Dear moderator let's debate, pleeeze

[jebartle]

I know, I know, you have made it "perfectly clear" that we have not been good girls and boys when discussing "_olitics", but if we promise to put our big boy pants on and debate like we did in high school because in the next year there are so many important issues that all posters could discover FACTS that have eluded all of us. Let's debate without profanity or personal attacks. I know, back in the day, our debate club would have our butt beat! So what do you say?????

[Two Bills]

The state of US politics at the moment, like our own here in UK, are so divided and partisan, the words 'reasonable debate' have been discontinued for the forseeable future.

[JimJohnson]

Please moderator do not allow the return of THAT FORUM!!! TOTV is a much nicer place and is a very useful source of information like it is now.

[JimJohnson]

The state of US politics at the moment, like our own here in UK, are so divided and partisan, the words 'reasonable debate' have been discontinued for the forseeable future.

Bingo!

[kansasr]

A thousand NO's ! Talk of The Villages is a much more pleasant place these days.

[billethkid]

To each his own. I for one favor being able to discuss those things going on in the world that have or will affect our lives.

Yes there will always be a loose cannon or two.

And unfortunately the forum and the majority of it's participants are tarred and tainted by the few.

Amazing how that works.

Yes let's have a spot to discuss world shaking events. Opt in.
Mis-behave get booted out.

If one opts in....they are not entitled to go back to the regular forum and complain about the content.

[saratogaman]

Those who want a "political' blog should create their own and not again poison this one. Most of us are not interested in the noisy, childish nonsense that permeated this blog before. We've learned our lesson. We have moved on.

[billethkid]

Those who want a "political' blog should create their own and not again poison this one. Most of us are not interested in the noisy, childish nonsense that permeated this blog before. We've learned our lesson. We have moved on.

Unfair condemnation of the majority who did it correctly.

[Taltarzac725]

Unfair condemnation of the majority who did it correctly.

Most of us behaved most of the time. It just got so full of cyber bullies who are a huge problem for the Internet. And these people on that other Forum would post a very large number of vicious personal attacks on their targets. And this was a daily occurrence.

[Northwoods]

I think an "intelligent" civil discussion of political events would be a good thing. But, like the many lawn ornaments in people's lawns, some people just don't think they have to play by the rules....

[Tweety Bird]

This whole “debate thing” could turn ugly

[Nucky]

Although I really like the OP'S request and was just thinking about this same issue myself I don't think it would last more than the first 10 pages before it turned bad.

Do you remember how bad it really was? Do You? There is still a hangover of bad will from the old days. People who can't let anything but there point of view be highlighted. Many of the Grudges and Shots you see are based on the Thread That Was.

I do like the idea of give and take and being tolerant of the other person's views. Maybe I, or we could learn something.

That Forum has been gone for several years and although our Forum is a nicer place people still jab at each other based on what they know about other people's political beliefs from the old days.

So, in conclusion, I believe in a short period of time no matter what side you support all I see is it evolving into a Viper Pit in a short period of time. Great thought but the

reality is not good. I give the OP a lot of credit for the idea. Good Job!

[graciegirl]

It can't be a fair debate ever with the overwhelming majority of one party living here. That further fuels the anger and frustration for the minority party and things would go south quick.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It can't be a fair debate ever with the overwhelming majority of one party living here. That further fuels the anger and frustration for the minority party and things would go south quick.

Anger and frustration for the minority party, and all other parties, including the unaffiliated. Not all of us have embraced one particular party over the other and prefer to participate in our duty to vote as independents.

[anothersteve]

Look back.........who always starts the attacks, even when a "discussion" starts off seemingly innocent. There are a few here that are ripe with their condescending and holier than tho attitude and thoughts. Political "discussions" will always go over as well as fart in church here.
Steve

[Nucky]

Not specifically pointing to any post that's already happened but as an example of why a P.C. Thread shouldn't come back will be tomorrow. This thread will go south. You'll see.

[jebartle]

It is so easy to crawl in our comfortable corner and assume (we all know how to spell that word) that we have all the answers, but, but, maybe we could learn something from that debate and discover there is another answer, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a black and white issue but a "gray" one, maybe, just maybe!

