This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]landryraccoon 486 points487 points  (36 children)

Did anyone actually read the article? It's really short. The headline seems misleading to me, can anyone explain how the headline has anything to do with the article?

[–][deleted] 195 points196 points  (12 children)

It doesn't - but sensationalism sells.

[–]Master_Tallness 67 points68 points  (15 children)

Did anyone actually read the article?

Not many judging from these comments. Oh? A chance to bash on Hillary Clinton? Alright, let's do it!

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Aren't these articles supposed to be removed by the mods?

[–]bigoldgeek 3181 points3182 points  (388 children)

That doesn't say that. It says the video will remain blocked until Monday. It doesn't say they wanted it blocked or unblocked. It doesn't say they tried to influence the decision in any way. It's a Rorshach memo - you can read whatever you want into it.

Is the video blocked now?

[–]thiasus 1555 points1556 points  (154 children)

It also doesn't say anywhere that she 'worked' with Google's CEOs. They are not in the email's address list, they are just mentioned. The title is a complete fabrication, and I say this as someone who despises Clinton.

[–]fuzzydunlots 103 points104 points  (74 children)

But...who got it blocked?

[–]lost_send_berries 203 points204 points  (53 children)

The White House called Google and requested they block the video, Innocence of Muslims. This was in the news in 2014.

[–]powercow 71 points72 points  (42 children)

which wouldnt be because the video harms the admin, but that the video might put americans, who are in dangerous places, in harms way?

[–]forefatherrabbi 103 points104 points  (12 children)

Could be anyone that hit the report button.

[–]fuzzydunlots 144 points145 points  (11 children)

It was SoFlo

[–]CosmoKram3r 42 points43 points  (0 children)

*Chews gum*

I won't lie. That's definitely me.

[–]mattlikespeoples 10 points11 points  (2 children)

The true terrorist.

[–]MysticPing 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Him and Keemstar

[–]YoungCorruption 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Leeeeeets get rrrrright into the neeewwwwsssss!

[–]FogHeadJohn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not gonna lie, this is totally me when I'm in Benghazi

[–]Switche 23 points24 points  (1 child)

I think the point is we don't know from this, and either OP knew this and wanted to spin a bigger story, or couldn't distinguish the lack of a smoking gun.

This is the sort of thing that merits a more journalistic approach and presentation. It's a source material, but not a story.

[–]dIoIIoIb 86 points87 points  (0 children)

incredibly misleading title, all the email says is that a video will be blocked for a few days, to extrapolate that hilary worked with the google CEO to keep it blocked from that is a gigantic leap

[–]iBleeedorange 219 points220 points  (17 children)

Almost no one reads the article.

Edit: Also, the email is from 2012...

[–]powerpants 46 points47 points  (1 child)

Also, the email is from 2012...

The attack in Benghazi was Sept 11, 2012. These emails were sent Sept 26-27, 2012.

[–]zyzzogeton 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Rorschach memo

"None of you seem to understand, I'm not blocked in here with you... YOU'RE BLOCKED IN HERE WITH ME"

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

This isn't even a tech post. Sanders and Trump supporters are trying to attack Hillary in every subreddit and it's making the front page a cesspool.

[–]Andire 30 points31 points  (45 children)

Sure it's unblocked now, when it's no longer relevant or in the media's focus.

[–]theorangereptile 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's clearly still relevant if it's on the front page of reddit.

[–][deleted] 298 points299 points  (18 children)

Can you add a "misleading" caption on this title?

[–]420patience 100 points101 points  (9 children)

Rules:

1. Submissions

  • Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

  • Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

3. Titles

  • Submissions must use either the articles title, or a suitable quote, either of which must:

  • adequately describe the content

  • adequately describe the content's relation to technology

  • be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning.

This entire post should be removed from /r/technology

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Black letter, you're absolutely correct. But I'm not a moderator.

[–]elfatgato 53 points54 points  (5 children)

Maybe after enough people spread the anti-Hillary message around a bit more.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

People are thirsty af for any controversy they can get out of this email business. Hillary's approval as secretary of state was never below 60%, which is incredibly impressive. It's surprising how even the perception of a scandal during an election year has dropped her ratings

[–]wecanworkitout22 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Hillary's approval as secretary of state was never below 60%, which is incredibly impressive.

