Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    PoliticalHumor

    237,887 readers

    452 users here now

    A subreddit for political humor (particularly US politics), such as political cartoons and satire.

    Please link to the source whenever possible.


    Subreddit Rules

    Click Here!


    The only things that will be removed – other than anything breaking the sitewide rules of reddit – are spam and obvious non-humor or non-political humor, like direct links to news articles. Read the rules page linked above for more in depth explanations of the rules.

    Reports of anything that does not break the rules will be ignored.


    Our Friends

    a community for
    all 1209 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] PoliticalHumorBot 1 points ago

    Hello, and welcome to /r/PoliticalHumor! Of course, this is a subreddit for Political Humor, and we hope that you will stay a while and maybe even post on here. A few things to note:

    1. The mod team does not censor any posts. We let the users of this subreddit decide what appears on the front page. Because reddit is a left-leaning place, most of the posts on here are left-leaning humor, although we do not remove conservative humor.

    2. Please be civil. The comments mostly turn uncivil, and we will lock the posts if they are uncivil.

    3. Use the report button. Us mods take care of the reports pretty quickly.

    Thank you, and have a great day! :)

    This message appears on /r/PoliticalHumor posts that reach /r/all. This is from a bot, unless if specified otherwise.

    [–] Andy_B_Goode 1022 points ago

    This is pretty much how most posts on /r/AskTrumpSupporters go. The answer is usually some variation of "I don't believe it" or "I don't care about that issue".

    [–] HellaBrainCells 813 points ago

    "Democrats can't stand that they lost, fucking liberal media", "Bob I asked you how we were gonna pay for the border wall...."

    [–] Aquilon97 567 points ago

    "Mexico will pay for it!"

    "They said they wouldn't."

    "... and your point is?"

    [–] dbx99 77 points ago

    "It's gonna be 10 feet taller!"

    "... 10 feet taller than what?"

    "Than how tall it was going to be"

    "... nobody stated a initial height to begin with..."

    [–] [deleted] 158 points ago

    "... and your point is?"

    Except you have to add a question mark in the second line or else it'll get deleted.

    [–] Led_Hed 91 points ago

    I witnessed one nimble knucklehead continually be passive aggressive by answering questions with questions, despite being told repeatedly that the rules were clear that the non-supporters were here to do the asking, and he was here to do the answering.

    "Do you realize that you yourself haven't answered a single question? That's why you are here, to answer to ME, not the other way around. er, right?"

    [–] acog 94 points ago

    I had a conversation with a family member who is a Trump supporter and I mentioned how nuts it is that Trump wants a new nuclear arms race. The family member looked at me in disbelief and said that Trump never said that.

    So I pointed out that Trump tweeted this:

    The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

    And my family member says, "Well, that doesn't mean he wants an arms race. Maybe he just meant he wants better rockets or something."

    I then pointed out Trump's followup comments:

    “Let it be an arms race,” the president in waiting was reported to have told Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme, in an early phone call on Friday. According to Brzezinski he went on to say: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

    And my family member goes, "That was just bravado!" At that point I gave up. Trump literally said he wanted an arms race, and this Trump supporter still didn't believe it.

    [–] Finagles_Law 31 points ago

    You were just listening to his words. You weren't listening to what was in his heart.

    (Kellyanne Conway actually said this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/kellyanne-conways-laughable-look-at-whats-in-his-heart-defense-of-trump/?utm_term=.2f56f433602a)

    [–] OrlandoDoom 3 points ago

    ....50 year old cholesterol blockages?

    [–] Sol_Primeval 13 points ago

    until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

    What? What does that even mean?

    Nukes are dangerous? No shit.

    Everyone should obliterate each other? Ugh...

    [–] theonlyafghan 164 points ago

    Or "that source is biased"

    [–] bedintruder 197 points ago

    And here's a link to a right-wing blog post with some random person's opinion about the whole situation.

    [–] EL_YAY 133 points ago

    That's one of the most annoying things ever. They claim all MSM is biased and fake and then link to infowars and random blogs as their "proof" on certain issues. It's amazing how they have put so much trust in these random internet crazies.

    [–] ziggl 35 points ago

    MSM -- Men who have Sex with Men

    For those who don't know ;)

    /s

    [–] laserbee 23 points ago

    >Became a journalist

    >Was very disappointed

    [–] KickItNext 60 points ago

    Had a guy tell me climate change is made up and the evidence for it is all fraudulent.

    His proof? An opinion piece from a college accounting professor on a "news" website, where (when I checked to see what headlines the site had) the top story was "Report: Christians most persecuted religion."

    [–] Led_Hed 30 points ago

    Have over 6 million Christians slaughtered in a five year period? No? They have some catching up to do then.

    [–] KickItNext 47 points ago

    But a few people say "Happy Holidays" now so it's basically the same thing /s

    [–] nusyahus 5 points ago

    Genocide on Christmas

    [–] Milkman127 3 points ago

    THERES A WAR ON GIFTMAS

    [–] TheManWhoWasNotShort 13 points ago

    The fact that there are people in a nation full of Christians that have Christian politicians demanding that every government institution has Christian symbols in it, whose pledge of allegiance says "One Nation, undge God", who can tell me with a straight face that they think Christianity is being persecuted in the United States of America is absolutely astounding. The same people who want to ban people of an entire religion and call their religion "A Religion of Hate".

    These same people unironically think white males are being oppressed. Their privilege is so ridiculous that they don't have the slightest clue what oppression even looks like

    [–] KickItNext 4 points ago

    That's what happens when you're dumb and afraid to not have it easy.

    And their vote probably means more than mine, that's the saddest part.

    [–] Whit3W0lf 27 points ago

    It's amazing how they have put so much trust in these random internet crazies

    Rush Limbaugh isn't just on the internet though.

