|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2016 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:44 Plansix wrote:
Its a worthless bet, because you will declare victory at the first sign of a long line and we will spend the rest of the time saying it wasn't a big deal. Heaven help us if Bill Clinton is even in the state that day. The hell are you talking about. I already specifically said "long lines with lots of empty voting booths" We can agree on how long is long enough to call it on it's own if you wanted but that's not even what I was saying. Also on the Bill Clinton thing, we already covered what he did was illegal whether they got local officials to vouch for them or not. Just stupid to bring it back up (unless this is supposed to be diffusing what would be a repeat of his illegal behavior in MA).
In the video you linked there are 10 booths, I don't think I have ever seen a polling stating with 10 booths and only 1 person processing people. No matter how quick that person is, your not filling 10 booths.
|
Finished with dinner. Just my reminder that GH has been posting but he still hasn't admitted that he posted false information regarding the Panama FTA, saying that the US has no significant trade interests there, it doesn't create jobs for the US, that Panama's economy was taking off because of it and that the FTA doesn't have provisions for labour laws.
|
Bets are silly. I would never accept a bet for anything. I think they are utterly meaningless in every context. For something like "long lines", wtf. GH, do you think voter suppression helps or hurts Sanders? I honestly feel like Sanders supporters would laugh at only needing to wait 4 hours to vote for the sake of a global revolution.
|
On April 06 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting. gtfo with that bullshit. You know I'm fucking black, if you think this is the first I've cared about voter suppression you're dumber than I was giving you credit for. You going to man up on NY or bitch out?
I know you're black, and I really don't give a shit. It doesn't automatically mean you understand the sort of shit that people where I live deal with, the same way I have no idea I have it is to be black.
It's a stupid bet and we've already got a much better one going on. You sound incredibly immature with that nonsense about manning up.
|
On April 06 2016 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Bets are silly. I would never accept a bet for anything. I think they are utterly meaningless in every context. For something like "long lines", wtf. GH, do you think voter suppression helps or hurts Sanders? I honestly feel like Sanders supporters would laugh at only needing to wait 4 hours to vote for the sake of a global revolution.
Considering students are having to choose between waiting in line or voting I don't think who it helps is cut and dry. Also depending on other conditions of the state it can benefit either party. For instance when most of the counted votes in AZ came from demos favoring Hillary long lines helped her, in WI the voting demos for early and today are less clear. Also considering much less of Hillary's supporters are waiting in the ID lines (particularly the student ID lines) it could go either way, probably won't get hard numbers to determine one way or the other.
A lot of Sanders supporters are just first time voters voting for the honest guy, not the revolution.
Not surprising no one will take the bet. Anyone at least want to take a position on what we can expect in Democratically run NY?
|
On April 06 2016 05:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 04:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting. gtfo with that bullshit. You know I'm fucking black, if you think this is the first I've cared about voter suppression you're dumber than I was giving you credit for. You going to man up on NY or bitch out? I know you're black, and I really don't give a shit. It doesn't automatically mean you understand the sort of shit that people where I live deal with. It's a stupid bet and we've already got a much better one going on. You sound incredibly immature with that nonsense about manning up.
It means you should watch you mouth before saying I don't know or give a crap about it. It's offensive as all hell and you don't know a fucking thing about what I know about it obviously. I have family that hasn't been able to vote because of voter suppression laws and I fucking mentioned it during Obama's 12 run on this damn forum. so you can shove that nonsense where you keep your head.
Here's me in 2014 talking about it.