[jebartle]

We could call the forum, Fact Check, just like a real debate, no name calling, no personal attacks, just like "Dragnet" and Jack Webb were famous for saying, "the facts Mam, only the facts"

[Two Bills]

Look at the standard of debate on the site that cannot be spoken of.
Someone will post a politcal opinion/letter, and within minutes the so called debate gets down to sewer level.
Moderation would be a nightmare, there are plenty of sites 'off campus' to vent on, if that is a persons want.
Keep politics and religeon out of TOTV. JMO.

[dewilson58]

Views & Opinions were never changed or impacted by the debates, just expressed ad nauseam.

[Nucky]

We could call the forum, Fact Check, just like a real debate, no name calling, no personal attacks, just like "Dragnet" and Jack Webb were famous for saying, "the facts Mam, only the facts"

I guess a Real Debate is possible. I would hope for that also but we would Probably hear 1 Adam 12 instead. :1rotfl:

Best of luck. If you get this done I'll participate and behave. :)

[karostay]

Moderators rules are the Moderators rules...Abide or face the consequences

[Ben Franklin]

No thanks. I'll stick with the words of George Washington in his farewell address.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of [political] parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another..."

[DeanFL]

My response to a "debate" request. NO.

I respect other's opinions on any subject - as long as they respect mine. The slippery slope becomes an avalanche too soon and too many times.

Nope.

[JimJohnson]

Political debate should be conducted face to face and I am real happy that it is not allowed here. The moderators already have a full time job trying to keep personal attacks and sarcasm out of threads. In the infamous words of Rodney King, CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG. an idea, would be to start a political debate GROUP on Facebook.

[Velvet]

As much as I would love to hear debate and see the various points of views, I feel, given how quickly even the president’s arrival thread disappeared.... makes me wonder how long people could contain themselves.

[New Englander]

I'd like to see the political forum return. I could discuss politics in a civil way. If posters break the rules, give them a time out.

[jebartle]

I would hope that we could put aside our political prejudice and who knows , we might just discover we were wrong, imagine that! Too bad we can't pick a "salad bar" of different views. Last time I checked neither party had all the answers. Another option, questions given to moderator to choose thru a poll. Answer, yes no, or maybe! Just a thought, May we all keep an open mind and put aside our differences . Peace!

[billethkid]

It could be easy to control.
Make it opt in...easy for those those who dislike political discussion....do not opt in!
Use same ID as in regular TOTV.
Enable ignore feature.
Give behavior violators 3 strikes and your out. The moderator would warn them up to three times....not just in one thread but overall.
Upon getting the third strike remove them from TOTV......maybe 30 days first time....60 days second time, etc.

Since the violators are a small minority count, it would not be long before they are weeded/struck out.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It could be easy to control.
Make it opt in...easy for those those who dislike political discussion....do not opt in!
Use same ID as in regular TOTV.
Enable ignore feature.
Give behavior violators 3 strikes and your out. The moderator would warn them up to three times....not just in one thread but overall.
Upon getting the third strike remove them from TOTV......maybe 30 days first time....60 days second time, etc.

Since the violators are a small minority count, it would not be long before they are weeded/struck out.

The ignore feature doesn't do any good if someone else quotes the person you're ignoring. A debate thread would suck up most of the moderators' time and efforts - and don't forget the mods have opinions as well - if they see a thread that busts their buttons, but isn't violating something, it's just more stress that they really shouldn't have to deal with.

That said - if such a forum option was to be returned, it should be a) opt-in only and b) violators are simply banned from that forum option. Not allowed to read or participate in that forum, but still have access as usual to the regular forum, with the usual rules.

[New Englander]

It could be easy to control.
Make it opt in...easy for those those who dislike political discussion....do not opt in!
Use same ID as in regular TOTV.
Enable ignore feature.
Give behavior violators 3 strikes and your out. The moderator would warn them up to three times....not just in one thread but overall.
Upon getting the third strike remove them from TOTV......maybe 30 days first time....60 days second time, etc.

