Major Upset in USA politics

[milesdividendmd]

It's so hard to tell the difference between a troll and a legitimate tea party member.

It's a very fine line.

[Jamesqf]

Fair enough so you're on the record as being pro legalization of incest and polygamy.

Certainly, among consenting adults.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. These practices non trivially frequently involve victimization of minors and women.

So you're arguing that traditional marriage doesn't involve a lot of victimization of women and children?

The real point here is that no such credible claim of victimhood can be made about consensual adult homosexuality. It is ethically identical to consensual heterosexuality by any rational standard.

Sure, just as consensual adult polygamy, or consensual adult incest, is ethically identical to consensual adult heterosexuality or homosexuality.

[Jamesqf]

Moderators have locked threads with far less objectionable content than this one...

I don't offhand recall seeing a thread locked simply because of content.  It only seems to happen when some or all of the participants descend to name-calling and other non-civil discourse, which is something I haven't really seen much of in this thread.

Thus far, this thread has advocated for overthrowing the US government, trampling the civil rights of American citizens, and summarily executing minorities.   Can somebody please check whether these are now things MMM supports?

Why should this forum only allow discussion of things MMM supports?  That'd turn it into boring collection of Rush Limbaugh-style 'dittoheads'.

You may disagree with some of the opinions some people express here, but I've got a surprise for you: not everyone agrees with your opinions, either.  Some perhaps find them as objectional as you do theirs.  But is there any reason not to discuss them, civilly, instead of pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% must be a batshit crazy nutcase?

[sol]

You may disagree with some of the opinions some people express here, but I've got a surprise for you: not everyone agrees with your opinions, either.  Some perhaps find them as objectional as you do theirs.  But is there any reason not to discuss them, civilly, instead of pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% must be a batshit crazy nutcase?

I have no interest in discussing with you, or anyone else, civilly or otherwise, whether or not we should be murdering people who try to cross the border.  I also will not discuss whether or not the holocaust really happened, whether Santa Clause really has elf helpers, or what kind of cheese the moon is made of.  Because these are discussion you cannot have with a rational person.  This isn't a matter of respecting someone's opinion, it's a matter of how ridiculous I feel for getting dragged into this sort of thing in the first place.  Elvis has left the building.

I regret coming back to this thread to read your reply.  I will do my best to stay away hereafter.  My willpower faltered for a moment, sorry.

Please feel free to continue spouting hate and bigotry in this thread as long as you are interested in doing so.  Since the MMM mods are apparently cool with it, I'll chalk it up to another forum taking a colorful turn in the interest of page views.  The internet is a big place.  I don't have to hang out in this thread.

[Jamesqf]

The internet is a big place.  I don't have to hang out in this thread.

Took a while, but he finally got it!

[Russ]

I find this thread fascinating.  Not for the content, which is inane and infuriating and obviously full of pointless trolling, but for what it says about how forums operate.  MMM makes a tiny bit of money for every page view on the forums, so threads that stretch to many many pages are effectively cash cows for his business.  The business doesn't really care if you're discussing early retirement or gay marriage or shooting brown people trying to make a better life for themselves.  Every page view is a tiny $!ca-ching!$ for the MMM brand.

Moderators have locked threads with far less objectionable content than this one, effectively stating that the MMM brand cares more about civil discourse than that particular tiny bit of profit.  Has that stance changed of late, or is the profit from this thread large enough to overcome such philosophical objections?

Thus far, this thread has advocated for overthrowing the US government, trampling the civil rights of American citizens, and summarily executing minorities.   Can somebody please check whether these are now things MMM supports?  If not, can we maybe have our absentee host or one of his designated deputies do a little policing around here?  Because this is by far the most offensive thread to ever show up on this forum, and we're five pages in without the slightest hint of moderation.

Yes, we are trying to be more hands-off as of late. I know you're more cynical than most about this, but it has nothing to do with pageviews and everything with trying to find a better balance between censorship and discussion. MMM has been entirely hands-off with the forums for quite a while now, with the small exception of the server upgrade.

If you want a thread locked, try reporting it instead of bitching that nobody has read your mind yet?

[Jamesqf]

If you want a thread locked, try reporting it instead of bitching that nobody has read your mind yet?

Well, if all it takes to get a thread locked is for someone to find it objectionable, and report it, I have to say that I found the first post of the 'Target' thread highly objectionable - and not just because it looks like a really bad pun, either.  But I don't want it locked at all: I just choose not to read further.