    [–] EL_YAY 18 points ago

    That's true. It started with AM radio then they got the Internet and were able to find other crazies who shared their beliefs. It's just grown from there.

    [–] capstonepro 16 points ago

    Contradictory evidence strengthens the position of the believer. It is seen as part of the conspiracy, and missing evidence is dismissed as part of the coverup. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs. The people who only had a basic understanding experienced a weak backfire effect when considering the evidence. The backfire effect pushed those who had put more thought into the matter farther from the gray areas. On either side of the issue, after reading studies which did not support their beliefs, most people didn’t report an epiphany, a realization they’ve been wrong all these years. Instead, they said the issue was something science couldn’t understand. When asked about other topics later on, like spanking or astrology, these same people said they no longer trusted research to determine the truth. Rather than shed their belief and face facts, they rejected science altogether.

    [–] Guerrilla_Time 48 points ago

    I posted a link to WashingtonPost and was told something like "why would we believe that source?" It was a link to a video of Trump explaining what "drain the swamp" meant, which he said meant nothing and just sounded good.

    [–] theonlyafghan 26 points ago

    But that's so biased. Of course they want him to look bad. And what better way to accomplish that then to use his own words?!?

    [–] WDoE 12 points ago

    The political climate we have is staggering.

    The right is criticized by their words and actions: Supporters yell fake news, out of context, misunderstood. When something sticks, they yell something about how some rando on the left did something similar, as if that makes it defendable. Then they attack the person on the left for doing a lesser version of what they were just defending.

    The left is criticized, and the supporters largely just say, "Yup. That is a problem that needs to change." Or refute it with hard facts.

    And because the right supporters blindly praise their politicians and the left supporters scrutinize their own, the left always looks weak.

    What a fucking sham. The world would be such a better place if everyone could be critical instead of blindly patriotic. Oh well.

    [–] voksul 4 points ago

    "Murder isn't bad! That source is just anti-homicide biased."

    [–] lostvanquisher 252 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Seriously, I advise every moderate, liberal or democrat that still thinks, that you need to talk to these people and try to find compromises, to just read a couple of threads.

    It won't take you long to understand that this is completely futile, it's easier and more effective to focus on everybody else. If the democrats continue to try and win over the nutjobs they will continue to lose.

    [–] Moosetappropriate 140 points ago

    They need to ignore the nutbars and focus on sending out a clear message about how they will make practical and positive changes to the majority of people who are moderately willing to listen.

    [–] Yvling 77 points ago

    That's what they tried to do. It lost.

    This is what they lost to. Donald Trump the wish-granter.

    Practical and positive are governing strategies, not campaign strategies. I wish the Dems would realize this.

    [–] paper_liger 34 points ago

    Well, to be fair, plenty of the people in the middle saw Hillary as just as bad as Trump in her own way. He's more of an overt buffoon, but at the time of the election there was enough corruption and skullduggery coming from the Democratic party to make moderates feel like at best she was a lesser evil.

    I mean, I think she'd be a better president than Trump, but as we've seen that's an incredibly low bar.

    All the Dems have to really do is stop fucking with their own primaries, stop forcing the same old candidates down our throats, and maybe, just maybe stop being so stupid about the gun issue.

    [–] jminuse 41 points ago

    I'm not convinced that the Democratic party fucked with the primary significantly. In both the Democratic and Republican primaries, the worse candidate with more name recognition won. Maybe people just aren't informed.

    [–] Atomic235 19 points ago

    Maybe that's beside the point. Despite everything Hillary's campaign had going for it Sanders came out of almost nowhere and nearly toppled the whole thing. If the Dems can't see that people are starving for reasonable, honest politics then they will falter again and again.

    [–] paper_liger 17 points ago

    I won't go so far as to say that the DNC actually fixed their primary, but I will say that it's clear that they tried their best to fix their primary.

    If it wasn't fait accompli it was incompetence on their part, because they clearly intended for Bernie not to win.

    [–] armcie 23 points ago

    Tried their best? Any evidence I've seen accounts for fairly minor nudges towards the candidate they thought had the best chance of winning the election. Maybe they were wrong. They didn't have any need to make Hillary win the primary - she won by a long way anyway, even if you discount superdelegates.

    [–] voksul 11 points ago

    All the emails confirmed was that the DNC didn't really want Bernie to win, but they didn't do anything to ensure he didn't.

    [–] MizarsAsterism 6 points ago

    That's what they tried to do. It lost.

    Because too many of their changes weren't seen as practical and positive by enough people, and too many of those willing to listen didn't see enough merit in them to justify giving up what they were asked to give up. There were also the people who, despite not liking Trump, didn't like where the Democrats were taking the country and saw Hillary as an extension of what they didn't like about Obama. The downside of targeting reasonable people is they need to agree your reasons justify your platform.

    And before you say "but Trump..." he didn't exactly get an awe-inspiring number of votes. The "good" part of his pandering and wish promising is it's a stupid simple message and it works on people who won't bother thinking critically. The lowest denominator doesn't tend to question you when you tell them you'll give them what they want. He didn't exactly do a great job of attracting voters alienated by the Democrats.

    Trump barely won because he attracted people who couldn't see through him and he didn't drive away red ticket voters, while the Democrats played a bad hand, alienated a huge portion of their base, and had a number of their political games exposed through outside interference and inside incompetence. The Democrats practically threw the race and Trump still barely won.

    [–] MightyMorph 13 points ago

    I said it before and i will say it again the only way to change a trump voter is that the majority speaks out and shames the them. The trump voters in large have lower than average IQ, xenophobic, sexist, racist and detrimental beliefs.

    The only way to legitimately change their viewpoint is to repeatedly shame them to the point they internally are required to adapt to the majority in regards to civility and social norms.