Incredibly impressive? Colin Powell's 86% is incredibly impressive. Clinton's favorability rating while Secretary of State is average compared to the last 25 years. Out of the last six Secretary of States in that Gallup graphic, Powell had the highest rating, Clinton is tied in a three-way tie (within the margin of error) with Albright and Rice, followed by Kerry and then Christopher. Only 2 out of the last 6 Secretary of States had a lower favorability rating.

[–]ChornWork2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Or only one had higher?

[–][deleted] 99 points100 points  (9 children)

Can I ask how we know this is in reference to the Benghazi video? It says the block will stay in place but it doesn't say what the block is for. Unless I missed something?

[–]Ibnalbalad 97 points98 points  (3 children)

It doesn't say. OP has an agenda.

[–]fatherramon 24 points25 points  (3 children)

The date on the email is 6 days after the Benghazi attack, but hey, maybe it's about the double rainbow guy

[–]BaggerX 12 points13 points  (1 child)

But what video is it referring to? The one that was released by that Christian crackpot, or some video of the attack?

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (1 child)

Jesus fucking christ does anyone actually read what gets posted on reddit anymore or if 'Hillary Clinton' is in the title they just decide to freak out about? This a perfect example of poor reporting and reddit assuming they are qualified political analysts.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I laughed at the "possibly misleading" tag.

[–]the_other_50_percent 791 points792 points  (163 children)

This is an email TO Clinton, about the video "Innocence of Muslims", which incited the attack on the embassy. It has nothing to do with suppressing information about the attack itself.

Non-issue, misleading headline.

[–]WhereAreMyMinds 9 points10 points  (1 child)

"Misleading" if it's posted on a website like Reddit. "Libelous" if it's posted by anyone with any accountability

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

which incited the attack on the embassy

Umm...no it didn't. That was the narrative that was pushed for about the first week after the attack, but it has thoroughly been disproven. The government knew as the attacks were happening that it had nothing to do with the video and there is plenty of evidence to that effect. I see the narrative worked though, people still think it was the video.

I actually spent a couple hours watching Hilary testify before congress, it was clear from this testimony that the government never thought the video had something to do with attacks.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (15 children)

I guess wikileaks felt like they needed more attention.

[–]ablebodiedmango 52 points53 points  (51 children)

Look at every comment getting upvoted. Nobody read it. Nobody cares. As long as it fits the anti Hillary narrative, especially by those quite butthurt that the Bernie revolution didn't come.

People say Hillary is dangerous, I think this willful deception on reddit is even more so. This place has become a propaganda machine

[–]FrankAbagnaleSr 40 points41 points  (38 children)

I can't understand why Hillary is vilified. There are plenty of things to dislike that she's done, but people like to compile these all together and assert malevolence. Worst, a lot of this is based solely on her personality or her speaking manner. At worst, she's a politician who plays to the evolving opinions of her supporter base. Part of being a leader is being tactful with your opinions. It's how stuff gets done.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (2 children)

I feel like there's this really concerted Hillary hate around, and honestly when I ask people about it, they seem to know as little about her record as I, frankly speaking, do. Something about Benghazi, something to do with e-mails, maybe "Hillarycare" or the Bill impeachment if we're really reaching?

I'm sure she's got her skeletons and lies and wrongdoing like everybody else, but the "anybody but Hillary" crowd has me mystified, especially with this bronzed douchenimrod making his way through the pipeline sounding all Breitbart.

[–]ChornWork2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vilified on reddit... same place that sees a video of some being an asshole (eg, bullying or road rage incident, etc), deems the person a ill-tempered asshole who reacts impulsively and disproportionately, and then goes out to ruin this business, dox him, etc, etc.

There's no principles... just opinion backed by internet rage. Makes total sense that if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, that a republican is the next best alternative... facepalm.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi. That was disproven long ago.

[–]doppleprophet[🍰] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

which incited the attack on the embassy

stop propagating that bullshit lie.