This seems like just another facet of the tactic used by certain (usually if not exclusively left leaning) campus groups, of shouting down any speaker who might express opinions they don't care for.  Don't know about the rest of you folks, but I want to choose what I read or don't read, not have the decision made by someone else.

[Russ]

If you want a thread locked, try reporting it instead of bitching that nobody has read your mind yet?

Well, if all it takes to get a thread locked is for someone to find it objectionable, and report it, I have to say that I found the first post of the 'Target' thread highly objectionable - and not just because it looks like a really bad pun, either.  But I don't want it locked at all: I just choose not to read further.

This seems like just another facet of the tactic used by certain (usually if not exclusively left leaning) campus groups, of shouting down any speaker who might express opinions they don't care for.  Don't know about the rest of you folks, but I want to choose what I read or don't read, not have the decision made by someone else.

If all it took was a report to moderate something to oblivion, half your posts in this forum would be gone. Is it certainly not "all it takes", but it is a better start than just complaining.

(ed.: back to the original topic of reporting things in general) If you want to keep everybody publicly accountable, you could even come back here and say "I reported this thread, and XYZ is why"

[Jamesqf]

If all it took was a report to moderate something to oblivion, half your posts in this forum would be gone.

Only half?  Guess I'll have to work harder :-)

[Russ]

don't push your luck

[arebelspy]

I find this thread fascinating.  Not for the content, which is inane and infuriating and obviously full of pointless trolling, but for what it says about how forums operate.  MMM makes a tiny bit of money for every page view on the forums, so threads that stretch to many many pages are effectively cash cows for his business.  The business doesn't really care if you're discussing early retirement or gay marriage or shooting brown people trying to make a better life for themselves.  Every page view is a tiny $!ca-ching!$ for the MMM brand.

Moderators have locked threads with far less objectionable content than this one, effectively stating that the MMM brand cares more about civil discourse than that particular tiny bit of profit.  Has that stance changed of late, or is the profit from this thread large enough to overcome such philosophical objections?

Thus far, this thread has advocated for overthrowing the US government, trampling the civil rights of American citizens, and summarily executing minorities.   Can somebody please check whether these are now things MMM supports?  If not, can we maybe have our absentee host or one of his designated deputies do a little policing around here?  Because this is by far the most offensive thread to ever show up on this forum, and we're five pages in without the slightest hint of moderation.

MOD VOICE ON

This is the first time I've opened this thread.

Someone pointed out your post to me, which is why I did so.

Otherwise, I have no interest in the thread. 

I don't read every thread in order to moderate them, I read the threads I find interesting (based on the titles) and avoid the ones that won't be interesting.  I moderate when I see things getting out of hand in the threads I'm already in, or when a post is reported in any thread.

You could have reported a post or two, or whatever you had a problem with, and I (and the other mods) would have seen it.

You have complained about the "censorship" on this forum more than anyone ever, so I do find it funny that you're now saying we need to be stricter.  :)

I'm not going to go back and read this thread, because, frankly, I don't care.  If you have a problem with a post, report it.  I'll read it, and the ones around it for context, and decide if it breaks the forum rules.  That is the best way to get attention to a post you feel is problematic.

Not just count on the mods to read every single post on the forums.  There's a lot of them, and we may not see it (and even if we do, are hesitant to moderate threads we are involved in, so reporting a post is a good way to get a neutral mod involved).

Thanks.

[Cromacster]

Have fun spending the rest of your life in jail when you can't prove imminent physical harm to yourself or others then.

I have nothing but eyerolls for someone who lives their life in fear that an illegal immigrant is about to kill them.

While I don't necessarily believe that it's going to be an illegal immigrant....If someone breaks into my home while I am in it, my only choice is to assume they will do me harm.  They made their threat when they broke into my house.  Granted I take other steps in order to make my home undesirable to break into, but now we are getting off topic.

I understand this is not the view accepted by many states, although many have what is considered a castle law, but it is still a very gray area of law.

I agree that within your home there is room for interpretation, and the law itself varies depending on where you are. But it is actually crazy (something I don't say lightly) to think that someone crossing the border poses an imminent threat of physical harm worthy of self-defense, and that we should kill them on sight. Not detain, not deport, straight up kill them no questions asked.

Our borders aren't the fucking Berlin Wall.

On that we can both agree.  I must have misinterpreted the discussion of self defense.