On April 05 2014 20:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2014 20:04 RvB wrote:On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy  I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here. The difference is that the ID's are mandatory in general over here. When the Republicans tried to introduce Voter ID laws they did so on very short notice before the elections. The Courts actually struck it down because of that. Plus I believe IDs are more expensive in the US aswell. Yes and there are people in the south without birth certificates or the ability to drive with the closest place to obtain an ID being dozens of miles away. Several reasons they were a bad idea particularly implemented like they were. Also it wasn't just ID laws it was also attempts to reduce voting. They tried to reduce early voting, same day registaration, voting hours, voting locations, and more. It was blatantly clear to everyone but republican zealots that it was a direct attempt to suppress democracy and democratic leaning voters. This guy had to step down after letting the cat out of the bag... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-23-2013/suppressing-the-voteafter the interview caught backlash he decided to double down. "The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them," "To tell you the truth, there were a lot of things I said that they could've made sound worse than what they put up."
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 06 2016 04:48 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs. The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters? Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many of the states passing photo ID laws are also providing mechanisms to locals for hooking up the voter registration rolls to scanners. Let alone what fraction of the free state photo IDs they provide have similar scanning abilities to licenses. If they were I would be a lot bigger fans of the policymakers.
As it is, I know that in NC at least they're still flipping through the printouts. I guess it marginally saves time since you don't have to spell your name multiple times? That wasn't an issue when I worked a poll back in high school though.
I think right now it's probably more cost-efficient if you want to speed things up in some of these states to add more staff during peak hours than wholesale implement electronic voting records, anyway.
Edit: I mean, without scanners you could just get a fake photo ID with the name and address of the person you're "voting" for, so it just adds a small barrier to something that already has negilgable payoff.
|
On April 06 2016 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 06 2016 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2016 04:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Why are you belaboring the obvious about voter suppression? This is 100% voter suppression, but don't pat yourself on the back about how you're particularly enlightened on the issue. It's something you didn't give a single crap about (one might even venture to say you didn't even know about it) about until, what, 4 months ago? I live in the South and I live this shit. Around election time, I volunteer to help disadvantaged voters make sure they had everything they need to vote so they don't have problems (they still do). People who have actually spent time on the issue find your attitude insanely off-putting. gtfo with that bullshit. You know I'm fucking black, if you think this is the first I've cared about voter suppression you're dumber than I was giving you credit for. You going to man up on NY or bitch out? I know you're black, and I really don't give a shit. It doesn't automatically mean you understand the sort of shit that people where I live deal with. It's a stupid bet and we've already got a much better one going on. You sound incredibly immature with that nonsense about manning up. It means you should watch you mouth before saying I don't know or give a crap about it. It's offensive as all hell and you don't know a fucking thing about what I know about it obviously. I have family that hasn't been able to vote because of voter suppression laws and I fucking mentioned it during Obama's 12 run on this damn forum. so you can shove that nonsense where you keep your head.
You know, I'm a fair minded individual and am willing to admit I'm wrong on some counts. So I'll do that. If you had stopped before insulting me, I probably would have apologized for it too.
But nah, I don't think the apology is necessary here.
The flip is the same: you don't know what shit I care about, what I know and what I do. You shove things in people's faces, almost never admit you're wrong, are overly defensive and are unable to engage with people with different views without throwing out an insult. Do you see why I don't think better of you? There was a time where I commented about how it was wrong for Sanders to dismiss the shit Democrats and progressives have to deal with in the South, and you said it was perfectly fine. That was straight fucked up.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 06 2016 05:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:48 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs. The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters? Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to). Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many of the states passing photo ID laws are also providing mechanisms to locals for hooking up the voter registration rolls to scanners. Let alone what fraction of the free state photo IDs they provide have similar scanning abilities to licenses. If they were I would be a lot bigger fans of the policymakers. As it is, I know that in NC at least they're still flipping through the printouts. I guess it marginally saves time since you don't have to spell your name multiple times? That wasn't an issue when I worked a poll back in high school though. I think right now it's probably more cost-efficient if you want to speed things up in some of these states to add more staff during peak hours than wholesale implement electronic voting records, anyway. Edit: I mean, without scanners you could just get a fake photo ID with the name and address of the person you're "voting" for, so it just adds a small barrier to something that already has negilgable payoff.
My biggest issue with ID laws is that a lot of conservative groups use Voter ID laws to scare away people from voting (immigrants, outsiders, former criminals, etc...)