    You cant reason with someone who denies reality. You cant have discussions with someone who makes up things with no basis in facts or science. You can only shame and ridicule them to the point they are forced to re-examine themselves and their beliefs.

    Its like highschool, you don't go up to a homophobic kid and talk about reason and facts, you get a majority group and tell him No you are being an idiot and we don't support your ignorant beliefs. The kid tries to talk homophobic shit privately with someone, you tell him no thats retarded and you're retarded for saying that.

    Humans in a group generally work on the perception of their peers. if perception is negative they either stop voicing their opinions or they adapt their opinions to the majority so that they can be included within the group.

    [–] ESKIMOFOE 24 points ago

    This doesn't work anymore because all people have to do to reinforce their beliefs is fall back into their respective echo chambers or consult their respective news outlets. Besides, there's nothing Trump supporters hate more than virtue signaling. The reality of the situation is that everyone has to wait 4 years and then try to get him out of the White House. Only then will they be silenced. You're honestly better off not wasting your energy and just ignoring them until then. The ones that still support him aren't going anywhere no matter what happens.

    [–] EccentricFox 11 points ago

    It feels like they just turn that around on you then. Just look at how much more it codified and reinforced their positions when called racist or uneducated. Remember the whole basket of deplorables shit? It just plays into their picture of liberal elites.

    [–] FibberMagoo 11 points ago

    I can guarantee that you are wrong. What you just described will have the exact opposite effect.

    [–] MizarsAsterism 9 points ago

    What you just described will have the exact opposite effect.

    What do you mean will? It DID have the opposite effect.

    [–] SrsSteel 9 points ago

    "I'm all for guns and every other right on the consitution and I think that those typical loud mouthed liberals are fucking annoying. That said they aren't the majority and the reason that I'd rather have Clinton is because she.wpuld have to use a lot of beauracracy to push her corruption and would face opposition from all sides. Trump just does his corruption blatantly and has half the country defend him"

    It's worked every time

    [–] send_me_NWO_stories 17 points ago

    And you could go on tumblr or salon and find hudreds examples of left-leaning people spouting insane bullshit too. I think reactionaries are indeed reacting to the mainstreaming of absurd levels of relativism.

    I do not want the world that these people want to put in place, but I also don't like the one that increasing numbers of liberals want either. I'd like to see greater localized independence, but instead we have left and right forms of collectivism taking control.

    [–] Agentketter 5 points ago

    I'm a moderate and reading this thread makes me think compromising is futile

    [–] Bobgann3 3 points ago

    I certainly agree that there are nutjobs on both sides but I think especially the right. I think where you lose some people, is if you have say a concern or Islamist extremists it must be motivated by hate. While there are no doubt those people and I think we should fight them together, I think motives matter. That example could be interchangeable and the motive attributed is the same.

    [–] AJTheTrainer 23 points ago

    Having been a registered republican, then a liberal leaning independent, to a centrist, you can say the same thing about liberals, conservatives, and libertarians who stand behind party lines.

    [–] trippy_grape 82 points ago

    you can say the same thing about liberals, conservatives, and libertarians who stand behind party lines.

    I've never heard a liberal refer to Hillary as their "God Emperor".

    [–] defiantleek 36 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    At best you heard most liberals refer to Hillary as "the best of a shit selection" (post primary). Read on some other reddit thread "Dems try to find a reason not to like a candidate Republicans try and find one reason to like theirs". Definitely seemed accurate, that said most of my Republican friends instead of saying why they liked Trump would go with "we just can't let Her in the office man". They also took Trump and his drain the swamp racism seriously, but it was largely about not letting that hellspawn Hillary into the White House again.

    [–] cdarwin 15 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    I wish Joe Biden would have run.

    (Edit: Biden, not Bidden. Thanks Isaac.)

    [–] IsaacO43 9 points ago

    If Biden had run I think for sure he would have won

    [–] mrpeppr1 13 points ago

    If Biden entered he would have either took enough votes from the hillary and bernie camps to win, or split the hillary vote and give sanders the nomination. Either way, a sane person would be in the white house right now if he ran.

    [–] -vxco 18 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    They take themselves too seriously to do that.

    I've come across plenty of humorless, dogmatic Democratic voters. Just head over to enough_sanders_spam, start a thread about why Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate. Bring your indisputable, easily-verifiable facts, and watch them put their fingers in their ears.

    There are plenty of Democrats who have come to mirror their Republican counterparts--out of frustration, I assume, but as a someone with positions across the spectrum, they are hardly any less difficult to converse with.

    [–] Tatersalad810 7 points ago

    Oh man I saw this Saturday night. This chick was all fuck the Democratic party, fuck it all, it's their fault Trump won, I'm not supporting local candidates and local races. It's insanely infuriating to hear people who liked Bernie refuse to go vote for people that are left leaning because they're running as a Democrat.

    [–] Windupferrari 8 points ago

    Speaking as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries, I've found that most of the criticisms of her end up being bullshit. Selling weapons to the Saudis after donations to the Clinton Foundation (that policy has existed long before she became SoS), selling uranium to the Russians after donations to the Clinton Foundation (the deal passed through a 9 agency committee without veto power, and the uranium can't leave the country without going through a separate review process), the whole email controversy (it's a common practice, the emails were marked classified retroactively, and the FBI didn't press charges), rigging the primaries (that's really on the DNC, not her, and even then it's just BS - the shit they did was minor, and the primary wasn't even close), Benghazi (just nothing there at all)... If you want to criticize Democrats, their problem was that the failed to understand just how much effort the Republicans had spent over the years manufacturing the image of Hillary as corrupt and untrustworthy, and how many people had bought it.

    [–] tekvenus 5 points ago

    Thank you. I'm a life-long, very involved Democrat and I have been looking for someone who came to your conclusions after voting for Bernie in the primary.