Since the violators are a small minority count, it would not be long before they are weeded/struck out.

:agree:

[dewilson58]

Moderators rules are the Moderators rules...Abide or face the consequences






:bigbow:







:MOJE_whot:

[Aloha1]

If you want a "political forum", I suggest you go over to "the on line paper which must not be named" and see how long you can stomach it.

[Topspinmo]

Nobody twisting you’re arms to open up the politicial forum and post are they.

[Jdmiata]

No , no , no. Let the political people argue somewhere else.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

No , no , no. Let the political people argue somewhere else.

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

[JimJohnson]

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

If you could go back several years, there was a small group of posters that dominated the “P” forum that seemed to be dedicated to only allow a very narrow opinion as to what was acceptable. Please, don’t reopen that wound.

[billethkid]

Once upon a time when life was more simple....when one heard or observed something not to their liking...they just ignored it.

Now in the age of the keyboard and social anonymity every mole hill can be presented as a mountain...and as all encompassing even when an isolated incident/instance...whether true or not...real or not...et al.

Freedom of speech and expression constantly being challenged.

Our lives are constantly bombarded all day and every day in the news, the movies, almost all sports etc, etc.

I still find the old way to be most effective. It is just too easy to ignore that which I have no interest in. And as for going in places where I know the content is not to my liking...simple again...JUST DON'T GO IN.

[Bogie Shooter]

This is a slippery slope. Often here on this forum, I see questioned posed as innocent inquiries about this or that topic - but they, and everyone else, knows that the answer to the question involves politics that aren't allowed on the forum.

So they bounce around the topic, edging close to that line between "allowed" and "verbotten" and it serves to irritate pretty much everyone, because they know they can't REALLY answer the question.

Members do this on purpose. To see who will cross that line. Maybe hoping to get someone banned, maybe just so they can call that person out in the future as "one of THOSE people who believe [insert belief here]."

If we can't talk about politics, then all discussions about anything political should be not allowed. That would include announcements of political figures coming to visit. They can find that information out on the Daily Sun, the Vi11age-News, the Ocala rag, the Leesburg weekly, and everywhere else that has local political news.

Complaining about the traffic caused by a [insert candidate] 2020 club golf cart parade, or a [insert candidate]2020 picket party, is just a poor disguise for a post daring and double-daring people to post political responses.

So we either stop it ALL - or we provide a place for it and enforce it. You want to talk about the condition of the Sharon, when you went to see you know who? Then put it in the political forum. Otherwise, leave who you saw out of the post. His existence had nothing to do with the condition of the Sharon.

That is an example I made up to demonstrate what I mean by disguising political talk with seemingly innocent posts. You don't care about the condition of the sharon. You just want to make sure everyone knows you went to see you-know-who.

I'm guessing this would be up to the folks that run TOTV. Not the we that use this site.

[jebartle]

Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news. ALL news media have NEWS and OPINIONS, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to acknowledge where the TRUTH lies, it's important that we have discourse AND treat each other with respect more importantly, I know we can do this, I really do!

[billethkid]

Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news. ALL news media have NEWS and OPINIONS, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to acknowledge where the TRUTH lies, it's important that we have discourse AND treat each other with respect more importantly, I know we can do this, I really do!

Without a doubt...incorporating the weeding out of those FEW bent on disruption....

[ColdNoMore]

Snip...>Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news<...Snip

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

In spite of proof from legitimate sources showing otherwise, there will always be those who not only refuse to do their own research to get to the truth...but try to denigrate those who do.

Whether from an ineptness in the basic technical ability to provide legitimate links, or simply a refusal to believe them ('confirmation bias') there is a significant faction who choose to go by their gut feelings...instead of actual facts.

There is however a recent glimmer, albeit a dim one, that those who promulgate the most outrageous, putrid and vicious false conspiracy theories...may be held accountable for such.

Sandy Hook Really DID Happen. (poke here) (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandy-hook-father-receive-450-000-conspiracy-theorist-jury-says-n1068026)

Sandy Hook father to receive $450,000 from conspiracy theorist, jury says.

