2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIV: May This Entertainment Never End

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've got to keep refreshing this thread to see all the good stuff before it's gone.

Seriously, if this censoring continues, I'm out.

Interference has always had a no delete policy. To change it after all these years really puts me off.
 
Seriously, if this censoring continues, I'm out.

Interference has always had a no delete policy. To change it after all these years really puts me off.

I'm actually not too unhappy with it. We did have a problem of people simply ignoring (or, if I'm generous, sometimes accidentally overlooking) mod instructions to drop a topic, especially when the previous last remark on the subject was particularly inflammatory. That does seem to have decreased a bit.
 
Personally I think the little 'lock' tool is as good as any if a thread is really that out of hand (and it's not just people seriously pissed off at each other because they have massive differences of opinion).

On sites generally, disappearing posts mostly serves to render chunks of a thread almost incomprehensible. That said, it's not as bad in this forum layout as it can be on threaded blog discussions where people are in the habit of prefacing their rants with '@ post no. 4334' instead of quoting.

So yeah. Good times.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually not too unhappy with it. We did have a problem of people simply ignoring (or, if I'm generous, sometimes accidentally overlooking) mod instructions to drop a topic, especially when the previous last remark on the subject was particularly inflammatory. That does seem to have decreased a bit.

Then those people need to be banned and we need to move on, that's my opinion. If you're not following the rules, that's on you. To have chunks of conversation simply disappear is just kinda befuddling and little creepy, when it's in a political thread.
 
Then those people need to be banned and we need to move on, that's my opinion. If you're not following the rules, that's on you. To have chunks of conversation simply disappear is just kinda befuddling and little creepy, when it's in a political thread.

Yeah, I get this. I'd prefer it if things weren't deleted. But I guess it's do we delete a few posts that don't contribute a whole lot vs (to use Cobbler's estimate) ban one of our ten remaining active posters. Practically any regular here has said something rather inflammatory at some stage.
 
Then those people need to be banned and we need to move on, that's my opinion. If you're not following the rules, that's on you. To have chunks of conversation simply disappear is just kinda befuddling and little creepy, when it's in a political thread.

They're not really chunks of the conversation though, they're tangents going into personal beefs.
 
I have to agree with Ashley, it's pretty jarring and uninviting to see posts deleted. I also think it sets up potential problems down the road of what was deleted/why and the perception people have of moderating. Banning + 24 hr locking of threads for a "cool down" seems reasonable but this thread is probably not the right place to discuss the approach.

Back to the topic, I love how CNN is running commercials that their "live coverage" begins at 4 pm EST, all the while every single one of their morning shows is being broadcast from outside the debate stage. Can't make this up if you tried.
 
Hey all,

I appreciate the input on the moderation changes. Rather than sidetrack this thread further with it - I've opened up the sticky thread for discussion there.
 
Back to the topic, I love how CNN is running commercials that their "live coverage" begins at 4 pm EST, all the while every single one of their morning shows is being broadcast from outside the debate stage. Can't make this up if you tried.


They are desperate. Look at their most recent Ellie Goulding branding:

ImageUploadedByU2 Interference1476893359.068953.jpg
 
I'm going to watch the debates tonight just to see what the sniffing cokehead Trump will do.
Probably the same old act. Incoherent ramblings, attacking Hillary on emails, sniffing, more
ramblings, more sniffing, and pacing back and forth following Hillary around the stage. :lol:
 
LOCK HER UP!!! SNIFF SNIFF

BENGAZHI MOM....MURDERER!!!!

POST OFFICE!!!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I am extremely disappointed with this whole election. It is a disgrace that we no longer have a media that presents the news in an unbiased manner. It is a disgrace that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. It is a disgrace that Hillary is the Democratic nominee. It is disappointing that I have more accurate news from #Anonymous than from our own media. It is a disgrace that in a year with all of the issues - immigration, common core, police and black lives in peril, debt, poverty, the insanely high prices of college, individual debt, housing affordability........... This is what we are left with ...... TOPICS THAT GIVE THE MEDIA RATINGS...... nothing more........ I am thankful to be on the down slope of my life, because this place is going straight down the drain like the Democratic Mobile dumped it yesterday.