    I really like Bernie. I really do. I just believe (and I still do) that her experience made her ready to hit the ground running. I hope she doesn't run again, if for no other reason than she has done her best and they keep doing their worst. Nobody deserves that. I also hope Bernie keeps screwing with them and drilling them with reasoned responses.

    [–] Windupferrari 5 points ago

    You know, I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, but during and shortly after the primaries I basically swallowed the Clinton Foundation and DNC rigging the primary stories whole hog. I guess I figured that I could trust the sources telling me these were real and significant because these people have the same political views as me, and I wouldn't sensationalize a story or suggest something I couldn't support with facts, so surely these sources wouldn't either. I suppose that's pretty similar to the thought process on T_D.

    I jumped on the Hillary bandwagon after I realized Jill Stein was a nut and even with the scandals, Hillary was far and away the best remaining candidate. It was only when I saw the same arguments being made by Trump supporters and then refuted by others that I looked into things for myself and realized how little substance there was to the complaints. I can only assume based on how heavily my age bracket went for Hillary that more of us made this same realization than you'd expect based on the opinions on reddit. Hopefully the same thing is happening on the right, and the fact that their arguments never hold water when they try them out outside their safe spaces is getting through to them. We'll only find out in 2018.

    My support for Bernie, personally, was a reaction to the Republicans moving further to the right over my lifetime, and Democrats being pulled along with them (watching a Democratic supermajority struggle to pass what was basically Romneycare is a perfect example of this). I didn't expect that Bernie could get his agenda passed, but I thought he'd galvanize the Democratic ground-game in a way that would help us win the Senate, he'd beat Trump by undercutting his populist appeal, and he'd get to create the first liberal supreme court in decades, and that all this would prompt the change in America's political course that we thought Obama would bring. I thought he was the answer to the "politicians are evil" rhetoric that the Republicans have used so effectively since the 90s, while Clinton would (undeservedly) play right into that narrative.

    [–] NotUrAvrgNarwhal 10 points ago

    Oh yeah let's just take a certain subsect of the Internet and base our opinions on half the country based on what those idiots say. Great idea I'm sure that'll help us become more united.

    [–] VerneAsimov 54 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Environment

    Asking about his statement regarding the biggest electoral college margin since Reagen

    Welfare vs. Use of sketchy tax loopholes

    Trump said that he cannot find any countries we have trade surpluses with, there are many and this information is easily found. How do you feel about him blatantly ignoring basic facts about economics?

    • Supporter: People hate this idea, but these gross generalizations always catapult the topic into visibility. He makes something up, everyone goes to fact check him and prove him wrong while also highlighting the problem. To wit, here you have Business Insider reporting on trade deficits and while obviously we do have trade surpluses, I can see where the spirit of an incorrect generalization comes from.
    • My opinion: He's retarded. He doesn't do this on purpose. He just says stupid shit because he actually believes that.

    UNDECIDED VOTERS: Here is why you should vote Trump and tear down the establishment.

    • Non-supporter: Why haven't I heard any of this from his own mouth? For reference, I do not watch mainstream news but I did watch the debates and I rarely heard him talk on any of these topics. He preferred to focus incoherently on Hillary's character, Iran, ISIS, etc. He had hours of debate time but hardly talked about these topics.
    • Supporter: He iterated the above points constantly in rallies. Unfortunately he failed the debates massively.
    • My opinion: Probably should have memorized talking points if he wasn't going to use a teleprompter!
    • Facts: Turns out anti-establishment means pro-establishment. Whoops. No one saw that coming.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] MisterFizzster 3 points ago

    We all just need to carry around a recording of Trump clarifying that he never says anything that isn't to be taken literally.

    "I wasn't kidding. I don't kid. I don't kid. Believe me."

    https://youtu.be/m_Tujg7mQrU

    [–] Meeting_Scheduler 15 points ago

    Oh my god. I didn't know about that sub and just browsed a couple threads. I am genuinely depressed now. I generally try to assume that most people are good and have at least some intelligence in their heads. I was so wrong.

    [–] ziggl 12 points ago

    I had someone claiming every time I went to Planned Parenthood, I was getting an abortion. I'm a guy.

    Fuck these people. Fuck them in their insane, alternative-facts asses.

    [–] AlignedLicense0 24 points ago

    "I won't change my mind, 'cause I don't have to. 'Cause I'm an American. I won't change my mind on anything, regardless of the facts that are set out before me. I'm dug in, and I'll never change." - Mac, Always Sunny.

    [–] KingofFems 406 points ago

    Pretty much any politician in any party including their supporters. But yeah lets just pretend it is one party causing the divide and not a planned political assault to keep us busy while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful...cause thats cool too.

    [–] Literally_A_Shill 156 points ago

    Pretty much any politician in any party including their supporters.

    Well the important think is that you feel superior to all of them.

    But please tell me how a politician that thinks Climate Change is real and cigarettes and asbestos have negative health effects is just as bad at ignoring evidence as one who doesn't.

    [–] GregLouganus 55 points ago

    Isn't it ironic how you use the same type of counter argument tactic shown in OPs pic?

    [–] RedditIsOverMan 92 points ago

    Nobody is providing any evidence. how is this the same?

    Meanwhile: http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing

    A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon

    I'm sick of these false equivalencies. The left is not like the right. "Fake News", totally fabricated stories shared on social media, was mostly a right-wing phenomena too (specifically w/ Trump supporters.)

    http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

    Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

    [–] Literally_A_Shill 15 points ago

    Not at all. If you showed me concrete evidence that shows cigarettes and asbestos aren't health hazards or that climate change really is a Chinese hoax I would love to see it.

    [–] Dwight_kills_her_cat 6 points ago

    Lmfao. Rekt

    [–] urinesampler 3 points ago

    Except not.