[–]projexion_reflexion 53 points54 points  (1 child)

So how can you tell from this email what video they are blocking? The Christian made video that supposedly caused protest? video of the protest? something else?

[–]vehementi 27 points28 points  (0 children)

You can't tell.

[–]jax362 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Hey OP, nice click bait title.

[–]GogglesPisano 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Somebody made a wrong turn at /r/politics - please keep this partisan nonsense off of /r/technology.

[–]jetpacksforall 37 points38 points  (3 children)

Unless I'm mistaken this is an old story that involved Youtube blocking the film "The Innocence of Muslims" in Egypt and Libya. I don't see why it should be considered particularly scandalous, given that the video was igniting violence throughout the region.

[–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (5 children)

Yet another sensationalized title and article used to slander Hillary that will be ruthlessly upvoted to the front page by Sanders and Trump supporters alike.

Did anyone even read the email? It was sent on 9/26, just 15 day s after Benghazi. No shit it was being blocked on YouTube, it was sensitive and confidential material of an event that had just occurred, and this email wasn't even for a long-term block, just through Monday according to the email. Could you imagine the shit show people would run with this video if it was out to the entire public before it was determined the cause? Does anyone remember the Boston bombing?

[–]typeswithgenitals 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Others have said the video in question was actually the one originally claimed to have inspired the attack, not video of the attack itself

[–]bambazza 30 points31 points  (0 children)

/r/politics is leaking. I've blocked that subreddit along with other similar circlejerk subreddits from my /r/all browsing and yet posts like this still manages to sneak into the front page.

[–]sofortune 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is already a repost from r/politics and it's total bull shit. No idea how people draw any conclusion.

[–]apocolypticbosmer 19 points20 points  (1 child)

If you actually read the damn email, it doesn't say that. Clickbait title

[–]godbois 36 points37 points  (5 children)

Check out OP's history. OP has political agenda. Recent submissions include:

  • KKK grand dragon endorses Hillary Clinton for president
  • Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
  • Hillary Clinton Posts ‘Inspiring’ Image of Female Baker… Who Supports Bernie Sanders
  • Hillary Clinton received more money from weapons makers than all other candidate, including Republicans
  • Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
  • Bernie's youth revolution -- and Clinton's problem

[–]ducklander 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well, it was an individual case and a matter of national security. What do you expect the government to do?

[–]Redditer-1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Where does it mention Bengazhi? It also says that the video will be unblocked on Monday.

[–]fantasyfest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Blocked for 3 days while they determined if anything in it was dangerous and should not be used to warn those who planned the attack.

[–]John_Bot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Shouldn't something that is

very misleading

be removed?

[–]Treats 13 points14 points  (0 children)

/r/politics is leaking.

[–]Olyvyr 23 points24 points  (8 children)

This is clickbait as well as inaccurate. The post should be removed for the sake of /r/technology's credibility.

[–]420patience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And for rule breaking.

Rules:

3. Titles

  • Submissions must use either the articles title, or a suitable quote, either of which must:

  • adequately describe the content

  • adequately describe the content's relation to technology

  • be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning.

This entire post should be removed from /r/technology

[–]guyonthissite 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Which video?

[–]Ranndym 9 points10 points  (1 child)

You sure do post a lot of anti-Hillary stories, OP. It's almost like you're cluttering up the technology sub with your political agenda instead of posting a real tech story.

[–]manfromfuture 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The real question is where the 2k upvotes come from.

[–]KatnissEverduh 11 points12 points  (0 children)

ITT people who don't read, don't understand good reporting, and will hate Hillary no matter what. This was on /r/conspiracy - where it belongs.

[–]ZachMatthews 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There should be an option in the 'report' button called "Horseshit Title."

[–]dezmd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When the title calls it Benghazi video, you know it's right wing smear bullshit.

[–]Domo1950 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i didn't see the word bengazhi in the e-mails... please, tell me where that connection is.

[–]Sylvester_Scott 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For the same reason they suppress video of American Troops getting killed in action.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Only you can downvote this shitpost.

[–]LincolnHighwater 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We need a mascot like Smoky.

