Dispute with mod

Given the fact that we have a poster actively claiming it as nonsense even in this thread, I think it's absolutely necessary to have it pointed to. Posters frequently treat the two candidates as if it's a level playing field when the reality is one of the candidates is an atrocious human being. If they're free to yelp Trump derangement syndrome, implicate Harris in Epstein style cover ups etc. Factual statements get less lee way than a lot of nonsense.

Agree … demand from mods that they need to be engaged in the forum they are moderating, keep a finger on the pulse, this will result in more robust discussion being made possible. IMHO

What ever happened Gordon? he was great craic, he could take as good as he gave aswell

I remember 4 years ago 'sleepy joe' was banned but you could say what you liked about Trump, swings and roundabouts

look fair enough - it’s your “battle” - chose to run it whatever way you see fit. If there wasn’t this concerted effort to post the obvious nearly hourly no less daily, it would have likely have just naturally appeared every so often anyway in conversation -as I said above I don’t get the “crusade” on an Irish website where most of us are fairly clued in anyway - maybe on some southern state US discussion forum it would make better sense- 99% of us aren’t voting in this election and are free to post observations around what life might be like from an economic and political perspective with this man in power- it doesn’t mean we support his actions - and in no way shape or form, can such a conclusion be taken. Just to be clear on that.

What would you call popping into a thread, making a false claim or a claim based on misrepresented evidence, not engaging in replies… disappearing, returning, repeating same conduct? I call it trolling, some version of it at least. In a current affairs political thread, I don't see the basis for this "nobody owes an answer" to anyone rule, when people are making statements of fact \ factual claims. That is not discussion in my understanding of it.
I would also add, before the 50 post requirement, the US politics threads in CA were particularly badly hit by re-reg trolls, which the mods cleaned up.

And if the thread is as pro-Harris as you say, then what is the issue in calling Trump what he is, a rapist?

But there is a significant minority on the threads, who are either openly pro-Trump or relentlessly anti-Harris \ Democrat.

If other posters pleasure and enjoyment of this site requires that they be shielded from the statement of fact that Trump is a rapist, I don't see any merit to pandering to them.

Making such statements is not a 'crusade', it is an election thread and the character \ merits of the candidates as individuals is being discussed, their appeal \ lack of to certain demographics. To not be able to mention that Trump is a rapist is absurd in that context.

If Trump does win, then a thread for his Presidency focusing on his policies and decisions, I can see the logic behind having a separate thread for such things as the rape \ defamation case, from a thread focus perspective. But we are not at that stage yet.

You are conflating totally different things and mixing the rapist statement in with other stuff. Banning mention of Trump being a rapist wont change what you have described above. And if you have been following the thread you must be aware of posts where the slightest issue with Harris is jumped on for criticism meanwhile same posters overlook objectively far worse Trump failings.

Are you saying there are no circumstances in the election thread that stating Trump is a rapist is justified or relevant? None that dont "insult your intelligence"?

None?

I cant credit that at all.

I can just as easily turn around and say being unable to state public domain established facts about Trump in the context of his candidacy is: "an insult to my intelligence and it’s also closing down discussion and debate."

It is a public domain established fact.

Should we ban mention of such facts ?

Or maybe we should be banning those who generate the back and forth by disputing established facts whether that is about Trump or whatever.

“You are conflating totally different things and mixing the rapist statement in with other stuff. “

Eh, no I most certainly am not- you need to read my post above- I’ve clearly stated that had some posters not gone on some sort of personal mission to “inform” every poster about Trump, that it would likely have been simply mentioned referenced and discussed in a more natural and organic way - without ramming it down our throats every time a criticism of Harris was referred to- had it been left to this approach we wouldn’t be here right now as the issue likely wouldn’t have arisen to ban the mention of it.

“Banning mention of Trump being a rapist wont change what you have described above.”

Well it actually has - I haven’t seen that response since the new rule was brought in - and the thread is a better place for it- because people are now focused on polls strategy early voting ie all the things you’d expect people to be talking about in an election thread

It's amazing how a thread on a Mods actions have led to a pointless back and forth about Trump/sexual harassment. Both sides bickering and totally intransigent. Just a pointless and boring exercise that does nothing to enhance the discussion the OP began. And then they say the site is failing…any wonder.

Do you not think it's moved on because we're only a few weeks from this chapter being over?

I mean, I could put up that "lack of pirates is causing global warning" image, but I'd be (rightly) warned for it.

We still have posters here arguing against the fact that he is a rapist. Which is nuts.

90% of the folks complaing about Trump comments "derailing a Trump vs Harris" thread are looking for an echo chamber.

Theres a reason those vocal ones only pop up to dump a link, then whine about being ganged up on/attacked by a mob/Beasty when they are attempted to be engaged in a discussion.

Then its either complain about TDS and run off to post memes in a humour thread OR grab a flamethrower to get their "new" account banned, thus the vocal ones can start complaining about pro-Trump users being targeted and restart the cycle.

There must be a training course the behaviour follows such a strict script.