[oldtoyota]

It's so hard to tell the difference between a troll and a legitimate tea party member.

It's a very fine line.

Anyone else thinking of Godwin's Law? I have not seen any mention of a certain dictator yet.

[milesdividendmd]

"You have complained about the "censorship" on this forum more than anyone2 ever, so I do find it funny that you're now saying we need to be stricter.  :)"

As someone who

1. Finds Sol to be one of the most consistently interesting and thought-provoking posters.

2.  Disagrees with Sol on his point that this thread should be frozen

3.  Has been on the receiving end of such passive aggressive character assassination as the quote above from moderators,

I would make the following observations:

1. Free speech on such a forum is a valuable thing even (especially?) when it is aimed at the administrators of the forum.

2. Ad hominem attacks on posters who disagree with you is Beneath is the role of moderator.

3.  The tone of such comments contributes to the insular atmosphere of this forum. This is antithetical to free speech. This is beneath the Mr. Money mustache brand.

Respectfully,

Alexi

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Miles, this is your last warning.  If you have something to discuss regarding the site moderation, PM a moderator.  Heck, feel free to cut and paste that post if you'd like a response to it, but stop grinding your axe in public.

[Will]

Now of course I realize that this is not the bogleheads forum, but they have this over there:

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS

Politics and Religion

In order to avoid the inevitable frictions that arise from these topics, political or religious posts and comments are prohibited. The only exceptions to this rule are:

    Common religious expressions such as sending your prayers to an ailing member.
    Usage of factual and non-derogatory political labels when necessary to the discussion at hand.
    Discussions about enacted laws or regulations that affect the individual investor. Note that discussions of proposed laws or regulations are prohibited.
    Proposed regulations that are directly related to investing may be discussed if and when they are published for public comments.

Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics

If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:

    US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
    conspiracy theories of any type including oil price manipulation
    discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.

Granted, I know the description for our "Off Topic" category says "A place to discuss anything and everything. Want to chat about sports, politics, the weather, or any other miscellaneous topic that doesn't fit in the Mustachian discussions above? This is the place."  But really, like at bogleheads, do we REALLY need topics that readers can't do anything with other than argue?  Some people really seem to enjoy making inflammatory comments, but is this forum better off allowing it?

[hybrid]

[sarcasm] I will simply note that, once again, anything involving Eric Cantor inevitably takes a turn for the worst..... [/sarcasm]

[arebelspy]

Now of course I realize that this is not the bogleheads forum, but they have this over there:

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS

Politics and Religion

In order to avoid the inevitable frictions that arise from these topics, political or religious posts and comments are prohibited. The only exceptions to this rule are:

    Common religious expressions such as sending your prayers to an ailing member.
    Usage of factual and non-derogatory political labels when necessary to the discussion at hand.
    Discussions about enacted laws or regulations that affect the individual investor. Note that discussions of proposed laws or regulations are prohibited.
    Proposed regulations that are directly related to investing may be discussed if and when they are published for public comments.

Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics

If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:

    US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
    conspiracy theories of any type including oil price manipulation
    discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.

Granted, I know the description for our "Off Topic" category says "A place to discuss anything and everything. Want to chat about sports, politics, the weather, or any other miscellaneous topic that doesn't fit in the Mustachian discussions above? This is the place."  But really, like at bogleheads, do we REALLY need topics that readers can't do anything with other than argue?  Some people really seem to enjoy making inflammatory comments, but is this forum better off allowing it?

Yeah.  It's hard to discuss financial matters without getting into politics/taxes/etc.

I'd rather people just be civil, which is what happens here 99% of the time (a MUCH higher ratio than most of the internet).  It just sucks the 1% of the time when people don't do that.

[DoubleDown]

Now of course I realize that this is not the bogleheads forum, but they have this over there:

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS

Note that discussions of proposed laws or regulations are prohibited.
    Proposed regulations that are directly related to investing may be discussed if and when they are published for public comments.

    US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
    conspiracy theories of any type including oil price manipulation

    discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.

Ha, the MMM forum has an entire category dedicated to that last one (Wall of Shame/Comedy)!

Those other restrictions are also unnecessarily limiting in my opinion. No discussing proposed legislation on Bogleheads, only actual passed legislation? Sounds like the decorum for a business meeting with everyone dressed in suits, not a living room. If Congress has proposed a 99% tax on frugality savings, better not bring up that proposed legislation on MMM to make people aware of it!