They also try to use it to add more hoops in order to minimize voter attendance.
|
On April 06 2016 04:48 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs. The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters? Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to).
I would be for them too if that was how they were employed. But in practice they are used to deny people the right to vote by poll workers who reject form of ID laws. They are designed to prevent students from voting in the state they reside in.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/02/22/trial-begins-lawsuit-challenging-virginia-voter-law/voXhjj96H8vR8u1gEFm1hK/story.html
We need to look beyond the strict language and see how these laws are employed. They repress voters and provide them with no recourse but to sue the state. But the courts can't overturn elections, so the damage is done. And they are all designed to combat voter impersonation, which is a non-existent crime.
|
I think we're in that awkward stage of a long thread where everyone knows everyone and things get personal. Referencing positions here or there. I'm an administrator on another forum and I've seen this happen before. Not really sure what the solution is. It seems unavoidable. Curious if tl moderators see it as a problem or what they've tried to prevent it in the past. As a moderator, I've never been able to stop it elsewhere.
|
I would say the discourse in the thread is an accurate reflection of the political discourse currently.
|
The U.S. should increase the federal minimum wage, expand a key tax credit for low-income workers and enact more “family-friendly” policies if it wants to boost the economy, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said Tuesday.
The IMF, an international organization responsible for ensuring global economic stability, has now recommended several times that the U.S. raise the federal minimum wage.
The federal minimum hourly wage has been at $7.25 since 2009. It’s now 19 percent lower than it was in 1980 after adjusting for inflation.
In the U.S., the years following the financial crisis have been a period of uneven economic growth — a recovery that to many people hasn’t felt like one. The wage proposal is one of many potential remedies that Congress has refused to enact into law. The U.S. also is the world’s only developed country that doesn’t guarantee paid time off for new mothers.
“It is no wonder that perceptions abound that the cards are stacked against the common man — and woman — in favor of elites,” Lagarde said.
The IMF views these measures as necessary if the U.S. is to do its part to expand the global economy by 2 percent this year.
Source
|
is this even legal outside of dealing with dictatorships?
Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump has said he would stop cash sent home by Mexicans based in the US, until the country pays for a border wall.
The prospect of losing a vital source of income would force Mexico into a "one-time payment" of $5-10bn (£3.5-7bn), says Mr Trump.
But US President Barack Obama said the plan was "half-baked" and unworkable...
The Mexican central bank said that money sent home from overseas hit nearly $24.8bn last year, more than its oil revenues.
The law Mr Trump wishes to change, as outlined in his memo, is part of the US Patriot Act - he would stop anyone living illegally in the US from sending money overseas.
Just the threat of enacting this would make Mexico "immediately protest," the Trump memo reads, and they would be compelled to pay for the wall.
He also proposed raising visa fees and cancelling visas for Mexicans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35971035
upon reading it im confused if he's just talking about money by people here illegally or everyone from Mexico.
|
On April 06 2016 05:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:48 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs. The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters? Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to). Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many of the states passing photo ID laws are also providing mechanisms to locals for hooking up the voter registration rolls to scanners. Let alone what fraction of the free state photo IDs they provide have similar scanning abilities to licenses. If they were I would be a lot bigger fans of the policymakers. As it is, I know that in NC at least they're still flipping through the printouts. I guess it marginally saves time since you don't have to spell your name multiple times? That wasn't an issue when I worked a poll back in high school though. I think right now it's probably more cost-efficient if you want to speed things up in some of these states to add more staff during peak hours than wholesale implement electronic voting records, anyway. Edit: I mean, without scanners you could just get a fake photo ID with the name and address of the person you're "voting" for, so it just adds a small barrier to something that already has negilgable payoff.
