free speech

[jeremyp]

As we have a national election should we not have a week to weigh in? Or are the powers that be waiting until November 7?

[Conor Dary]

Why? Maybe one day, but a whole week? Ugh...count me out.

[Marlow]

are the powers that be waiting until November 7?

Try July 4. Now is a recipe for disaster.

[tandfman]

I agree. Sure, if the mods said it's ok to have an election thread, we could talk about politics for a week. But do we really want to do that? I don't. It try not to talk to my friends about politics. There are people whom I like and with whom I'm pleased to spend time but who have political views that are totally opposite my own. The same is true about some close relatives. I find it best to confine our discussions to things of mutual interest other than politics.

I'm happy to share my thoughts with this track & field community on subjects "Not T&F"--movies, music, books, astronomy, whatever. But discussions of politics inevitably turn ugly these days. Why should we tolerate a hostile play environment?

Moreover, I don't think anything productive can come of it. Nobody is going to turn our liberals into conservatives, nor vice versa. Might we get some new insights? I doubt it. Anyone who wants to be enlightened by diverse views of the today's political choices can read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on the web.

So I vote for keeping free speech limited to July 4. (No, I'm not under the illusion that I have a vote.)

[gh]

we be debating it.... one different thing under consideration is throwing it open for one day... after the election.

[Conor Dary]

That sounds like a fine idea. After the election...

[tandfman]

In the meanwhile, we'll just have to make do with this:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/10 ... 8_p465.gif

[dukehjsteve]

There was an interesting article in Time a few weeks ago, which basically said research shows that political arguments do not change any minds.... just the opposite... they further entrench the two opposing sides in their beliefs. So why have an open forum here ? It won't accomplish a thing.

Plus, to a certain degree, my/your views on politics are no one's business but our own.

[Marlow]

That sounds like a fine idea. After the election...

You might as well just make check boxes:

___ Worst Thing ever

____ Best Thing Ever

____ The Apocalypse is upon us

____ Keep the Good Times rollin'

____ I'm moving to Canada

____ Common Sense Prevails

____ If so-and-so comes over to gloat, I'm gonna belt him!

____ Ha - I told him so!

[Pego]

At the moment I am so disgusted with politicians of all colors that I would certainly not participate in any debate no matter what.

[kuha]

There was an interesting article in Time a few weeks ago, which basically said research shows that political arguments do not change any minds.... just the opposite... they further entrench the two opposing sides in their beliefs. So why have an open forum here ? It won't accomplish a thing.

Plus, to a certain degree, my/your views on politics are no one's business but our own.

Yes, indeed. But of course, that private business takes public form in the voting booth--so they end up mattering to the society at large quite a bit.

It is "remarkable" (for lack of a better word) that all the political argumentation/reasoning in the world--here at least--fails to change anyone's mind about anything. Political views are typically a result of a complex matrix of experiences and values--which becomes a kind of conceptual self-regulating system that (largely) determines what new facts we take seriously. I'd venture that only the weight of real-world-events has some realistic chance of changing adults' political views--not argumentation or the presentation of specific facts.

[gh]

yet the pollsters would have us believe that there is still a significant bloc of people in the "undecided" camp... for whatever that's worth

[cullman]

we be debating it.... one different thing under consideration is throwing it open for one day... after the election.

Ahhh...a real debate...not that televised schtick drek posing as a debate.

[gm]

yet the pollsters would have us believe that there is still a significant bloc of people in the "undecided" camp... for whatever that's worth

The same doofus corps that can't decide whether to turn right or left from the middle lane of a three lane road...

[jhc68]

I don't want to talk about the issues, let's just vote already!!!
I'm all in with Lewis Black: If you haven't made up your mind by now you've got no business voting at all.

[lonewolf]

Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.

[Master Po]

Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.

Well said. thanks, lonewolf.

[gh]

The probable content of free-speech items is by definition going to be "controversial." That apparently also apparently means distasteful to some of you. Allow me to suggest a simple fix: DON'T OPEN THE THREAD! I guarantee, that way you can't be offended.