I like the tone of things and members on this forum almost always. But then again, I'm a self-proclaimed provocateur who enjoys debating.

[milesdividendmd]

Now of course I realize that this is not the bogleheads forum, but they have this over there:

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS

Note that discussions of proposed laws or regulations are prohibited.
    Proposed regulations that are directly related to investing may be discussed if and when they are published for public comments.

    US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
    conspiracy theories of any type including oil price manipulation

    discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.

Ha, the MMM forum has an entire category dedicated to that last one (Wall of Shame/Comedy)!

Those other restrictions are also unnecessarily limiting in my opinion. No discussing proposed legislation on Bogleheads, only actual passed legislation? Sounds like the decorum for a business meeting with everyone dressed in suits, not a living room. If Congress has proposed a 99% tax on frugality savings, better not bring up that proposed legislation on MMM to make people aware of it!

I like the tone of things and members on this forum almost always. But then again, I'm a self-proclaimed provocateur who enjoys debating.

Well said!

[gdgyva]

Certain topics will bring out debate

Politics is one of them...it is so derisive, and both sides seem so entrenched in their views

I am not sure how you separate politics from money as they are so entwined

Taxes, debt, federal reserve, monetary policies.....in some way or another they affect us all

You can discuss it on the merits, or bury your head in the sand hoping it will all work out

I myself will continue to voice my opinions, popular or not, and make my contribution to our democratic process

[golden1]

Wow, this thread took a turn....

Something about liberals while you are young, and conservative once you know better

I am an example of the opposite actually.  I grew up a Reagan loving conservative, reflexively voted Republican for years.  Then I had kids, lived through the trauma of the Bush presidency and became more liberal, because I realized it's not all about me.

Anyway,  back to the original topic:

Brat is an interesting phenomena - he basically was elected with hidden money.

http://weeklysift.com/2014/06/16/actually-david-is-goliath/

The idea of him being elected from a populist movement isn't entirely accurate. 

[gdgyva]

when you control 2/3's of the power in Washington, the other 1/3 has very few ways to garner attention, or influence policy

that is the price for losing elections

BUT....that doesnt mean the 1/3 must roll over and do nothing

the house of representatives has the power of the purse.....

it was given to them because supposedly, the house is the PEOPLES representatives

the senate was originally designed to be picked by the state legislators, and the president by the electoral college

only the house is the actual people's representative (since changed with the senate)

again...i dont agree with all the tactics or all the "politics" but i do understand what they were trying to do

very badly i might add.....

[matchewed]

when you control 2/3's of the power in Washington, the other 1/3 has very few ways to garner attention, or influence policy

that is the price for losing elections

BUT....that doesnt mean the 1/3 must roll over and do nothing

the house of representatives has the power of the purse.....

it was given to them because supposedly, the house is the PEOPLES representatives

the senate was originally designed to be picked by the state legislators, and the president by the electoral college

only the house is the actual people's representative (since changed with the senate)

again...i dont agree with all the tactics or all the "politics" but i do understand what they were trying to do

very badly i might add.....

What are you talking about? How does this connect with anything you said previously or with the variety of topics brought?

Furthermore because of the seventeenth amendment Senators are elected by the people as much as those in the House.

[gdgyva]

match

you might want to READ the article golden posted

maybe THEN, you will get the context to which i was posting

you seem to want to jump on EVERYTHING i post

maybe it is time for you to find a different thread?

i wont take your bait, nor will i stoop to countering your trolling

if you wish to discuss and debate....fine

if not, please allow the rest of us to do so

and btw...i bolded what was already in post 277.....

i mentioned that the senate HAD changed.....

[arebelspy]

MOD VOICE: Please watch your tone gdgyva.  The capitalized words in particular make your tone sound rude.

This thread is close to getting locked, so those of you wanting to keep discussing these things, keep in mind the forum rules.  Thanks.

[golden1]

when you control 2/3's of the power in Washington, the other 1/3 has very few ways to garner attention, or influence policy

that is the price for losing elections

BUT....that doesnt mean the 1/3 must roll over and do nothing

the house of representatives has the power of the purse.....

it was given to them because supposedly, the house is the PEOPLES representatives

the senate was originally designed to be picked by the state legislators, and the president by the electoral college

only the house is the actual people's representative (since changed with the senate)

again...i dont agree with all the tactics or all the "politics" but i do understand what they were trying to do

very badly i might add.....

