EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 311
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13087 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands15574 Posts
On November 03 2020 02:15 Nebuchad wrote: No, he doesn't. The electoral college doesn't vote until Dec 14th? and the votes are not officially tallied until Jan 6th before Congress.Fair enough, he'll have to say whether he accepts the results or not pretty soon tho, correct? For the rest, keep me out of this bs please. So until jan 6th there is technically no result to accept. Normally ofcourse no one waits that long because the results are obvious pretty shortly after the election itself but hey, this is Trump. Edit, hm didn't realise this was the feedback thread. sorry. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland10428 Posts
On November 03 2020 02:20 Gorsameth wrote: No, he doesn't. The electoral college doesn't vote until Dec 14th? and the votes are not officially tallied until Jan 6th before Congress. So until jan 6th there is technically no result to accept. Normally ofcourse no one waits that long because the results are obvious pretty shortly after the election itself but hey, this is Trump. Edit, hm didn't realise this was the feedback thread. sorry. Thanks for the information. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada5966 Posts
On November 03 2020 02:17 LegalLord wrote: Honestly, all that sounds a lot like Jimmy just has long-standing beef with GH since the entire line of argument is basically "he's wrong, so ban." But I think we knew that already. Appreciate you chiming in Drama king a bit of irony given your long standing beef with me but so be it. It is long standing, but forever I thought it was just because he is a jerk and condescending to people, and while this is true it is not why he should be banned, or at least actioned when he breaks them. Jerks are not really as frustrating as zealots who constantly break the rules. These are them in case you were unaware: + Show Spoiler + 1. Show, don't tell, and listen. This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. 2. No arguments in absentia. In other words, do not argue using language that presumes conclusions that not everyone might share. If you think religion is hogwash, then intelligently and deliberately point out how you have come to this conclusion. Do not simply say “religion is garbage”, for it makes you look like a presumptuous fool and it degrades the entire conversation. If every poster attempted to be less unequivocal and more expository, the world of TL would be a better place. 3. Sources: A common sense approach. We all know that the strictures of an online text based communication platform make certain sorts of evidential back and forth rather difficult to perform correctly. In keeping with this, I would ask that everyone simply use their heads. Wikipedia, contrary to some belief, is a good source for most things, though feel free to dispute Wiki's page specific sourcing rigor if you find error. Feel free to cite both standard and non-standard news sites and op-ed journalism; be ready, though, for challenges and be prepared to put the ideas of your source material into your own words. We don't need or want Fox News or Huff Post parrots. 4. Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar. Because I just love how that was originally worded. 5. Be evocative, not mean. Bashing will not be tolerated; well conceived arguments that reveal the error in your opposition's ways will be. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States9291 Posts
Other than that, I think the rest of the argument we had about "good or bad sides" was opinion based. Sure, I think his opinion in that discussion of voter rights was really bad and the argument is clearly shifted in favor of the side of the Democrats, but even if I think he's being incredibly ignorant of the idea and equivocating two unequivocal arguments, it wasn't worthy of a ban. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States8736 Posts
| ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States9291 Posts
On November 03 2020 08:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: If your impression of Danglars is that he thinks courts don't make policy instead of courts shouldn't make policy then you should probably reread what you're arguing. Thankfully, the courts aren't filled with these kind of huckster arguments, and legitimately weigh interests like running an "orderly, efficient election and in giving citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election" and " federal judges do not possess special expertise or competence about how best to balance the costs and benefits of potential policy responses to the pandemic, including with respect to elections." idk man, seems like he's saying courts arent filled with judges that make policy. Pretty clear to me what he and I are arguing. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland3058 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada3439 Posts
On November 03 2020 09:41 Sent. wrote: Having Danglars banned on the election night is very mean. He should be allowed to go on temporary parole. Agreed tbh. We're missing a part of the discussion, valuable or not on probably the most important politics day(s) of the year. Give him a delayed sentence or something to be served starting next tuesday or whenever. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom7656 Posts
On November 03 2020 09:41 Sent. wrote: Having Danglars banned on the election night is very mean. He should be allowed to go on temporary parole. Sorry to just +1 but I also agree with this. Bring him back for the day! | ||
tofucake
Hyrule18065 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany96 Posts
Against the obvious trolls and alts. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States9291 Posts
On November 03 2020 18:24 Artisreal wrote: Would it make sense to prevent people registered today from posting in the election thread? Against the obvious trolls and alts. I'd also be in favor of that. 6399 was the latest example, though im sure there exists some people who lurk and never make an account/post and just not want to contribute. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands15574 Posts
May I ask why? | ||
micronesia
United States23853 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States4781 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13087 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States2651 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States37854 Posts
I’m involved so I won’t make a unilateral mod decision but I second LegalLord’s suggestion. This is as good an example as any of a use case for a containment topic so that the main topic can get back on track. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway26644 Posts
But good luck making the OP to such a thread. I'd be seriously impressed with someone capable of making an informative OP that does not trigger 'either side'.  | ||
| ||