Retired professor James Fetzer, co-author of the book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," was found guilty in June of defaming Leonard Pozner.

I also find it telling that some folks think a debate, based on actual facts, can't be enlightening/legitimate...if there's a majority that feel a certain way.

It's as if, they believe that..."might=right." :oops:

THAT, in itself...explains a lot. :ohdear:

Oh yeah, as far as a forum for discussing politics, the ONLY way it could ever work is if it was constantly & fairly moderated...which is beyond reasonable (regarding the "constantly," not the "fairly" part) by the volunteer moderators.

Recognizing, of course, that even if someone is proved to be dead wrong on an issue, they won't change their opinion anyway...they'll just try to change the subject.

[EdFNJ]

That forum overall was vile and disgusting. Yes, it was NOT everyone but it was a lot. Funny part everyone thought they were anonymous but if you used Tapatalk app your regular username appeared. That forum came close to us not moving here because people were writing what they actually believed since they THOUGHT they were anonymous and if so many of them believed what they were writing it was quite frightening. I still see some people here who now look like Clark Kent but were then a bit unnerving behind the wall of assumed anonymity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nucky]

There are several posts that really seem reasonable to a modest person like me. They actually got me to start thinking that it may not be that bad to have the thread back in action and then suddenly The Crux Of The Problem really reignited my Orignal Thought. Fuhgeddaboudit.

The Powers That Be Don't want TOTV'S to go backward. Onward and Upward. Kumbaya! I still respect both points of view. If I owned the joint it would be a no go. Time to Wrap It Up And Shut It Down!

[Aloha1]

There can be no winners in this debate. Move on.

[billethkid]

:popcorn::popcorn:

[jebartle]

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

In spite of proof from legitimate sources showing otherwise, there will always be those who not only refuse to do their own research to get to the truth...but try to denigrate those who do.

Whether from an ineptness in the basic technical ability to provide legitimate links, or simply a refusal to believe them ('confirmation bias') there is a significant faction who choose to go by their gut feelings...instead of actual facts.

There is however a recent glimmer, albeit a dim one, that those who promulgate the most outrageous, putrid and vicious false conspiracy theories...may be held accountable for such.

Sandy Hook Really DID Happen. (poke here) (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandy-hook-father-receive-450-000-conspiracy-theorist-jury-says-n1068026)


I also find it telling that some folks think a debate, based on actual facts, can't be enlightening/legitimate...if there's a majority that feel a certain way.

It's as if, they believe that..."might=right." :oops:

THAT, in itself...explains a lot. :ohdear:

Oh yeah, as far as a forum for discussing politics, the ONLY way it could ever work is if it was constantly & fairly moderated...which is beyond reasonable (regarding the "constantly," not the "fairly" part) by the volunteer moderators.

Recognizing, of course, that even if someone is proved to be dead wrong on an issue, they won't change their opinion anyway...they'll just try to change the subject.

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

[JimJohnson]

I truly wish those wanting to debate political issues could find a place to do that, but, I also hope it never happens on TOTV again. I was here during the political forum days to include the opt in/out option. I look forward to my daily coffee and TOTV time. Even times, like right now when sleep eludes me. Call me silly, but I would rather promote love and understanding above things we can’t seem to agree on. I like feel good movies more than violent movies. I would prefer to read a story about helping those in need more so than name calling that inevitably happens when political debate comes into play. Even when we had that forum with the opt in/out requirement, you could easily see how the disagreements would filter over to the rest of the site. So, again, I hope those that want it, find it, but I also thank the TOTV monitors and management for their forethought to discourage argument and personal attacks on this site.

[OlifOlif]

I wish to discuss the issues on why those not within the track are seeking new differences between the lines of choice and what it takes to become the notion of all one!

[soniak4@gmail.com]

I have been part of and pulled out of many social media forums. Civility is not and will not rear its head until the political climate in this country changes. As long as people can hide behind the curtain of social media, they will not behave, they will not be civil and they will not respect anyone for having an opinion. So, no, leave TOTV as is. No politics. Thanks for making the change.

