right, your comment was entirely relevant
n/a toxic_banana 2017-06-22
Don't submit to this kind of behavior. Completely unacceptable.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Implied /s
n/a wanking_furiously 2017-06-22
Are the mods as individuals now officially above criticism then?
n/a XDiabolusExMachinaX 2017-06-22
Mods lives matter
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Exactly
n/a gruntznclickz 2017-06-22
While I agree that you weren't derailing, people are free to say what they want here. That is the rule, right?
n/a Balthanos 2017-06-22
Check out rule 10 for clarification.
n/a gruntznclickz 2017-06-22
You weren't called a shill and he didn't "attack" you.
Just to be clear, I downvoted his post, but derailing IS a thing, and the fact you are a mod should be irrelevant.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
No, try again. This is almost mod abuse
n/a Balthanos 2017-06-22
First of all, you did exactly what you accused me of by making that comment. Check out this whole thread.
Second, whether you said that to a mod or not it would have been on the cusp of being removed for being a personal attack. I was being nice by giving you the benefit of the doubt and leaving it as is.
I'd say that you more than wrecked any real conversation over the topic you submitted. But that's my two cents.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Completely irrelevant. Rules are rules
No, it was an irrelevant comment. It was in no way attacking you personally. If you removed it, it would be mod abuse, you weren't "being nice" by not removing it.
How did you become a mod?
n/a sunshinings 2017-06-22
Mods shouldn't comment, they should moderate. Problem solved!
n/a toxic_banana 2017-06-22
You're not above the rest of us and we can criticize you if we want. No rule was broken unless you're interpreting rule 10 from a post-modernist perspective. You're implied threat is completely inappropriate. Shame on you.
n/a Hearthstone4LyfeBro 2017-06-22
Rule 10 attacking me personally
n/a zenmasterzen3 2017-06-22
Ironic given Bender reminds me of Trump.
n/a joseph177 2017-06-22
I have filtered out 50 or so subs from All and I still find it to be like walking down a high-school hallway.
n/a MindIfIAskAQuestion 2017-06-22
B b b b b b b b but #HerTurn
n/a traphix 2017-06-22
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6iqw7j/manipulate_the_donalds_visibility_on_rall_but/dj99x4t/
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-22
Believe as you wish. This all came out about 4 or 5 months ago.
n/a Sara_Solo 2017-06-22
The people they are appealing to are so vulnerable to propaganda that they're being turned into literal spastics. It will be interesting to see whether or not these spastics shoot themselves in the foot come 18/20 because everything hinges on the russia story which for those of us not caught in the soap opera know is unsubstantiated.
n/a MadCard05 2017-06-22
So you believe there's no evidence between the Trump campaign and Russia?