5
They removed the post about how Hilary's campaign supported Trump and made up a rule on the spot about not being recent. The first rule they noted as an excuse states:
Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
which has nothing to do about being recent nor any other rules. They simply censor any valid critiques of certain politicians which is very dangerous, especially for a community that big.
You shouldn't have political goals when moderating just to support certain politician. That is a conflict of interest and abusing the mod power to further a goal of your political candidate.
Why are you posting an 8 year old political news article? What was your goal?
It was an article about how we got into this problem in the first place and therefor how we need to go about fixing it. You can't fix problems by only listing the media narrative that currently suits them without looking for the context in the bigger picture and dealing with the cause instead of the symptom.
Most of the new articles do exactly the opposite, they get us into making the problem worse by voting for the party that got him elected, the same problematic person they are running against in the first place. Just so they can do what they are doing now and have been doing since then, pretend that they are better alternative, while still supporting him because they need him to scare the voters into voting for them.
People seeking to score political points by posting news articles hate getting their posts removed for editorializing the headline. Did you editorialize the headline?
Reason stated for post removal was that it wasn't recent. It has nothing to do with the headline. We can additionally make excuses all we want, but the post was valid and now, after publicly complaining, it was restored.