It's not as if the thread title is "pit bull adopts cute kitten" and you open it up and the first post is, "Candidate X is a raging asshole!"

[Conor Dary]

The probable content of free-speech items is by definition going to be "controversial." That apparently also apparently means distasteful to some of you. Allow me to suggest a simple fix: DON'T OPEN THE THREAD! I guarantee, that way you can't be offended.

It's not as if the thread title is "pit bull adopts cute kitten" and you open it up and the first post is, "Candidate X is a raging asshole!"

Right. It is not like you have to open the thread or like gh put it, as I just noticed rereading the above, that there will put some false leader like "Free Prizes!!' to get you there. There are some threads, and posters, I completely avoid.

Depending on the outcome I am not at all sure I will be involved. But I think for one day after the election it is a fine idea.

[preston]

Free Speech about politics is a bad idea at any time on this forum. It has no redeeming merit and only serves to alienate otherwise (reasonably) congenial people.

completely agree. Whatever happened to talking about T&F anyway.

[tandfman]

Whatever happened to talking about T&F anyway.

We're still doing it. Just click on Historical or Current Events.

[gh]

Hokay, here's what the setup will be. There will be no opening of the Free Speech Forum.

There is now a single "what do you think of the election?" thread at the top of this forum. It will be open for a 24-hour period come the evening of election day.

[26mi235]

Do we have to wait until the Hawaiian election window is closed?

[jeremyp]

Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

[kuha]

Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.

[Marlow]

Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.

Yeah, how on earth do people get this far into the campaigns and NOT know who they're voting for?! I don't believe they don't know.

[Anthony Treacher]

Just reading the Culture Section p. 40 of my latest Sunday Times 21.10.12, Andrew Holgate's review of 'Serving Victoria: Life in the Royal Household' by Kate Hubbard. Something rang a bell:

'The boredom of life at a court bristling with bourgeois virtues but deliberately incubated from the louche world of the aristocracy was stultifying. The evenings were especially taxing, with conversation at dinner either nonexistent or crushingly banal. Politics and other awkward topics were banned, and intellectual subjects viewed with suspicion. "The dullness of our evenings," wrote one courtier, "is a thing impossible to describe." Even "lingering over the port", Hubbard reports drily, "was frowned on in the new era of sobriety."'

As a foreigner, I would have loved to have read you guys debating the election.

[JRM]

Whatever the result half of us will be be amused and half of us will be.....bemused.

More like 47% and 47%. The other 6% are in a coma.

Yeah, how on earth do people get this far into the campaigns and NOT know who they're voting for?! I don't believe they don't know.

Undecided voters aside, there's a more pressing issue. Why is it that the notion of a winner-take-all popular vote is given any weight? Various polling agencies and the media are constantly touting results of national polls, as if they are some deciding factor. Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

[Marlow]

Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Can you name the two states that are NOT winner-take-all for their Electors? God forbid that the election should come down to that!

Furthermore, I've heard all the pro-Electoral College arguments, and I still don't buy them. I say the popular vote wins, and if no candidate gets 50%, there's a run-off between the top two.

[gm]

Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Balancing a checkbook is a mystery to most...how could the EC possibly be easier to understand?

[tandfman]

I think most people understand the basics of the EC. I assume they're still teaching it to kids in school. If not, what are they teaching--it's rather basic.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been an outcry against it. Nobody--politicians, newspapers, tv pundits--utters a word against it. Ever. Why not?

[preston]

Is the electoral college process really that much of a mystery to most citizens of the US?

Can you name the two states that are NOT winner-take-all for their Electors? God forbid that the election should come down to that!

Furthermore, I've heard all the pro-Electoral College arguments, and I still don't buy them. I say the popular vote wins, and if no candidate gets 50%, there's a run-off between the top two.

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

If they eliminate the electoral college, which I think should happen, then the courage is needed to also eliminate the senate. (that should save a lot of money!) California has more population than the 22 least populated states combined, but each person in California has effectively less say than the people in those 22 states.

Eliminate the senate. And give the residents of the District of Columbia EQUAL representation to the other citizens of the US.

[Pego]

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns ?

[tandfman]

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected

[Marlow]

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.