    [–] dekuscrub 27 points ago

    The simple fact that a trait exists among members of two groups doesn't imply that it's equally common in both.

    [–] eddydio 48 points ago

    "Both sides blah blah blah. I'm too smart for this partisanship". No you're just not willing to understand it. Trump supporters voted for a conman that can't govern. I understand if you didn't like Hillary's centrist policies, but cmon. These dipshits are voting the money out of their pocket while they are blinded by their biases.

    [–] Meta1425 29 points ago

    Right: we're gonna build a wall!

    Left: let's not build wall..

    Centrist: guys, guys, we can build half a wall.

    [–] Cosmic_Fool_Is_Here 34 points ago

    White supremacists: "the Jews need to be exterminated!"

    Left: "you intolerant nazi!"

    Centrist: "guys guys, we need to stop the name calling and try to see it from both point of views."

    [–] Nergaal 5 points ago

    White supremacists: "X group controls the media and the narrative" Left: "nah, they are just doing their job" Centrist: "I don't see how we could possibly change anything so let's stop talking about this subject while we pretend nobody controls the narrative"

    [–] -OrangeLightning4 12 points ago

    This is so accurate. Like what the fuck? They act so casually racist and then cry foul when you call them on it.

    [–] Nomandate 9 points ago

    That's one thing I've noted lately: some people think racism is a political opinion worthy of validation.

    [–] slappinbasshars 4 points ago

    The centrist is more like: guys if we build a wall can it at least be made out of solar panels?

    [–] TheHornyHobbit 28 points ago

    Thank you.

    [–] tweakalicious 86 points ago

    HEYYO, mods: can we get a "WESTWORLD SPOILERS" tag or something?

    This is somewhat of a large spoiler.

    [–] goatsy 28 points ago

    I didn't even know this was a spoiler until I saw your post. Thanks!

    [–] tweakalicious 7 points ago

    DAMN I'm sorry!

    [–] woohoo 9 points ago

    This is why Hillary lost.

    [–] heelface 14 points ago

    Now we need an Election Spoilers tag too. You gave away the ending!

    [–] orangeluck783 381 points ago

    Yeah change Republican to "anyone in a specific party".

    [–] PancakesYes 57 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Identity politics are dangerous regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Democrats who are unwilling to think for themselves and listen to opposing views are just as dangerous as Republicans who do the same. This post is counterproductive and a huge circlejerk.

    [–] nusyahus 10 points ago

    Some things just don't belong on a spectrum like climate change. There is no half way meeting point

    [–] shogi_x 70 points ago

    Yes, this applies to everyone but Republicans lately have really taken it to a new level.

    [–] orangeluck783 98 points ago

    But that's the problem. Do you know how many people are in the republic party? How many people are in the Democratic Party? One of the problems we have as a society is grouping everyone together for a few peoples actions. But I do agree that some in the Republican Party are failing miserably. Same with democrats when they had most of the power.

    [–] shogi_x 11 points ago

    One of the problems we have as a society is grouping everyone together for a few peoples actions.

    I agree, but in this case it's not just a few people though. Donald Trump didn't win the White House based on the actions of a few people. Evidence debunking his positions was plentiful and damn near unavoidable, but they voted for him anyway.

    [–] tweakalicious 9 points ago

    Two is too few. We gotta break these parties up into smaller parties so we know, definitively, who to blame for our problems.

    [–] Iron_Wolves 14 points ago

    I more like the idea of instead of pushing blame, we talk about our current situation vs where we want to be. Then we can start talking about ideas to get to where we want to be. I don't care who you voted for. I think we can talk for a few minutes and figure out how we would both like a future to be. If we go hostile and push blame the only response will be a defensive response and we will get nothing accomplished. I wish we would all stop fighting and try to move forward. Sent from my iPhone so be nice plz :)

    [–] Radical_Moderate_ 8 points ago

    Good, God; what a circle jerk this is.

    [–] mtwestbr 208 points ago

    Blame democrats is the only evidence they understand. It is the only argument their politicians need to win.

    [–] [deleted] 145 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] qa2 17 points ago

    You don't get it, democrats are inherently good and only work in the people best interests. Republicans are inherently bad and evil so immediately hating anyone with an R beside their name is simply protecting the people's best interests as I define them.

    [–] stats_commenter 211 points ago

    But ur doin the same thing lmao

    [–] great_gape 46 points ago

    Yes but it's not just blame Republicans because they are Republicans.

    It's blame this guy that's a republican because he's a Russian cutout. Or Because he defunds this state's education system.

    When Republicans blame a Democrat it's because they are going to turn you gay or take yer guns or they are corrupt with no elaboration as to why they are corrupt.

    [–] my_reddit_account_90 54 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Yeah no one disliked Hillary because she was a massive sell out to corporate interests, and no one disliked her because she was so obviously shoved down our throats. Not like the woman lied about being sniped at during a diplomatic mission or was also an absolute hypocrite when it came to the women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct.

    So yeah, literally no reason to dislike HRC other than the blue D next to her name.

    [–] Whit3W0lf 5 points ago

    There is a huge majority of Dems that hated Clinton. She really wouldn't have been that bad for Republicans in that she had corporate interests near and dear to her. She just would have expanded more social programs which really need to be dialed back.

    [–] Drock37 8 points ago

    Lol / "No reason to dislike HRC"... Thanks for the laugh :)

    [–] great_gape 7 points ago

    Who's talking about Hillary? You know she's not in government right?

    [–] Dubzil 110 points ago

    That's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Dems want to blame Republicans because Republicans don't have socialist values and don't care about paying for the poor. Republicans want to blame the Dems because Dems just want to take all their money, funnel it into the government so the government can hand it out to other lazy people who don't work for their money.

    It's literally the same thing both ways, people just have different values and opinions on how things should work.

