Look at /r/politics right now, or any day of the week. Good luck finding one article that isn't about how Trump is literally Hitler. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how anyone can say it doesn't have an agenda.

If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"?

Unless I missed something, there's nothing inherent in /r/politics that requires it to be a dispassionate collection of links that represent all sides of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong, it's a pit of human misery that I've long since removed from my subreddit list, but it's what users want it to be.

Or maybe he's an example of incompetence; creating national and international gaffs literally every day. Refusing to normalize his behavior isn't a devious agenda when it's that behavior that has paralyzed the government such that there isn't anything else to report on.

Well, that does make sense that it's a daily story to you if you think that way. I just wish the people who do think this could understand how tiresome it is to see every story infused with a Trump angle. Like this Al Franken story for example, there are no posts about the topic that don't focus on the Trump accusations foremost. Why can't it be examined by itself?

What would you have it focus on: Franken's need to apologize (he did that), status of the victim's case (she accepted the apology and dropped it), need for an ethics probe (Franken proposed one)? The only thing left of interest in this story (beyond the general theme of institutionalized sexism; which let's be fair isn't going to generate conductive discussion online) is the marked difference to how this was handled in comparison to how Trump, Moore, et al have chosen to conduct themselves.

I just used it as an example. I'm not even that interested in it honestly. But when I brought this up it was the first day of the scandal, and you're saying it'd already been talked about enough that we needed to "move on" to remembering that the President has had accusers too? Maybe things just move too fast for me.

Because nothing happens in a vacuum. How would it be fair if Franken were to be held accountable (which he should be, absolutely), but Trump not?

Politics wasn't always like that ... it's now a counter-balance to The_Donald. Hard to remain "neutral" when right next door there's not even an attempt.

Why would r/The_Donald be neutral? It's literally called "The_Donald". It's like expecting r/hillaryclinton to be neutral. r/politics is for all political discussion, but it's just a left-wing echo chamber where ideological conformity and cognitive dissonance are at their peak.

This is coming from a 2x Obama voter and lifelong liberal btw.

> This is coming from a 2x Obama voter and lifelong liberal btw.

fwiw, it is extremely easy to label oneself thus and not be "left leaning" in any meaningful respect.

OK. On social issues I support the general liberal consensus. I'm in favor of more financial regulation (although this stance is embraced by both the far left and right), a one payer healthcare system, and free/cheaper access to college education.

Where I differ, I suppose, is against the left's general trend towards censorship, anti-free speech attitudes, anti-police attitudes, and this moral preening about immigration (I believe in borders and the importance of cultural assimilation if you are an immigrant, like I am).

r/politics is just a name - like the thousands of others on Reddit. The sub reddit is made up of and only exists because of the subscribers / mods wants/wishes. Just because it has a "generic" name, does not mean it needs to be "fair and balanced" /s

However unlike the thousands of others, /r/politics is a default sub, giving it a certain nod of credibility from Reddit the company.

Was. Default subs have been removed and the default is to be shown /r/popular

Good point - down with default subs!

Nah, it's always been absurdly biased.

It's a horrific source on information on politics, which makes it sad that it is so popular. Unfortunately there are lots of subreddits like that. I can't read a thread in r/conspiracy without feeling bad about the human race. It's a fun (?) game to guess how people can spin any given event. Great rubbernecking material though.

t_d was a promotional subreddit for his campaign, it never claimed to be balanced. It bothers me because I would like to visit a subreddit that actually is balanced, and now there isn't one.

How would this work? I'm curious. Any subreddit created on the topic of "politics" is going to attract armies on each side, who will then use their collective "brigading" (sp) power to influence the sub? Maybe with a strong mod, who tries to balance submissions 50/50 - but then was is the point? If a republican, or democrat is doing something wrong/illegal/immoral - shouldn't we all know about it regardless of potential bias?

https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/ is actually pretty good. I don't spend much time on Reddit anymore, but it was one of my favorite subs when I did.

It was like that long before The_Donald existed

It was like that long before T_D existed.

I started a subreddit as a safe space for political and current events discussion, but the idea being that you will be temporarily banned for posting biased articles and op eds, titles that misrepresent statements, or comments that attack or do not add to the conversation.

I know it would be incredibly hard to moderate, at least at first. I'm just not sure there is really a desire for such a place since most subreddits seem to be safe-space/echo chambers.