[Bandb875]

I agree. To be good citizens we must be involved in politics. Civil discourse is required. No shouting (or all CAPS), no unfounded "facts", no grandstanding. Let's talk. We can be better than congress. We should, perhaps must, have different opinions. We can seek balance.

[JimJohnson]

No shouting (or all CAPS), no unfounded "facts", no grandstanding. Let's talk.

Really???:pray::1rotfl:

Sorry, I could not help myself.

[dewilson58]

Those who want...............Open a Facebook page.

[Joanne19335]

Absolutely not! I had to replace the windshield on my golf cart because someone of a different opinion decided he or she did not like one of my political stickers. It was a very small one compared to many I see on carts and lawns when I pass by. We are embroiled in a very hot and dangerous difference of opinions here in TV. This is not the forum for political discussions.

[Bridget Staunton]

Totally agree, God made us all different therefore we have different opinions. Let’s be civil and treat everyone with respect

[runkcrun]

I know, I know, you have made it "perfectly clear" that we have not been good girls and boys when discussing "_olitics", but if we promise to put our big boy pants on and debate like we did in high school because in the next year there are so many important issues that all posters could discover FACTS that have eluded all of us. Let's debate without profanity or personal attacks. I know, back in the day, our debate club would have our butt beat! So what do you say?????
NO, NO, NO

This is not the place for that type of discussion.

[robinsdw2]

No, no, no

[Croakn12]

There is no such thing as a civil discussion of politics. The two sides are so far apart that civility has completely disappeared. Please keep your politics to yourself so I can like you for what I see not what defines your political beliefs.

[SUENRAN]

Political debate has become toxic and divisive. I too am against the politicization of this great site. Don't we already have enough soapboxes?

[Polar Bear]

Just in case this thread is seen as a vote...my vote is ‘no’.

[EnglishJW]

Political debate should be conducted face to face and I am real happy that it is not allowed here. The moderators already have a full time job trying to keep personal attacks and sarcasm out of threads. In the infamous words of Rodney King, CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG. an idea, would be to start a political debate GROUP on Facebook.

Facebook is a channel available to all of us. The perspective would be broader that just TV which is what I assume most people would want. There would not be an overwhelmed group (e.g., democrats or independents). You can engage in these converations now. That is the good news.

Now for the bad news. There are rarely any real "debates." There are some but the majority of issues quickly devolve into name calling, emotional responses, self-interest agendas, etc.

I think the idea is a good one IF we (all of us) could act responsibly. However, I don't believe all of us would act responsibly. Hence, I agree with the moderators. We learned a lesson. No need to repeat it.

[regas56]

aaaand the "nays" have it..

[BigHoss18]

I absolutely agree. Create some standards, set expectations, and maybe even a “3 strikes” rule for borderline statements.

[Byte1]

I think it would be interesting to have a political discussion here. Unlike the local anti-Villager news site, one party would not be able to dominate and run the other off with the assistance of a biased moderator. Being kept civil, would no doubt preclude some from entering the foray. It should be obvious by now, that there are limited REAL political discussions on goals, ambitions and agenda of politicians that aren't perverted by a biased media.

[deestatham]

ABSOLUTELY AGREE. Let’s put on our big person Depends and DISCUSS the issues with thought and facts, not anger and rumor. It will be very thought provoking to understand the other point of view. Nasty comments just prove why your point is wrong. I’m all in!!!

[Byte1]

...........and I think we already know why some would NOT want an honest political discussion. Interesting that some find it impossible to participate in a civil manner, therefore demand censorship and feel that one forum would ruin the whole site. I wonder why. Why is it that some cannot refrain from making decisions for others? Why would it bother anyone that does not wish to participate?

[billethkid]

Facebook is a channel available to all of us. The perspective would be broader that just TV which is what I assume most people would want. There would not be an overwhelmed group (e.g., democrats or independents). You can engage in these converations now. That is the good news.

Now for the bad news. There are rarely any real "debates." There are some but the majority of issues quickly devolve into name calling, emotional responses, self-interest agendas, etc.

I think the idea is a good one IF we (all of us) could act responsibly. However, I don't believe all of us would act responsibly. Hence, I agree with the moderators. We learned a lesson. No need to repeat it.