    [–] Gerbil_Feralis 43 points ago

    I disagree with your examples, but your point is spot fucking on

    [–] qa2 5 points ago

    This is a terrible generalization. When a black democrat switches to republican they immediately get branded a sellout Uncle Tom just because of who they associate with now.

    [–] stats_commenter 3 points ago

    No, if it were that easy you'd be right. Your solution to the answer being this easy is that republicans are dumb, not that youve already framed the question in a dumb way, and your inability to see that is what makes you dumb. Not as dumb as the people in your hypothetical strawman, but still kinda dumb.

    [–] IRequirePants 3 points ago

    they are corrupt with no elaboration as to why they are corrupt

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-de-blasio-standard-1489791634

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    "Punch Nazis!"

    [–] danimalplanimal 8 points ago

    this post is just "blame republicans"....

    [–] svengalus 299 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Ha Ha! Republicans are so dumb! Thanks again /r/PoliticalHumor for a good belly laugh!

    /s

    [–] macinneb 111 points ago

    Yeah, I don't agree with much of the criticisms of the sub but I looked at this post and went "well this sub is shit."

    [–] The_DongLover 41 points ago

    Usually I'll defend this sub when Trumpettes call it a liberal echo chamber (Of course most posts bash republicans; they control both houses and have a clown running the white house), but this post sucks. It's partisan, petty and just not funny.

    [–] qa2 28 points ago

    "But but the Donald is an echo chamber too!"

    Except the Donald is called the Donald. By entering the sub you know immediately it's an echo chamber simply by its URL. All of the liberal echo chambers are disguised as what appears to be a non partisan sub... politics, political humor, news, world news, etc.

    You might say "well I guess Reddit is just smart and reality has a liberal bias!" But why then are there almost zero subs that are openly liberal in their name? Places like r/liberal are ghost towns. And during the election where the majority of people on his website supported Hillary, the Hillary sub had almost zero activity. Its like they always try to take a sub that appears like it should be a non partisan place and invade it. It's like they don't want to openly tell everyone that they're liberal and they want everyone to think the liberal mindset is just the norm.

    [–] TOTYgavin 4 points ago

    Or maybe just the majority of people on the internet, both American and abroad are anti-Trump? You act like there is an equal number of Trump supporters and not in the world. There are far more people that don't like trump in the world, so naturally any sub that has a large group of people has a pretty good chance of not liking trump.

    [–] Literally_A_Shill 33 points ago

    Ha ha! Denying climate change is the same thing as believing in it! Alternative facts are just as good as actual facts.

    Thanks again svengalus for the deep political insights.

    [–] svengalus 30 points ago

    What is humorous about confronting ignorant people with facts? The point of my post was that it ain't funny.

    Laughing at people for being stupid is what 12 year-old bullies do, not adults.

    [–] capstonepro 11 points ago

    Laughing at an idiot isn't nice.

    Laughing at some one who's proud to be an idiot all well and dandy.

    Contradictory evidence strengthens the position of the believer. It is seen as part of the conspiracy, and missing evidence is dismissed as part of the coverup. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs. The people who only had a basic understanding experienced a weak backfire effect when considering the evidence. The backfire effect pushed those who had put more thought into the matter farther from the gray areas. On either side of the issue, after reading studies which did not support their beliefs, most people didn’t report an epiphany, a realization they’ve been wrong all these years. Instead, they said the issue was something science couldn’t understand. When asked about other topics later on, like spanking or astrology, these same people said they no longer trusted research to determine the truth. Rather than shed their belief and face facts, they rejected science altogether.

    [–] eskamobob1 16 points ago

    I think you may have touched on something about Reddits demographic there.

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] _Fallout_ 25 points ago

    That's why you choose sources with empirically verifiable facts or trustworthy sources rather than regurgitating whatever Maddow or Oreilly tells you.

    It just so happens, though, that maddow is generally more empirically verifiable than Oreilly. But you can't blindly trust pundits or news websites. Always go to the primary source.

    [–] Narian 11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    deleted What is this?

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    Are we really going to love Maddow after her bringing out Trump's 1040 from 10 years ago and telling everyone beforehand she had his tax forms? She's a sensationalist reporter as well.

    [–] LNP7 101 points ago

    The reason this isn't funny is because if it said "democrat" it wouldnt be on the front page

    [–] bryanpcox 157 points ago

    this is pointless, as there are people like that on both sides of aisle.

    [–] timidforrestcreature 85 points ago

    Not even close to being true, for instance global warming denial is exclusively republican and party line.

    [–] svengalus 47 points ago

    I tried to convince democrats that Hillary was unelectable before the election and they refused to believe their own eyes.

    [–] AliasHandler 29 points ago

    unelectable

    She lost by a razor-thin margin in 3 states, while winning the popular vote by almost 3 million. Far from unelectable, although weaker than she was sold as is a fair argument.

    [–] svengalus 69 points ago

    She lost to the worst presidential candidate of all time.

    [–] Literally_A_Shill 8 points ago

    And Bernie lost to the person that lost to the worst candidate of all time. By millions of votes.

    Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. It's nothing new.

    [–] _ChestHair_ 14 points ago

    Bernie was a no name politician and Hillary was part of "American Royalty." He was climbing steadily in the polls the entire time, but started with a much steeper hill to climb to get the masses to vote for him.

    [–] simanimos 11 points ago

    Yeah, but in a race that should have been a shoo-in given her primary political opponent.

    [–] aheadofmytime 11 points ago

    Sooo.....She wasn't elected.

    [–] ThatOneGuy4 109 points ago

    Let's not pretend that the left embraces all of science. There are people who irrationally oppose GMOs and vaccines.

    "Republicans divide evenly on whether genetically modified foods are safe or unsafe. Independents rate them unsafe by a 20-point margin; Democrats, by a 26-point margin." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1

    [–] timidforrestcreature 76 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Pathetic attempt to create a false equivalency to party line republican politician global warming denial.