Ok, that is all fine, but just realize that the people you are electing are those sponsored by a few billionaires whose best interest is in dismantling regulation and breaking the power of the federal government, not for the benefit of people like you, but because they will gain more power and wealth.   Plutocrats don't care about you, and if they could abolish the vote, they would.   So instead they manipulate the populace to vote against their own interests. 

I think I understand the anger of the tea party.  I just think it is very, very misplaced. 

[Jamesqf]

So instead they manipulate the populace to vote against their own interests.

Of course, quite often that populace voting against its own interests translates to "the idiots voted for what they wanted, instead of what my particular elite thinks they ought to want" :-)

[milesdividendmd]

Actually I think the definition of voting for your own economic interests is quite simple. It means voting for the platform that benefits you most/hurts you least economically.

As a liberal 1%er I do not vote in my own economic interests.

And if you make <$250,000 and you vote with the tea party, you don't either (unless you are high, high net worth.). You are instead  voting for the interests of the Koch brothers and their ilk.

[James]

MOD VOICE: Please watch your tone gdgyva.  The capitalized words in particular make your tone sound rude.

This thread is close to getting locked, so those of you wanting to keep discussing these things, keep in mind the forum rules.  Thanks.

I would be happy to see these threads get locked earlier, after a couple days everyone has said their piece, no reason hashing it out forever.


Obviously this is off topic, and I have ignored the thread for the most part, but I see the number of posts and just wonder if it is really capable of or even needs any resolution. My suggestion is to allow any discussion within reason, but if it's not within the normal scope of MMM and draws the emotional baggage we see here, lock it after a couple days just so members move on.


I have been part of forum "discussions" like this in the past, investing too much of my time and effort in them, and in hind sight an early lock would have been good, so I support the mods in doing that.

[alm0stk00l]

MOD VOICE: Please watch your tone gdgyva.  The capitalized words in particular make your tone sound rude.

This thread is close to getting locked, so those of you wanting to keep discussing these things, keep in mind the forum rules.  Thanks.

I would be happy to see these threads get locked earlier, after a couple days everyone has said their piece, no reason hashing it out forever.


Obviously this is off topic, and I have ignored the thread for the most part, but I see the number of posts and just wonder if it is really capable of or even needs any resolution. My suggestion is to allow any discussion within reason, but if it's not within the normal scope of MMM and draws the emotional baggage we see here, lock it after a couple days just so members move on.


I have been part of forum "discussions" like this in the past, investing too much of my time and effort in them, and in hind sight an early lock would have been good, so I support the mods in doing that.

I am actually really glad this thread hasn't been locked. I have had a lot of fun reading it. It is a good distractions from the 1000s of other threads on this forum that stay so civil, which I do enjoy. This thread is kind of like candy; it should never replace an actual meal, but it is nice to indulge every now and then. It never really took a turn for the worse until people started to complain about the thread itself. There has actually been a lot of very informative articles linked and it has been interesting, from a "i need to kill 8 hours at work today" perspective, to gain insight into a lot of people's views. Plus it always tickles me when one person uses hyperbole to make a point and another takes what they said at face value to respond. I am not sure why, but I love that part of the internet, and it has happened a lot in this thread. :)

[arebelspy]

MOD VOICE: Please watch your tone gdgyva.  The capitalized words in particular make your tone sound rude.

This thread is close to getting locked, so those of you wanting to keep discussing these things, keep in mind the forum rules.  Thanks.

I would be happy to see these threads get locked earlier, after a couple days everyone has said their piece, no reason hashing it out forever.


Obviously this is off topic, and I have ignored the thread for the most part, but I see the number of posts and just wonder if it is really capable of or even needs any resolution. My suggestion is to allow any discussion within reason, but if it's not within the normal scope of MMM and draws the emotional baggage we see here, lock it after a couple days just so members move on.


I have been part of forum "discussions" like this in the past, investing too much of my time and effort in them, and in hind sight an early lock would have been good, so I support the mods in doing that.

MOD VOICE

Having a thread locked when you still have stuff to say is frustrating.

So hopefully when it starts to get acrimonious a small reminder like what you quoted will have people discussing the topic nicely again, without being rude.  And then, if it does stay/get rude, it'll be locked.

As I said when I first posted in this thread, I haven't read it, so maybe that warning was needed earlier, and it should be locked by now.  We rely on people reporting posts (or whole threads) to mods for things like that.