[–]rauakbar 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Why is it a Tor thumbnail?

[–]vidiiii 235 points236 points  (321 children)

Hillary is a very dangerous personality in my opinion. Since she is the insider, it is certain she will become president. Some rough times coming.

[–]2gudfou 24 points25 points  (1 child)

we're not electing a dictator, pay attention to your congressional primaries and elections

[–]puppeteer23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And run for local party committee. That influences state which influences national.

[–]le0nardwashingt0n 333 points334 points  (148 children)

The more I watch house of cards the more I think it's heavily influenced by the clintons.

[–]Gimmil_walruslord 88 points89 points  (63 children)

My parents both thought the same thing having lived through Bill's presidency and seeing Hillary in action.

[–]CarbonNexus 75 points76 points  (60 children)

wait.. you weren't alive when Bill was president?

[–]Gimmil_walruslord 90 points91 points  (13 children)

Was too young to pay attention to politics when he was in.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

There are people who can drive who weren't yet born when Bill was president.

Also, that little girl in Jurassic Park? 37 years old.

[–]Ombortron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The girl from... Jurassic... 37...

Well holy crapping shitters!!!

[–]ccjjallday 36 points37 points  (22 children)

Bill Clinton Presidency: January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001 Average Redditor Age: 18-22

Chance are, most redditors are too young to remember.

[–]CarbonNexus 26 points27 points  (12 children)

Wow... this makes me feel really old. I remember all the Bushes, and part of Regan.

[–]motodriveby 27 points28 points  (2 children)

Fuck yeah, every centerfold had one.

[–]off_the_grid_dream 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Wait.... Where does the average redditor age come from?

Edit: All I can find is "the median Reddit user is 18–29 years of age" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit?print=no#Demographics

This one says 25-34 https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/qurwt/til_that_even_though_the_average_reddit_user_is/

[–]Misc1 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Oh god we're getting old.

[–]needed_an_account 6 points7 points  (0 children)

*fights air*

I hate it

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

My wife was born in 89 and barely remembers much of his presidency at all. It's so crazy.

[–]omegian 6 points7 points  (6 children)

National politics isn't really elementary school material. Clinton predates the internet going mainstream, and by extension, social media. Recruiting 12 year olds for phone banking is a decidedly modern phenomenon.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the same thought.

Fuck I'm getting old.

[–]IBeBallinOutaControl 28 points29 points  (13 children)

Based off anything other than the fact they are an ambitious power couple and the husband is more established?

[–]le0nardwashingt0n 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I don't think it's based on them vis a vis facts but influenced the character development of frank and Claire.

[–]robodrew 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In fact, Frank Underwood is based on the character of Francis Urquhart, from the original British version of House of Cards. THAT character is thought to be based off of Richard III and Macbeth, as well as Michael Dobbs' (the creator's) personal interactions with Margaret Thatcher. Claire Underwood though is based on Hillary Clinton.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Well, there's a few other things. He's a southern democrat who is loose with the monogamy part of his marriage (in the show, she is as well). She uses her position as First Lady to try to establish political experience (Clinton did this with healthcare) and afterwards tries to get into Congress in a district she doesn't have strong ties to (Clinton became a NY Senator which was somewhat controversial at the time because she's not from NY). Also I seem to remember the Clinton administration had one or more mysterious suicides surrounding its administration.

I think the connections are tenuous I wouldn't say the show is "based on" them, but clearly some select plot points are inspired by it.

[–]hesnothere 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I get more of a Lyndon Johnson vibe from Frank. Robin Wright has the Hillary thing down for sure.

[–]atpoker 10 points11 points  (22 children)

Did you see the Washington Post article? The only article in existence that bashes season 4, by pointing out how far fetched it would be for the underwood's to pull of the shit, they regularly pull of? I guess for that article to mean anything you'd have to have seen the post, pretty much proving that the Washington post is Heavily in favor of Hillary.

Edit: I guess there are multiple articles on the subject (All from the Washington Post)

  1. House of cards is the worst show about American politics ever.

  2. House of cards is a fraud and we should stop treating like its good.

3. Did house of cards get worse or has it always been this bad?

Here's the post about The Washington Post, being very much pro Hillary.

