Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

Their sources also include the statements and behaviors of news anchors and journalists and politicians and political activists and others with a left-leaning bias (and to a lesser extent right-leaning figures that opposed Trump, e.g. Bush, Romney, McCain). For the past 5 years, the only major position on the left is that Trump is a grave threat to our democracy and to the lives and well-being of nearly everyone on this earth. Rightly or wrongly, they have accused him of being a Russian asset, being elected thanks to (perhaps welcomed) foreign interference in the election, cruelly separating children from their parents at the border, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to negligence in handling a pandemic, inciting racial hatred, disenfranchising voters, ignoring or exacerbating the climate crisis when we have little time to spare in addressing it, misusing his power, attempting to take away health care from millions, attempting to set back womens' rights, and so on. See [1] for a recent example.

The rhetoric and actions of the left (and anti-Trump right) leave no room for doubt in the mind of Trump supporters that the left would do nearly anything to get Trump out of power, including cheating in the election (and that anti-Trump republicans would be happy to see it happen). How could they justify not doing so, if they truly believe the things I listed above? Do they believe the threat to democracy posed by cheating in the election is greater than the threat to democracy posed by Trump ruling for another 4 years? Does it compare to the magnitude of destruction already wrought against our people and our planet as a result of the 2016 election loss? If not cheating makes a repeat of 2016 more likely, how could they justify running the election fairly?

Add to that the undisputed pandemic-related restrictions put in place on election observers, and tell me how the right could possibly believe anything else.

The lack of smoking gun physical evidence is not convincing when the relevant materials are under the control of the very people that are believed to have done the crime, and they are not forthcoming with providing access to them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688158

That's what Republicans and Trump supporters say too. You are tired of it because it's true.

> One candidate refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power.

Neither candidate committed to it. The DNC was going to do exactly what the RNC did.

"Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clint...

> One candidate has a history of racial bias (Central Park 5, apartment zoning, Judge Curiel, etc.).

Yes and Biden help push a law that sent millions of minorities to prison.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-controversial-19...

> One candidate openly asked for and received aid from a foreign nation.

Are you for real? Biden and his son's ukraine, russia, china, etc endeavors are just as bad or worse.

> One candidate built up a mob and pointed them at the Capitol in an attempted coup.

Right. And no rioting from biden's side.

The only people who think like you are brainwashed political zealots. You are part of the problem. The only difference between you and a tea party or trumpist is political party affiliation. That's it. And it doesn't really matter because DNC and RNC are ultimately on the same team. They serve the same master. And it isn't the american people.

But whatever, you do you and keep up the good fight.

I may be mistaken, but you sound like the type who cries about "privileged white males". But man, you sure do love Biden.

Pretty often the new technology was the vector by which those came, simply because bad actors seem to be quicker to take advantage of new technology.

Also historically, censorship and gatekewping were overall succesfull strategies. I am not saying that it is good thing to do all that much, there is danger in overdoing it, but historically it was effective in suppressing viewpoints.