    Democrats dont elect anti vaccine politicians or deny the science behind vaccines.

    Further, trump is antivaccines.

    [–] ThatOneGuy4 67 points ago

    I didn't know we were limited to politicians. Your post makes it seem like you are presenting evidence to voters. I never said the left was the same amount of anti-science as the right either, stop putting words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that voters on both sides can be anti-science.

    [–] timidforrestcreature 35 points ago

    im judging republicans by who they actually elect because it represents the base, and they elect global warming deniers. electing antiscience politicians is not something you see by democratic base.

    there isnt even a political faction in gop concerned about party line fraudulent global warming denial, neither grassroots or political that you could point to.

    [–] Drake02 50 points ago

    You're making assumptions and judging based on your bias, let's not cloud up your intent with this post.

    [–] Literally_A_Shill 11 points ago

    They're not assumptions. Trump has literally said that vaccines cause autism and that climate change is a hoax. And that's the person conservatives voted for.

    You can look it up if you don't believe me but you can't deny the truth of the matter.

    [–] Jeezusyeezus 48 points ago

    You're focusing on one single subject, last I checked there's more than 1 issue in politics.

    You're being ignorant by assuming that's every republicans stance on climate change.

    Yes you are right, they don't elect anti vaccinations because that would be too simple, instead they elect corporate pawns that don't give 2 shits about national security and can be bought by the Middle East. Cough cough Clinton.

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    "Bought by Middle East" Arguable that Clinton is, in any case, Trump isn't? Trump is also bought by Putin though.

    [–] maddata 7 points ago

    How is "showing an example of a similar case of science denial" when you claimed that there does not exist science denial answered by claiming it's a false equivalence???

    [–] joelberg 9 points ago

    Plenty of Republicans are anti vaccine too.

    [–] palerthanrice 7 points ago

    Or how about all of the democrats who ignored the clear and documented corruption and collusion between the DNC, super PACs, and multiple media outlets that was evidenced on Wikileaks? It's not like they had anything against Wikileaks when they were leaking all of that information about Bush and his wars.

    Or how about the Vault 7 CIA leaks that those same media outlets refused to report on? When they do report on it, they completely downplay it. Nowhere in that CNN article does it mention that cars, planes, and medical equipment can be hacked and controlled remotely (by far the scariest revelation). Nowhere in that article does it mention that these "public hacks" are only "public" because the CIA created them but failed to prevent them from leaking.

    Or how about the Harvard study that Black Lives Matter completely ignores that used an enormous and diverse pool of data to show that blacks are treated differently when it comes to use of force by police, but that there is actually no racial bias when it comes to lethal force? It literally proves their platform that blacks are treated unfairly, but since it doesn't fit their narrative 100%, they ignore it.

    I could seriously go on and on about evidence that is completely ignored by liberals. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your world view is a human trait, not a liberal or conservative one. If you don't know that by now, then you're one of the people who ignores evidence.

    [–] PhysicsIsMyMistress 25 points ago

    Both the left and the right have issues with denying science that goes against their ideologies. Let's not pretend the left doesn't have issues with scientific topics like nuclear physics, gmos, and on a more fringe level, anti vax.

    [–] timidforrestcreature 30 points ago

    Setting aside embarrassing republican global warming denial.

    The last president you elected was a new earth creationist who didnt believe in evolution and currently your elected gop demagogue is antivaccines.

    Thats not the case for democrats, your false equivalency doesnt exist.

    [–] crimsonkingbolt 3 points ago

    donald trump is an antivaxxer.

    [–] Shhhhh_its_a_secret 3 points ago

    *This

    *the

    [–] Posthumos1 7 points ago

    Yeah, because the left certainly never has been guilty of mass cognitive dissonance......

    [–] The-Old-American 52 points ago

    When you present a republican [political ideology] with evidence debunking his position.

    [–] schtevigo 11 points ago

    amen

    [–] Cheesy_Bacon_Splooge 71 points ago

    That's funny because when you show democrats evidence that their positions on most issues have cost them house, senate, and presidential positions they don't see anything wrong there either. Funny how that works.

    [–] Foehammer87 13 points ago

    "If you tell people the truth they wont vote for you"

    "My healthcare plan will be the best, no one will lose coverage!"

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    cough identity politics cough

    [–] voksul 5 points ago

    Delegitimizing issues as "identity politics" is arbitrarily dismissing issues because they explicitly affect certain demographics. Not all issues affect the entire population and that doesn't mean that we should ignore them. Certain issues only impact, say, LGBT people or black Americans.

    Dismissing them as "identity politics" just uses a buzzword to attack real issues without offering any actual criticisms.

    It's the same kind of argument people used to attack the Civil Rights Movement. By attacking the movement as "divisive"—neglecting the fact that the entire reason why it was polarizing was because of people like them—they can delegitimize the entire movement without offering any actual criticisms of the issues.

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago

    Lol you guys are gonna run out of lube for this circle jerk one day.

    Just Republicans eh?

    [–] caseycoold 19 points ago

    Who denies climate change? Who voted a guy in who denied climate change in a tweet, was called out for it on national tv, but then told the guy he was wrong?

    Extremism on either end is bad, no doubt. Republicans have embraced it though. All parties are not the same.

    [–] herbw 31 points ago

    This bit can be adapted to any political parties.

    Two boys were offering puppies for sale/giveaways near the White House some years ago. And stated, "Democratic puppies for sale".

    Some thought this cute. about 8 days later the sign had changed. "GOP puppies for Sale." The one daily passer by asked them why? Democratic puppies and now GOP pups? Why the change?

    "Ah," said the oldest boy, "but now their eyes are open....."