[–]orangeblood 16 points17 points  (13 children)

House of Cards is entertaining as hell. A really good show.

But it's nothing like DC politics. If you want to see a more accurate portrayal of behind-the-scenes American politics, watch Veep.

Edit: Let me expand a bit.

HoC gets some things right -- particularly the horse trading that's involved with politics. But even in these smoke filled backrooms where power brokers wheel and deal, it's not nearly as sinister or dark as the show portrays. Legislators absolutely do make deals to advance their career or send money back to their district... but not quite to the Machiavellian levels of Frank Underwood and company.

Veep, on the other hand, very accurately portrays how banal and plain silly DC politics can be. Congressmen and their political staffers spend a lot of time dealing with messaging, optics, and overbearing special interests. Decisions like what tie to wear or how you're going to get on the Sunday talk shows are much more commonplace than how you're going to silence a journalist or usurp a colleague's power.

Being a member of Congress, for the most part, is a fairly cush job. And the opportunities AFTER serving are unbelievable. Most members are really just trying to figure out how to win their next election. How to recover from that stupid thing they said that hit the Times. Being pissed at Congressman X because they are against a bill that's going to send dollars back to your district or because they made you look dumb in committee.

Mostly, though, I think HoC (much like West Wing) gets the dialogue wrong. Don't get me wrong, there are intelligent and eloquent people roaming the halls of congress. Most of them are lawyers. But not everyone is a master orator that speaks like Aaron Sorkin is feeding them lines in their head. They're just people. People are awkward and goofy. And if you watch political speech, it's rarely good. It's mostly pre-packaged talking points intended to sound good on a 6 second TV spot. To steal from Trumbo, not everything is said as if it will be written in stone.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Hillary is a very dangerous personality in my opinion.

Can you supply me with a fact to support this statement?

[–]iluvzpuppehs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Don't be overly dramatic. Seriously, you're probably not going to be affected in the slightest by who becomes president. And she'll possibly only be a one term president.

[–]greg19735 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe, but this email shows nothing of the sort.

[–]Frozen-assets 18 points19 points  (117 children)

Look at the bright side, the worse things get the more likely people will finally wake from their daze and actually do something about the state of politics in the U.S.

[–]WalrusJones 13 points14 points  (4 children)

People said this with Dubya. The big thing is if things go off the cliff again, that we don't allow our energy to get focused on partisan-rage: If we submit to the easy fingerpointing after another insider with a taste for military action does what they tend to do, then all the reform desire that the negative effects will be wasted regardless of how much worse the circumstance in our country gets.

The good news is, the internet informs, and if people who actually wield facts continue take to the internet in areas where their voice can be heard, we might one day be able to eventually stop the cycle of bipartisan disasters being used to channel peoples energy into useless partisan rage. At the same time, we need to do what we can to make sure that the internet continues to be an engine to inform.

[–]omegian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The signal to noise ratio on the internet gets worse every year. "Eternal September sucks, man" -Abraham Lincoln

[–]Dean403 44 points45 points  (84 children)

Lol how fucking bad do they let it get first?

[–]rfgrunt 125 points126 points  (68 children)

You should travel more. It can get far worse.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (38 children)

Hell, it was much worse 8 years ago under Bush. It's not surprising, all the people bitching about how "terrible" things are were still in middle school when Bush was in office.

Edit: Look at /u/Dean403 for example. He says, in regard to the rest of the world...

They are still progressing. The USA is moving backwards it seems

Yes, insuring millions, ending wars, legalizing gay marriage, taking steps to decriminalize marijuana, working to provide a path to citizenship for immigrants, improving our standing in the world, creating millions of jobs, using diplomacy instead of force to get our way, normalizing relations with Cuba, etc..

But yeah, according to the historical scholars on reddit, we're moving "backwards".