Some of us are not asking for a repetition we all know does not/did not work.
We are suggesting to take what we "have learned" and modify the rules of participation that allow the majority that follow the rules to continue to participate.
There will always be the few in any quorum....so since we have learned a lesson let's fix it.
It would be nice to set aside whether folks like to discuss politics or not. Then set up a political forum that works for those who opt in/want to participate.

[CFrance]

Some of us are not asking for a repetition we all know does not/did not work.
We are suggesting to take what we "have learned" and modify the rules of participation that allow the majority that follow the rules to continue to participate.
There will always be the few in any quorum....so since we have learned a lesson let's fix it.
It would be nice to set aside whether folks like to discuss politics or not. Then set up a political forum that works for those who opt in/want to participate.


The anonymity would have to go. Then for it to remain civil, TOTV would have to moderate it, and I wonder if there are just not enough moderators to do that.

[Byte1]

If you want a "political forum", I suggest you go over to "the on line paper which must not be named" and see how long you can stomach it.

Actually, that "paper" allows one side to dominate and eliminate any opposing views and then ban the whole side from participation in the discussion. Very few dissenting comments last long enough for anyone to view. IT is a biased forum, unlike this one was during the last presidential campaign. Yes, there was a free for all here, but most were villagers and most adhered to the rules. I believe from reading it occasionally, that most posters were not villagers and many anti-Villages.
Even at it's worst, the political forum on TOTV was mostly decent, several opposing folks even offering to share refreshments at a local establishment.

[billethkid]

The anonymity would have to go. Then for it to remain civil, TOTV would have to moderate it, and I wonder if there are just not enough moderators to do that.

One suggestion? Run it like TV does it's deed restrictions.... complaint driven.

8-)

[Pamelah]

I think debates are good but responses should be even sided. ( this coming from a democrat in a heavy republican area 😉). Too bad really nasty comments can’t be deleted before posting.

[Dilligas]

The government and worship can not be debated on an internet blog. In both areas the participants have strong opinions (right or wrong) and have difficulty expressing their views logically and unemotionally. Many of the two areas leaders have one sided views and blinders on, providing statements that are biased, non-factual, and or out of context opinions. I handle my views in worship and in voting, not in a blog.

[Byte1]

For those that are adamantly against a political discussion, why is it that you feel that others cannot discuss without your finding it impossible to restrain yourself from entering the discussion? Is there some reason that you feel that others should not discuss politics, just based on the idea that you feel that it is abhorrent to you? Do you not have the ability to ignore the subject matter area and move on to say, "speed bumps, bonds, dog droppings and stickers on mailboxes?" I am puzzled that if you do not like politics and do not wish to know what is going on or other folks opinion, you feel that NO one should be allowed the freedom of discussion. TOTV is a great representative of the First Amendment, even though it is privately run and totally up to them how it is operated. Either way they make their decision, they still have a great means of moving news and communications in the Villages. KUDOS!

[Topspinmo]

There can be no winners in this debate. Move on.
Depends on whether you get the debate questions before the debate:)

[billethkid]

For those that are adamantly against a political discussion, why is it that you feel that others cannot discuss without your finding it impossible to restrain yourself from entering the discussion? Is there some reason that you feel that others should not discuss politics, just based on the idea that you feel that it is abhorrent to you? Do you not have the ability to ignore the subject matter area and move on to say, "speed bumps, bonds, dog droppings and stickers on mailboxes?" I am puzzled that if you do not like politics and do not wish to know what is going on or other folks opinion, you feel that NO one should be allowed the freedom of discussion. TOTV is a great representative of the First Amendment, even though it is privately run and totally up to them how it is operated. Either way they make their decision, they still have a great means of moving news and communications in the Villages. KUDOS!

How very well said!!!
:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[rrb48310]

The state of US politics at the moment, like our own here in UK, are so divided and partisan, the words 'reasonable debate' have been discontinued for the forseeable future.