For sure its a half measure. Most of our policy implementations are. Its a decent step, however. Particularly since the Federal government is the only ones who can legally investigate fraud (even a state police agency would be subject to federal penalties if they engaged in stings), and seemingly have a mandate not to, IMO the "voter ID= voter suppression" side doesn't have a leg to stand on. If Obama's FBI showed an operation in NY next week where 50 agents tried to vote (using the very simple method of looking at voter rolls and picking someone who hasn't voted in 2 cycles) and the majority were turned away because of a catch other than IDs they would have much more credibility.
But they won't do that sting, because the only time they wouldn't get a ballot is if the old lady working the polling place knew the person they were trying to vote as.
On April 06 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 04:48 cLutZ wrote:On April 06 2016 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. I'm actually an advocate for IDs for both reasons. Voting with an ID is much easier, they scan now, you know, like when you buy booze. No reason to have rolodexs. The "there is no in-person fraud" line, to me, doesn't make sense. I get that its a dumb way to steal elections as opposed to mailing thousands of absentee ballots based off of inactive voter rolls, but guess what else is dumb? Voting at all. There is almost never a marginal voter who decides the outcome. Why is it less likely for there to be an enterprising fraudster as opposed to the millions of idiot voters? Also, its a felony, so the only good way to expose how easy it is to commit voter fraud (bringing an undercover camera crew and voting as "Jerry Brown" or some other politician) nets you jailtime. And the FBI doesn't conduct sting operations to see if it actually works (it would, you could vote as anyone in Illinois if you want to). I would be for them too if that was how they were employed. But in practice they are used to deny people the right to vote by poll workers who reject form of ID laws. They are designed to prevent students from voting in the state they reside in. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/02/22/trial-begins-lawsuit-challenging-virginia-voter-law/voXhjj96H8vR8u1gEFm1hK/story.htmlWe need to look beyond the strict language and see how these laws are employed. They repress voters and provide them with no recourse but to sue the state. But the courts can't overturn elections, so the damage is done. And they are all designed to combat voter impersonation, which is a non-existent crime.
Until you conduct an FBI sting you cannot know this.
Like I said, voter impersonation is no dumber than voting itself. So its inefficiency is not a valid argument. Also there is no way to statistically track impersonation.
|
On April 06 2016 05:26 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:is this even legal outside of dealing with dictatorships? Show nested quote +Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump has said he would stop cash sent home by Mexicans based in the US, until the country pays for a border wall.
The prospect of losing a vital source of income would force Mexico into a "one-time payment" of $5-10bn (£3.5-7bn), says Mr Trump.
But US President Barack Obama said the plan was "half-baked" and unworkable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35971035
No, but it's an excellent way for Trump to introduce the idea of Mexicans funneling money out of our country as illegals. It's a easy sell.
|
Clutz, How do you respond to the fact that the GOP has let is slip during interviews that voter suppression is their goal with these laws? That they cut "Obama's margin by 5%". It was so blatant John Oliver pointed it out.
Edit: And I am not in favor of laws that restrict voting when we have almost no voter fraud in the country. They are laws addressing issued that don't exist.
|
On April 06 2016 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I think we're in that awkward stage of a long thread where everyone knows everyone and things get personal. Referencing positions here or there. I'm an administrator on another forum and I've seen this happen before. Not really sure what the solution is. It seems unavoidable. Curious if tl moderators see it as a problem or what they've tried to prevent it in the past. As a moderator, I've never been able to stop it elsewhere.
why would you want to stop it? thats what community is
|
On April 06 2016 05:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I think we're in that awkward stage of a long thread where everyone knows everyone and things get personal. Referencing positions here or there. I'm an administrator on another forum and I've seen this happen before. Not really sure what the solution is. It seems unavoidable. Curious if tl moderators see it as a problem or what they've tried to prevent it in the past. As a moderator, I've never been able to stop it elsewhere. why would you want to stop it? thats what community is
A bit more and we'll start using the type of language we use with family members...
***
Ceterum Censeo, GH must admit that he was wrong on the Panama FTA.
|
I think GH should admit he was wrong on condition that ghan admit he's wrong every time henceforward that he is wrong or be perma banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