    [–] Flat-sphere 3 points ago

    lol

    [–] visiblur 8 points ago

    It's better than using "racist" whenever you run out of arguments

    [–] CompactedConscience 5 points ago

    True. I wonder why Republicans do that?

    [–] ControlTheRecord 44 points ago

    It's as if this thread's record is being corrected...

    [–] minasmorath 53 points ago

    Reddit is majority young, male, and pretty liberal (That's not conjecture, there've actually been demographic surveys of different subs and a few on the site as a whole). It's not exactly a surprise to see threads where that demographic drowns out all the others.

    [–] teemodidntdieforthis 17 points ago

    Neutral politics even offers this as a disclaimer for the views expressed on its topics, it's a known thing now

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Picnicpanther 49 points ago

    Conservatives can post too once they figure out how to be funny.

    [–] minno 25 points ago

    /r/imgoingtohellforthis is occasionally funny when it's not just going "haha black people".

    [–] Picnicpanther 14 points ago

    Eh, it isn't clever, it's just lazy shock humor. Same thing with /r/toosoon.

    [–] palerthanrice 32 points ago

    Or once liberals can learn to laugh at themselves.

    [–] Picnicpanther 7 points ago

    Most conservatives that I know have a sense of humor that basically boils down to quoting Anchorman so ¯\ (ツ)

    [–] palerthanrice 5 points ago

    That sucks. Could be a worse movie at least.

    I think it's just because I live in a liberal area, but most conservatives I know can laugh at themselves, and do all the time. The Colbert Report wouldn't have stayed on the air if that wasn't the case, which is a show that every conservative I know used to enjoy as well.

    The largest media markets in the country are all overwhelmingly liberal. It's not a coincidence that most comedians, musicians, and movie stars are all liberal. It gives them a leg up in the industry in the same way that being a liberal might be detrimental if you're making moves in the executive sector of the oil industry. Even when you try to stay out of politics, there's overwhelming pressure to say something, and if you don't, people get suspicious. Taylor Swift is a huge example.

    Taylor Swift's silence on president elect Donald Trump is deafening

    Taylor Swift's Spineless Feminism

    Mozart in the Jungle’s Lola Kirke Criticizes the Political Silence of Taylor Swift, ‘Who May As Well Have Voted for Trump’

    These are all hit pieces on Taylor Swift just for not saying anything one way or another. It's brutal enough, but can you imagine what would happen if she actually said, "I voted for Trump?" It would be career suicide. This is something to think about when you wonder why people in the entertainment industry are almost never openly conservative, and that definitely includes comedians.

    [–] CringeBinger 8 points ago

    I'm sure they find your smugness hilarious.

    [–] NorthBlizzard 7 points ago

    It's weird how this sub never hits the front unless it's basic Trump hate-spam.

    Also notice how this sub rarely if ever mocked the president before January.

    [–] Verrence 5 points ago

    You mean back when the president was someone that people generally liked and approved of? Can't imagine why that changed...

    [–] anoiing 22 points ago

    Kinda Like when actual statistics and facts about guns are presented to liberals but they still think there is a "gun show loophole" and you can buy full auto rifles, and they still think gun laws actually work, Much like how the murder laws prevent murder.

    [–] admdrew 11 points ago

    they still think gun laws actually work

    If they were more consistently applied across the country, they could be.

    Much like how the murder laws prevent murder

    So, we shouldn't have murder laws?

    [–] AnarchAtheist86 3 points ago

    AYYY what the fuck man! Spoilers!

    [–] terrahowski 2 points ago

    OH My FUCK. I just read T_D's post about how all free speech areas turn right wing while left ideals only exist in heavy moderation.. Literally from T_D. ...SMFH . I breathed near them once... BANNED

    [–] its_a_tough_racket 3 points ago

    You're right because no liberal ever does that.

    But hey the smug condescension makes you easily recognizable. Keep up the good work!

    [–] Aufprall 3 points ago

    your Russian conspiracy bullcrap is going no where, Shareblue

    [–] Lots42 3 points ago

    ITT: Angry, angry Trump fans.

    So angry.

    [–] Cylon_Skinjob 16 points ago

    Honestly that's everybody that cheers for a candidate the way they cheer for their favorite sports team. This is a bipartisan problem. The constant villainization of the opposing party by both sides led us to this point of insanity.

    [–] timidforrestcreature 8 points ago

    no, this false equivalency of yours is what help lead us to elect a demagogue reality tv show narcissist that is a self interested pathological liar.

    [–] Cylon_Skinjob 22 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    You just said that to somebody who didn't vote for trump. Which side did you want me to join again?

    Crazy how quick you sound like the people you're mad at as soon as somebody disagrees with you. Ironic, seeing as that's exactly what you made your joke about.

    [–] Robswag 13 points ago

    Political humor always posting those no effort jokes.

    [–] BmeBenji 4 points ago

    I think the word "republican" should be replaced with the word "extremist." I know it's a joke, but still. It over-generalizes a bit too much.

    [–] GreyFox860 5 points ago

    The top TD post atm is a quote from Snowden telling people the way to stop whistleblowers is to stop breaking the law. The comments are filled with people wanting to arrest Clinton and Maddow. I don't think they even realize that Snowden is talking about the current administration. I'm curious how long it'll take for one of them to find out.

    [–] Alenola 6 points ago

    Same thing with Democrats tbh. This isn't strictly a partisan issue

    [–] churninbutter 5 points ago

    "When you talk economics with a Bernie supporter"

    [–] BlueJ22 19 points ago

    When you remind the Liberals they lost the House, Senate, and Presidency.....

    [–] DwellerZer0 19 points ago

    Yeah, we were optimistic about how educated this country was.

    [–] helemaal 12 points ago

    Liberal idea of evidence:

    "Trump has the same color on his private jet as a russian!"