:BigApplause: YES

Why go there? The Villages is such a beautiful and entertaining place, it’s like a big family of friends. The rule at my family/friends gatherings is no discussions of politics or religion. Let us enjoy our retirement and keep blood pressure down, it will be healthier for everyone.
:Screen_of_Death:

[Chi-Town]

The political forum had its share of racists, bullies, and just plain mean spirited posts. A few of those in that group are still here and others probably on the sideline. There is no doubt that history would repeat itself for the third time.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Kathyatthebeach]

NO , keep politics out ..... Warm Walt

[queasy27]

For those that are adamantly against a political discussion, why is it that you feel that others cannot discuss without your finding it impossible to restrain yourself from entering the discussion? Is there some reason that you feel that others should not discuss politics, just based on the idea that you feel that it is abhorrent to you?

For me, politics aren't intrinsically abhorrent and I've never read any of the forum incarnations here. What I do believe is that antagonism and personal grudges from political opinions have seeped into the regular forums and fostered ill will and factions.

[jebartle]

It is so important that we keep dialog , who knows maybe we might learn a "thing or two" from each other.

[Madelaine Amee]

For those that are adamantly against a political discussion, why is it that you feel that others cannot discuss without your finding it impossible to restrain yourself from entering the discussion? Is there some reason that you feel that others should not discuss politics, just based on the idea that you feel that it is abhorrent to you? Do you not have the ability to ignore the subject matter area and move on to say, "speed bumps, bonds, dog droppings and stickers on mailboxes?" I am puzzled that if you do not like politics and do not wish to know what is going on or other folks opinion, you feel that NO one should be allowed the freedom of discussion. TOTV is a great representative of the First Amendment, even though it is privately run and totally up to them how it is operated. Either way they make their decision, they still have a great means of moving news and communications in the Villages. KUDOS!

Unfortunately political debate on this forum was beyond disgusting, the name calling and threatening was getting rather frightening. However, there are two excellent clubs in TV where you can debate politics, there is the older one Civil Discourse and a new group called Controversial Subjects. Both allow debate and discussion in a civilized manner with no name calling. You state your case and it goes from there. However, in both these clubs you cannot hide behind your computer, you are face to face with the world and your views are on display for all to see and discuss. Some interesting and intelligent debates.

[Nucky]

With the approval of The Moderators, why don't we have a test give and take and I'll pick the participants? That will settle this in two minutes.

[billethkid]

Unfortunately political debate on this forum was beyond disgusting, the name calling and threatening was getting rather frightening. However, there are two excellent clubs in TV where you can debate politics, there is the older one Civil Discourse and a new group called Controversial Subjects. Both allow debate and discussion in a civilized manner with no name calling. You state your case and it goes from there. However, in both these clubs you cannot hide behind your computer, you are face to face with the world and your views are on display for all to see and discuss. Some interesting and intelligent debates.

I still do not understand why perceptions like the above are presented as a general description of the political forum....yes there was a minority of those who deserve to be categorized as such.....the majority of us played by the rules.

[Madelaine Amee]

I still do not understand why perceptions like the above are presented as a general description of the political forum....yes there was a minority of those who deserve to be categorized as such.....the majority of us played by the rules.

As is often the case, the minority was louder than the majority!

[billethkid]

As is often the case, the minority was louder than the majority!


Hence the majority loses another one......an unfortunate growing trend in America!!

[Chi-Town]

One can feel the pent up political yearnings.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[angiden]

Politics. HELL NO.. Too many obnoxious people

[Mumbles]

A thousand NO's ! Talk of The Villages is a much more pleasant place these days.

Well, I agree whole-heartedly about the peaceful ambience around here. However, there are those among us who LOVE to debate things, and it does have a place among those who like it. I mean TRUE debate, NOT arguments that leave other people's hair on fire.

There is no desperate need to read EVERY blurb anyway. Thus, there is no desperate need to knock down the idea of _olitical debate in specific threads about _olitics.
. C'mon now, we are OLD enough to know when to back off. If not, perhaps we are not as old as others say we are.

* Dad used to say, "The guy in the car in front of you is an escaped village idiot. Don't get him angry."

[Mumbles]

Bwaaahahahaha!