But we definitely aren't trying to stifle discussion, just rude behavior.

But I do agree with you that often times after a few days when people have said their piece, there's not much reason for a thread to keep going, as there's no "resolution" to it, and more arguing can just make people more bitter and say things they'll regret and/or that will make the forum a worse place to visit.

[milesdividendmd]

Resist the urge arebelspy!  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Jamesqf]

Actually I think the definition of voting for your own economic interests is quite simple. It means voting for the platform that benefits you most/hurts you least economically.

Ah, but you're adding that 'economic interests' qualifier, which changes things quite a bit.  Not all of us are entirely driven by money, you know :-)

Just for interest, the few areas in which I agree with the TEA party are mostly economic, while the ones where I most vehemently disagree - 'traditional' families, gay marriage, fundamentalist Christianity as the law of the land, &c - don't seem to have any easily discernable economic impact at all.

[iris lily]

I had someone at my work, after I asked them to stop making racist comments in front of me, say "well everyone is a bit racist".  WTF, no.

hunh. I thought that was an basic premise of minority leaders. It's the idea that our society is racist, people (even well meaning, careful people) propagate racist thoughts and behaviors and attitudes, ergo, they are racist. No one is born racist but they become that in today's society.

Having sat through more than one "conversation" about race and race relations intended to repair same, I would say that you are wrong, according to the experts in race issues.  But that said, I agree with you.

By no means do I mean this to justify racist comments.

[libertarian4321]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

[arebelspy]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I donated to Ron Paul that year (both before and on that day).

It's sad that it was so easy to neutralize the tea party, and what an ugly thing it has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ

[Erica/NWEdible]

I donated to Ron Paul that year (both before and on that day).

It's sad that it was so easy to neutralize the tea party, and what an ugly thing it has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ

Only this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg

[arebelspy]

I donated to Ron Paul that year (both before and on that day).

It's sad that it was so easy to neutralize the tea party, and what an ugly thing it has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ

Only this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg

[iris lily]

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I'm glad to have this summary of "the Tea Party." I only vaguely know who has "tea party" thought among political candidates these days, and I am glad to have someone say it straight out about the original Tea Party being conscripted by the Xtian-Right. Your perspective is useful, thanks.

[DoubleDown]

I donated to Ron Paul that year (both before and on that day).

It's sad that it was so easy to neutralize the tea party, and what an ugly thing it has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ

Only this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6LGJ7evrAg

Or THIS! (bonus deleted scene!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To_RJ_mPNqM

[grantmeaname]

I don't want to stoke the censorship fires any further, but I feel like nobody's addressed this post in exactly the way I want to. So hopefully I do that without throwing any more kindling on.

Thus far, this thread has advocated for overthrowing the US government, trampling the civil rights of American citizens, and summarily executing minorities.   Can somebody please check whether these are now things MMM supports?  If not, can we maybe have our absentee host or one of his designated deputies do a little policing around here?

How has the community as a whole reacted to it? The elder statesmen and our most respected senior mustachians have said "Oh, racism! I've never heard of that before!" and put on their white robes? Or have they rationally explained why they find the concepts you object to repugnant and provided factual and logical support for their competing views?

I don't know what you're so bothered by. As far as I can tell this thread is an example of the marketplace of ideas going exactly according to your preferences. An outsider reading this thread wouldn't say "MMM and his followers are a bunch of lock-the-borders nuts", they'd say "there are three interesting arguments I never considered about how to deal with immigration", all of them ones that support your views.

Because this is by far the most offensive thread to ever show up on this forum, and we're five pages in without the slightest hint of moderation.

"X is offensive" := "I choose to be offended by X". I found nothing here offensive. Repugnant or distasteful, certainly. Misguided, certainly. But again, that whole marketplace of ideas bit has done a fine job addressing the things I disagree with in this thread (and on the rest of the site, for the most part). The role of the moderators is not to prevent discussion about things I dislike (conspicuous consumption, pedophilia, the Westboro Baptist church), but rather to make sure that when individuals choose to engage on such topics they discuss the issues and not merely how much they think the other side is full of shitheads.

[arebelspy]

Speaking informally as a mod, the process goes something like this (for a post that may be "offensive"):
1) We don't read every thread, and if we do, we are loathe to censor someone without a complaint.  If people want to have a marketplace of ideas and present some viewpoints that I disagree with, okay?  I'm not easily offended, so I don't tend to moderate people's offensive statements away, unless someone is offended and reports it.