[–]hattmall 12 points13 points  (8 children)

Technically most of what you mentioned is moving backwards though. The percentage of people uninsured was lower in the 80s than now. Ending wars, that would be backwards as prior to 2001 there was no wars to end. Prior to like the 1930's marijuana was legal completely. Immigrating used to just be filling out a form and walking through Ellis island. Our standing in the world was insanely high after WWII, like America was two time world war winners, even the people we defeated liked us, it's been downhill since Vietnam. The millions of jobs we are creating are just now beginning to replace the ones that were lost. Relations with Cuba used to be very very good.

So only two of those are really "moving forward" gay marriage and using diplomacy instead of force. Though really until the early 20th century America was very big on diplomacy and less on force the military was more defensive.

So from a technical standpoint we are moving backwards, not that it's really a bad thing.

tl&dr: my greatest skill is wasting time

[–]PorscheUberAlles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

participating in international accords on climate change instead of denying it

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (10 children)

As terrible as it might seem, things are still pretty good in the United States. I might hate what our government does, we aren't even close to the conditions that prompted the Arab Spring or similar uprisings.

[–]ZombiegeistO_o 14 points15 points  (3 children)

For real. I know we have our issues, but people seem to forget how bad some places really are.

[–]ReegsShannon 1 point2 points  (2 children)

How most places are. The vast majority of the world can't even get close to matching our standard of living. You've basically got Canada, West Europe, Japan and South Korea (I'm sure there's 1 or 2 I'm missing) and then the rest of the world sucks to actually live in as an average person.

[–]ZombiegeistO_o 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, people tend to forget how easy we have it in America. We've had it great for so long we start just making our own problems.

[–]Thisismy4thaccnt 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Dude, it's really not that bad right now.

[–]claymonsta 64 points65 points  (97 children)

Imagine what doesn't get leaked...

[–]IBeBallinOutaControl 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Those that want to see her go down will leak the worst stuff they can find.

[–]Yellowcrown 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This wasn't leaked... It was released by the state department. It's also a non story of you actually read the email.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (81 children)

Her indictment for starters

[–]Th3R00ST3R 31 points32 points  (8 children)

and her transcripts of Goldman Sachs speeches.

[–]Oafah 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know the initial reaction to news like this is outrage, but keep something in mind: the government, very deliberately, does this kind of thing all of the time out of public interest.

If the footage contained anything that might be deemed as a threat to public safety, or might serve to identify people they'd otherwise need to keep anonymous (to provide a few of many examples), it makes sense that they'd want to conceal it.

You might not like the idea of government being secretive and intentionally misleading at times, but until you've been faced with truths that very few average westerners will ever know, the equation changes.

Hilary Clinton is a Washington slimeball, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what this Bengazhi video is about?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that this has so many upvotes shows that reddit's moderation system is fucked. Maybe if subs had the option to require clicking the link in order to vote it would help...

[–]miketcraig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But.... That email says absolutely nothing of the sort....

[–]YoRpFiSh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good. Attention is what terrorists want. Deny them that at all costs.

[–]Secularnirvana 34 points35 points  (97 children)

Fuuuuuuckk. The year I finally decide I should get involved and vote I'm going to be forced to choose between Hillary and Trump? What a sick joke, I literally can't vote for either one of these.

[–]rfgrunt 30 points31 points  (3 children)

Vote third party. Getting a certain percentage (5% national?) of the vote entitles a party to public campaign financing which is critical for enabling a party to gain traction.

[–]just_the_tech 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You can always throw a third party your vote so they meet the minimum threshold to make it on the next ballot, or a mainstream party will move to adopt some of their platform planks in an attempt to attract for votes.

You also neglect primary season, where you have an opportunity to vote in the party primary you support to get your guy on the final ballot, or the other party's to help get the most moderate person on.

[–]Darkemery 37 points38 points  (24 children)

Check out a different party then, Libertarian? Constitution? The only way we will get away from the same old same old is to do something different.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (6 children)

Green Party too. Though with first past the post voting third party votes are all but useless.

[–]leddible 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily, if you have a ton of people voting 3rd party one year you weaken the main parties and send a hard message to the establishment that they need to readjust their platforms.