[Northwoods]

Absolutely not! I had to replace the windshield on my golf cart because someone of a different opinion decided he or she did not like one of my political stickers. It was a very small one compared to many I see on carts and lawns when I pass by. We are embroiled in a very hot and dangerous difference of opinions here in TV. This is not the forum for political discussions.
That is just sad. I don't even know what your political leanings are. It doesn't matter. That's just sad.

[billethkid]

Starting to look/sound like time to sit back and watch for a while

:popcorn::popcorn:

[carenrn1]

Politics as a topic has its place and its not on Talk of the Villages.

Friendships can be lost and grudges kept. Politics is also not a place to be brought up on Facebook. I have friends that have unfriended "friends" because of their political views e.g. comments stated on current political views and they no longer keep in contact with those people. I don't want this to happen here. I discontinued my Facebook account because I got fed up with all the politics. Let's keep The Villages Florida's friendliest home town!

[Nucky]

Really nice to see so many new people with very few posts chiming in and getting involved in this discussion. Many of the things that billethkid mentioned are true and were buzzed over. Who wouldn't have high hopes that it could work? I am very interested in what's going on but not interested in changing anyone's outlook at all. I did enjoy the constructive posts on the old Thread.

For all the new people who were not active on TOTV'S when the Thread in question was A Glowing Hot Ember I can tell you near the end there were personal threats, constant teaching, and cyberbullying that was down rite sad and people mentioned that it was possibly illegal. Don't know if thats true but the Thread came to an end shortly after the illegal aspect reared its ugly head. I don't want to be any part of something like that again. So if this does work out I'm in to start but if it goes bad I want to be able to opt-out if I want to.

Welcome to all the new Posters. So nice to have you on board.

[dewilson58]

Political Debate:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


:blahblahblah:


Everyone has their side, no one will crossover or change.


Save the keystrokes.


:duck:

[Byte1]

Politics. HELL NO.. Too many obnoxious people

If one does not wish to participate, why deny it for others? Does the temptation to participate override one's ability to abstain?

[Byte1]

Politics as a topic has its place and its not on Talk of the Villages.

Friendships can be lost and grudges kept. Politics is also not a place to be brought up on Facebook. I have friends that have unfriended "friends" because of their political views e.g. comments stated on current political views and they no longer keep in contact with those people. I don't want this to happen here. I discontinued my Facebook account because I got fed up with all the politics. Let's keep The Villages Florida's friendliest home town!

"Unfriending" anyone based on one's political preference is immature in my opinion. I have a family member that I would debate politics with to the point where our spouses thought we were about to go to blows, but when supper was announced, we would laugh and retreat to the dining room. We have never been so close as we are today, and we are both with in the same small arena of the same ideology and we both end up voting for the same candidates. You see, you can be of the same party and yet still debate goals/agendas of your ideology. If my neighbor is not of common political ideology, I simply do not discuss politics with them. Being of differing political preferences does not make ANYONE my enemy and I consider them no worst than if they liked brussel sprouts, when the thought of those sprouts cause me nauseating images.
I would like to see the political forum reopened again for the upcoming presidential campaign, regardless of immature comments. If it becomes nasty enough to anger me, then I simply do as I do now on other forums and opt out of participating. I consider nasty comments to be a sign that the opposing view has won their argument and the debate is over.
Florida gives the motorcyclist the option of wearing a helmet or not. Florida gives the responsibility of motorcycle safety to the operator, not the government. Not being mandated to wear a helmet does not mean that one CANNOT wear a helmet, it just allows one to make their own choice.
Start up the political forum and assure the members of TOTV that they are not mandated to participate....:)

[Moderator]

This has been an interesting discussion with a variety of opinions. Political discussions/forums have been tried several different times in several different ways on TOTV and ultimately end up with the same fate. The discussions become personal, nasty, partisan, name calling of public officials, etc. And then, that tone tends to bleed over into the regular forums. It's unfortunate that we cannot maintain civil, topical discussions on important issues but such is the nature of today's cyberspace. I'm sure those intent on such discussions can find other online venues to participate.

Political discussions will not be returning to TOTV.


Thread closed.