Politics Subforum

We're giving the political threads a "time out" from the main discussions list to let some of the other threads and categories get more life.  Maybe they'll return on Monday:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/subforum/politics-plus

Really? OK if you say so.

S:AP threads before the redesign never appeared on the MOL front page. I personally think that's a good thing. If we want to scare off the newbies we can let the Education section do it instead.

ridski said:
If we want to scare off the newbies we can let the Education section do it instead.

Heh. Talk about inactivity lately. (But autum is icumen in.)

Mind you, there’s the politics behind the Davis Cup changes...

Someone (not me obviously) should pm mtierney and tell her where he Rosegarden went.

I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

Good move. Seems to be more of a conflict of personalities.

I had unsubscribed / blocked from All Politics long ago....

Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

 Please explain using facts and evidence.  Cause otherwise you are a troll.  

Jaytee said:
Good move. Seems to be more of a conflict of personalities.

 You mean people disagreeing on politics?  Is that a problem?

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

 Please explain using facts and evidence.  Cause otherwise you are a troll.  

 Fact...A Magnitsky thread of over 500 comments, probably more than half by you. 

Fact...Your comments are either ridiculously long diatribes with unwatchable videos, or complaints that we are picking on you.

Fact...YOU post zero facts, only cut/paste jobs of very sketchy sources, saying what you think buttresses your opinions.

Fact...Your standard response to criticisms is to "read the book" or "watch the movie". I think it's a bit arrogant to think that any of us will waste that much time on either, even if we could find it.

Opinion...You expect all of us to spend enormous energies to research a topic that has very little meaning to our world. The whole Browder/Magnitsky kerfuffle is a made-up way for you to promote your love of Putin/Russia, and by extension, Drumpf. Unfortunately, we have supported your quest by commenting on the lunacy of your arguments.

I think this is a good idea in principle.  I know you want to have the "front page" give a sample of the latest discussions, when people come to the site, as one of the features to invite them to look at.  More local and "non-Trump-defending" content would be better for that.

At the same time, is there some way to have a more prominent, easier to find link that says, "If you want to talk politics, right this way" for the subforum?  Maybe also on the front page, like "We are famous for our political discussions, check them out" on a button.

Also, can you take Mr. Surovell's thread out of it's separate enclosure, and let it run with the big dogs in the politics subforum?

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

 Please explain using facts and evidence.  Cause otherwise you are a troll.  

 Fact...A Magnitsky thread of over 500 comments, probably more than half by you. 
Fact...Your comments are either ridiculously long diatribes with unwatchable videos, or complaints that we are picking on you.
Fact...YOU post zero facts, only cut/paste jobs of very sketchy sources, saying what you think buttresses your opinions.
Fact...Your standard response to criticisms is to "read the book" or "watch the movie". I think it's a bit arrogant to think that any of us will waste that much time on either, even if we could find it.
Opinion...You expect all of us to spend enormous energies to research a topic that has very little meaning to our world. The whole Browder/Magnitsky kerfuffle is a made-up way for you to promote your love of Putin/Russia, and by extension, Drumpf. Unfortunately, we have supported your quest by commenting on the lunacy of your arguments.

 This is not true and an unfounded personal attack.  Please use specific examples, not generalizations.  This is what you do to Paul as well and he consistently proves you wrong.  I provide notes and details when requested.  Yes, you need to watch the movie--that is not too much to ask if you want to be minimally informed about this topic--sorry.   You said you believe Bill Browder based on a single NPR interview (which I wasted about 45 minutes listening to-but I gladly hear both sides) where the interviewer said he admired him and did not ask a single challenging question.  So, that is your evidence so far.  You don't have a leg to stand on.

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

 Please explain using facts and evidence.  Cause otherwise you are a troll.  

 Fact...A Magnitsky thread of over 500 comments, probably more than half by you. 
Fact...Your comments are either ridiculously long diatribes with unwatchable videos, or complaints that we are picking on you.
Fact...YOU post zero facts, only cut/paste jobs of very sketchy sources, saying what you think buttresses your opinions.
Fact...Your standard response to criticisms is to "read the book" or "watch the movie". I think it's a bit arrogant to think that any of us will waste that much time on either, even if we could find it.
Opinion...You expect all of us to spend enormous energies to research a topic that has very little meaning to our world. The whole Browder/Magnitsky kerfuffle is a made-up way for you to promote your love of Putin/Russia, and by extension, Drumpf. Unfortunately, we have supported your quest by commenting on the lunacy of your arguments.

 This is not true and an unfounded personal attack.  Please use specific examples, not generalizations.  This is what you do to Paul as well and he consistently proves you wrong.  I provide notes and details when requested.  Yes, you need to watch the movie--that is not too much to ask if you want to be minimally informed about this topic--sorry.   You said you believe Bill Browder based on a single NPR interview (which I wasted about 45 minutes listening to-but I gladly hear both sides) where the interviewer said he admired him and did not ask a single challenging question.  So, that is your evidence so far.  You don't have a leg to stand on.