2) Someone does reports a post.  If it's a clear cut attack on another poster (breaking forum rules), we'll go ahead and edit it.  If it's something just "offensive" (say, a racial slur) we take a look at it, leave a comment for the other mods about if we think it should be edited, and ask for input.  After a consensus is reached among a few mods, the post is generally left alone (we err on the side of not editing - this does not mean we endorse the post viewpoint, but rather than we value free speech above discussion that no one is offended by).  Sometimes it does get edited with a note and/or PM.

It's a pretty straightforward process.  We aren't roving around threads looking for offensive stuff to edit - it generally only happens when someone reports a post.  Even if it IS reported, it may not get edited, if we determine the person's a dick, but not necessary of censorship just because they are offensive.

We've more recently taken the tact of using the strikethrough (strikethrough) and a red text comment to leave the post intact, so everyone can see the asshattery by the original poster, but also see that it crossed a line.

I guess I don't know if that answered your question or not.

Moderation is a constant work in progress.  Feel free to PM me or any mods with questions.  Thanks!

[trailrated]

Speaking informally as a mod, the process goes something like this (for a post that may be "offensive"):
1) We don't read every thread, and if we do, we are loathe to censor someone without a complaint.  If people want to have a marketplace of ideas and present some viewpoints that I disagree with, okay?  I'm not easily offended, so I don't tend to moderate people's offensive statements away, unless someone is offended and reports it.

2) Someone does reports a post.  If it's a clear cut attack on another poster (breaking forum rules), we'll go ahead and edit it.  If it's something just "offensive" (say, a racial slur) we take a look at it, leave a comment for the other mods about if we think it should be edited, and ask for input.  After a consensus is reached among a few mods, the post is generally left alone (we err on the side of not editing - this does not mean we endorse the post viewpoint, but rather than we value free speech above discussion that no one is offended by).  Sometimes it does get edited with a note and/or PM.

It's a pretty straightforward process.  We aren't roving around threads looking for offensive stuff to edit - it generally only happens when someone reports a post.  Even if it IS reported, it may not get edited, if we determine the person's a dick, but not necessary of censorship just because they are offensive.

We've more recently taken the tact of using the strikethrough (strikethrough) and a red text comment to leave the post intact, so everyone can see the asshattery by the original poster, but also see that it crossed a line.

I guess I don't know if that answered your question or not.

Moderation is a constant work in progress.  Feel free to PM me or any mods with questions.  Thanks!

That sounds like a pain in the ass to go through. I just want to say thank you to you and all the other MOD's for putting in the time and effort, it is appreciated!

[arebelspy]

That sounds like a pain in the ass to go through. I just want to say thank you to you and all the other MOD's for putting in the time and effort, it is appreciated!

Generally the people who want to argue with each other dive in their own (often political) threads and go back and forth at each other and the rest of us can just ignore them/skip those threads.

And thankfully the majority of the posters here are great people and so we don't have too many trolls and jerks trying to ruin it for others.  It makes our job a lot easier.

It sure could be a lot worse, if we were trying to moderate Yahoo or YouTube comments or something.  ;)

[PeachFuzzInVA]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I'm glad you said this. I, too, was a Ron Paul donor in both of his campaigns. The Tea party today is nothing like what it started out as. After the election, the name was hijacked by what we like to refer to as "teo-cons." The Ron Paul tea party was very pro-liberty.

I work in VA CD7, live in CD4, so I couldn't vote for Brat, but I was very much excited to see Cantor go down. Brat is an free market economics guy, so he's ok in my book. I don't agree with him 100% but he's light years better than Cantor and almost every other member currently sitting in congress.

[Gin1984]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I'm glad you said this. I, too, was a Ron Paul donor in both of his campaigns. The Tea party today is nothing like what it started out as. After the election, the name was hijacked by what we like to refer to as "teo-cons." The Ron Paul tea party was very pro-liberty.

I work in VA CD7, live in CD4, so I couldn't vote for Brat, but I was very much excited to see Cantor go down. Brat is an free market economics guy, so he's ok in my book. I don't agree with him 100% but he's light years better than Cantor and almost every other member currently sitting in congress.

Have you ever heard him speak?  I have and he comes off like he does not know what he is talking about.  I have no idea how he got his degree.

[PeachFuzzInVA]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I'm glad you said this. I, too, was a Ron Paul donor in both of his campaigns. The Tea party today is nothing like what it started out as. After the election, the name was hijacked by what we like to refer to as "teo-cons." The Ron Paul tea party was very pro-liberty.