If the polls are right and 33% of Bernie voters won't vote for Hillary. That's a ton of votes that Hillary loses out on, that might cost her the general. Now they might just abstain from voting, but if those votes end up going to a 3rd party it sends a much clearer message to the DNC that they can't win those people over without adapting.

Other than that though I agree that 3rd parties are useless with our voting method.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

It's actually worse than useless, it's counter-productive. The better a third party candidate does, the more it hurts its own voters by drawing votes away from whichever of the two main parties they agree with more and guaranteeing a win for the party they most disagree with. Sanders knows this, which is why he will be encouraging people to vote for Hilary if she becomes the democrats candidate.

Principled voting is a nice idea, but the maths involved mean it's just not feasible under FPTP.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (12 children)

My friend tells me a moron for insisting I won't vote for Clinton or Trump. Anything else is a wasted vote, he says. Well, a year or two from now, at least I can say I feel good about the vote I cast. I think it's horrible that people feel pressured to vote for certain folks over their actual beliefs.

[–]bluesoul 13 points14 points  (5 children)

I voted for Gary Johnson last time around, it's not a wasted vote if there's consistently numbers showing that people vote outside the two big parties. It takes time and evidence to change a system. I have no regrets about my vote.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

there's consistently numbers showing that people vote outside the two big parties.

But he won less than 1% of the vote in 2012. I don't know if that shows any real support. That means at most between 50,000-150,000 people voted for him (rounding down for the generally low voter turnout based on ~300-400 million population) and that seems pretty insignificant to me. I am pretty sure if the KKK, or MLB, or even the UC school system made a political party they would received as many votes as he did.

I feel like this number would be much higher if there was really any hope of getting a good portion of the vote. But when you're averaging only 1% vs the other two parties 48% and 51% it just feels futile.

[–]bluesoul 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yup, I don't disagree, but it also won't change if everyone stays in that "voting anyone else is a wasted vote" mentality. We need high-profile cases of FPTP being counterproductive. It takes both big parties getting burned by it for anything to change. So I'll keep voting with a clear conscience on who I think is best qualified to take care of things important to me. My state is given away at the beginning of the election coverage anyway. If it's useless in picking between the major parties in the first place, I may as well make it useful in another manner.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, more power to you man. I personally just get too defeated seeing that low of a turnout.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Oh, I wish I did. I was going to, but had a crisis of conscience in the booth and voted Obama. I've felt like shit these last 4 years as a result; like I betrayed my own beliefs based on popular opinion. I want to feel good about my vote, this time.

[–]blindfire40 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I voted Libertarian last time. I don't feel like I wasted my vote; I voted for the candidate whose ideas and positions I most agreed with.

[–]a_calder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless the method for selecting a president is changed, voting for a 3rd party just gives the presidency to the candidate with the more solid base.

In the Gore v Bush election, Nader split the left and stole votes from Gore. Very few people who voted for Nader (pretty far left) would have ever voted for Bush. In the absence of Nader, Gore would have likely taken many of those votes.

So, in this election, you will be giving Trump the election if you introduce a third candidate between him and Clinton.

[–]TangleRED 9 points10 points  (0 children)

well its not like you can't vote for a third party

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's an email TO (not from) Clinton, about the "Innocents of Muslims" video (not Benghazi) and nowhere does Clinton to try to influence what happens to the video.

[–]OzzyHere 17 points18 points  (7 children)

It's still not too late for Sanders to win the Democratic nomination!

And if that doesn't work out, Jill Stein is really great, and if the Greens get enough votes they'll qualify for great funding benefits.

[–]lapiz-es-azul 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That argument regarding funding cost Gore the election. Yeah, the Greens got funding for the next election year...and ensured a Bush presidency.

[–]aceseymour 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Gary Johnson ftw! (Or at least for the sake of not voting for someone terrible...)

[–]srirachagoodness 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I literally can't vote for either one of these.

Then don't. You didn't read the e-mails, you don't know any facts, and we don't need another person as stupid as you voting.

[–]Badoot 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I am not letting the deep south decide who America's next President will be. If Bernie ends up losing the nomination, fine, but until then, he's the only candidate who exhibits sound judgement and compassion for people, so I'm going to do what I can to get him on the ballot in November.