 Please go to your Magnitsky fantasy thread to see my response to this. This does not belong here.

Jamie-I'm sorry to have mucked this thread up. It won't continue.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:
I think you should retitle it to "The nan conspiracies"

 Please explain using facts and evidence.  Cause otherwise you are a troll.  

 Fact...A Magnitsky thread of over 500 comments, probably more than half by you. 
Fact...Your comments are either ridiculously long diatribes with unwatchable videos, or complaints that we are picking on you.
Fact...YOU post zero facts, only cut/paste jobs of very sketchy sources, saying what you think buttresses your opinions.
Fact...Your standard response to criticisms is to "read the book" or "watch the movie". I think it's a bit arrogant to think that any of us will waste that much time on either, even if we could find it.
Opinion...You expect all of us to spend enormous energies to research a topic that has very little meaning to our world. The whole Browder/Magnitsky kerfuffle is a made-up way for you to promote your love of Putin/Russia, and by extension, Drumpf. Unfortunately, we have supported your quest by commenting on the lunacy of your arguments.

 This is not true and an unfounded personal attack.  Please use specific examples, not generalizations.  This is what you do to Paul as well and he consistently proves you wrong.  I provide notes and details when requested.  Yes, you need to watch the movie--that is not too much to ask if you want to be minimally informed about this topic--sorry.   You said you believe Bill Browder based on a single NPR interview (which I wasted about 45 minutes listening to-but I gladly hear both sides) where the interviewer said he admired him and did not ask a single challenging question.  So, that is your evidence so far.  You don't have a leg to stand on.

 Please go to your Magnitsky fantasy thread to see my response to this. This does not belong here.
Jamie-I'm sorry to have mucked this thread up. It won't continue.

 This is why we can't have nice things.    

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Fact...Your comments are either ridiculously long diatribes with unwatchable videos, or complaints that we are picking on you.

 That one's definitely an opinion.  Just saying.....

nohero said:

Also, can you take Mr. Surovell's thread out of it's separate enclosure, and let it run with the big dogs in the politics subforum?

 Excellent idea.

nan said:

Jaytee said:
Good move. Seems to be more of a conflict of personalities.

 You mean people disagreeing on politics?  Is that a problem

Accusing each other of personal attacks where none exist... accusing others of being trolls.... accusing each other of being  mentally unfit to choose the " Right " candidate.

I enjoy the debates maybe on the first page....then it goes downhill again. Yes you all need a time out.

Jaytee said:

nan said:

Jaytee said:
Good move. Seems to be more of a conflict of personalities.

 You mean people disagreeing on politics?  Is that a problem

Accusing each other of personal attacks where none exist... accusing others of being trolls.... accusing each other of being  mentally unfit to choose the " Right " candidate.

I enjoy the debates maybe on the first page....then it goes downhill again. Yes you all need a time out.

 I don't need a time out. I need a time in--as I am unable to discuss my topic without constant interruptions and accusations without evidence.  It is frustrating, cause I welcome different opinions. I guess the trolls are winning, cause you seem to think I am part of that. Seems a person should be able to start a thread on a topic they like and people who are interested in that topic can join in and people who are not interested can stay out.  Evidently, some people think some topics are off limits. 

So the behavior Jamie was hoping to de-emphasize is now front and center and pinned. 

Jaytee said:

I enjoy the debates maybe on the first page....then it goes downhill again. 

 This.  Also, I have always thought that the politics section would benefit GREATLY from a character limit.  At the very least, it would allow the post to be read on a phone screen.

mrincredible said:
So the behavior Jamie was hoping to de-emphasize is now front and center and pinned. 

 The Law of unintended consequences.

nan said:

   Seems a person should be able to start a thread on a topic they like and people who are interested in that topic can join in and people who are not interested can stay out.  Evidently, some people think some topics are off limits. 

 You make a good point, but some of us are addicted. We are Politics junkies. So we open up Soapbox-Politics, see a thread, go there to see what's being said and react.

I have sworn off the "Rose Garden" thread more than once only to be drawn back. It is an addiction. Jamie has offered a cleanse, a detox but it's really, really hard. 

Klinker said:

Jaytee said:
I enjoy the debates maybe on the first page....then it goes downhill again. 

 This.  Also, I have always thought that the politics section would benefit GREATLY from a character limit.  At the very least, it would allow the post to be read on a phone screen.

 Slightly longer than Twitter, please!  

Seriously, though, that would be a good challenge; a little like the Toastmasters’ Table Topics where the speeches have a very strict and very short time limit. 

Hones the debating skills. 

(I’d have to really get my own house in order!)