I work in VA CD7, live in CD4, so I couldn't vote for Brat, but I was very much excited to see Cantor go down. Brat is an free market economics guy, so he's ok in my book. I don't agree with him 100% but he's light years better than Cantor and almost every other member currently sitting in congress.

Have you ever heard him speak?  I have and he comes off like he does not know what he is talking about.  I have no idea how he got his degree.

I have, and save for his gotcha interview on msnbc (or was it cnn?), I think he does a decent job. He's not a gifted orator on the level of Obama, Rand Paul, and the like by any means, but he's not terrible either. I'm not sure what his degree has to do with any of that? Nobody says you have to enjoy his opinions though. We're all different. There's only 5 politicians in DC right now that I'll even take the time to listen to anymore. The other 530 come off like they have no idea what they're talking about to me.

[Gin1984]

Can I ask a question?  This is risking a thread derail but I really don't feel like wading through google on this one.  Why are Tea Partiers so focused on illegal immigration? 

I don't actually know much about the Tea Party, other than they definitely want me out of a job (fed employee).

Tea partiers are mostly white people who feel their power is being taken away. Illegal immigrants represent something "different". Teapartiers do not like "different" things: gays, immigrants, non-white skin colors, religions other than Christianity, etc.

One caveat is that the tea party can be hard to pin down. Some surveys have found them to be more educated than average and more female than male. But it seems overall the candidates they support are extremely far right Republicans. They claim to want the government to spend less money, but I've never heard one of their candidates support cutting the defense budget or social security/medicare, which combined account for about half our expenses.

The 2014 version of the "Tea Party" is hard to understand.

I was a member of the 2007 "Tea Party," which started as a grass roots movement to get libertarian Republican Ron Paul elected.  We set up a day to "money bomb" Ron Paul's campaign, and we set it on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  We set a record for one-day fund raising, which, to my knowledge, still stands.

Since then, the "Tea Party" has largely been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, who are often at odds with libertarian Republicans.  The new "Tea Party" is (ostensibly) "fiscally conservative," but also brings along the Hatorade typical of the mainstream GOP (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-drug, anti-atheist, anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti anything other than white, male, heterosexual WASPs).  I do NOT hate gays, women, atheists, minorities, etc, so I want no connection with these people.

I was involved at the very beginning of the Tea Party, but I want nothing to do with the current version of the Tea Party.  I haven't attended a Tea Party function in 5 years.

Regarding Cantor:  The guy is an arrogant douchebag who thought his sh!t didn't stink.  A first class prick.  I don't know a whole lot about Bratt, but anyone who could get a braying jackass like Cantor out of Congress can't be all bad.

I'm glad you said this. I, too, was a Ron Paul donor in both of his campaigns. The Tea party today is nothing like what it started out as. After the election, the name was hijacked by what we like to refer to as "teo-cons." The Ron Paul tea party was very pro-liberty.

I work in VA CD7, live in CD4, so I couldn't vote for Brat, but I was very much excited to see Cantor go down. Brat is an free market economics guy, so he's ok in my book. I don't agree with him 100% but he's light years better than Cantor and almost every other member currently sitting in congress.

Have you ever heard him speak?  I have and he comes off like he does not know what he is talking about.  I have no idea how he got his degree.

I have, and save for his gotcha interview on msnbc (or was it cnn?), I think he does a decent job. He's not a gifted orator on the level of Obama, Rand Paul, and the like by any means, but he's not terrible either. I'm not sure what his degree has to do with any of that? Nobody says you have to enjoy his opinions though. We're all different. There's only 5 politicians in DC right now that I'll even take the time to listen to anymore. The other 530 come off like they have no idea what they're talking about to me.

He is an economics professor (therefore he got a economics degree) who cannot explain economic policy.  And why do you call that a gotcha interview?

[PeachFuzzInVA]

As someone running for office, he CAN'T give the democrats a sound bite of him saying he's against the minimum wage. Let's be honest though, he's a free market guy, he IS for abolishing the minimum wage. I think he was very ill-prepared for that interview (his fault...everyone knows that's MSNBC's m.o.) and didn't expect that sort of "gotcha" question. Given that being the only experience someone had hearing him speak, I'd agree with you, but if you listen to him speak on a regular basis, it's quite clear, this guy knows his economics.