AS for FYM..... how many people with conservative ideas left..... and why? Maybe the forum is reflective of society, nobody really enjoys the debate and everyone believes they have the answer so why engage. Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Newt Gignrich were successful because despite their differences, they were able to find common ground. Maybe its more fun to hang with people who are of like mind?

Anyway - I am voting Gary Johnson. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but he does seem to have some integrity. Bill Weld was a good Republican in Massachusetts, but the national party ran him out for not being conservative enough. Anyways.....back into my box.:reject:
 
These conservatives that you mention had a chance to stand up to Trump, to others that have hijacked the party, and few, if any did nothing.

The blame goes all around, not just the media. We click on the bait, give ratings to people who wouldn't have ever gotten coverage to begin with.

This is our bed, and we made it.

Where do we go from here?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'll be skipping the debate again. This time, my excuse is:

dodgers-backgrounds-wallpaper-cave.jpg
 
I am talking about the conservatives in FYM. Ten years ago, there was as close to a balanced forum as I have ever seen. Not anymore.


Nationally, if the Wikileaks emails are to be believed, DEMS encouraged the news outlets to pump up Trump and Carson in the primaries. Talk about "Russia" interfering with the election.....amazing how 88% of the press political donations went to the Clinton campaign and $14,000 to Trump. So when I see memos encouraging the press to pump up Trump, I no longer wonder how he got there, she wanted him there.
 
10 years ago we also had virulent homophobes posting here. :shrug:

If by this statement you mean evangelicals who for the most part, never expressed anything other than their opinions about various topics, then I guess so..... I would not call that homophobic.

I think the only reason I lasted as long as I did in here was because I support gay marriage, yet remain conservative on many issues. I would submit that most who had the opposing view, were not assholes to anyone who was gay. Those that were were run out of dodge by both sides of the fence.

Something changed.....Still have not found a place that I enjoyed more than the debating that used to happen in here.
 
Yeah, I don't remember FYM ever being balanced. Certainly there were more conservative posters back then, but it was always a majority liberal forum in my memory. I remember Sting routinely derogatorily calling us 'Little San Francisco'.

Nationally, if the Wikileaks emails are to be believed, DEMS encouraged the news outlets to pump up Trump and Carson in the primaries. Talk about "Russia" interfering with the election.....amazing how 88% of the press political donations went to the Clinton campaign and $14,000 to Trump. So when I see memos encouraging the press to pump up Trump, I no longer wonder how he got there, she wanted him there.

I think it's safe to assume that at the beginning of every presidential process, the frontrunner has preferred general election opponents. Like if you won the NFC championship game, were in the superbowl, and were watching the AFC championship game to see who you'd be playing, you'd have a preference.

A candidate can say to the press, 'hey it would help me if you covered this person', but that doesn't mean the press has to do it. Ultimately it's on the press to decide how much integrity they are or aren't going to operate with.
 
If by this statement you mean evangelicals who for the most part, never expressed anything other than their opinions about various topics, then I guess so..... I would not call that homophobic.

I should clarify. There were some people who had issues with homosexuality but tried to be respectful in their discussions. There were quite a few who made no such attempts and equated homosexuals with rapists, child predators, and people who engaged in bestiality and incest, among other things. They may have been run out eventually, but several of them hung around for a long time.



Something changed.....Still have not found a place that I enjoyed more than the debating that used to happen in here.


Lots of people moved on naturally, particularly yolland, who I have no problem admitting was better at handling forum issues than I am.
 
Going today, and very likely going tomorrow as well. If the ship is going to sink again, at least I can be there with them for it this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom