[Polar Bear]

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

[EnglishJW]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by EnglishJW

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]

Originally Posted by billethkid

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

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

Depends on whether you get the debate questions before the debate