• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Poll: Should we keep the Politics forum

Should we keep or get rid of the Politics forum?

  • Keep

    Votes: 14 53.8%

  • Get rid of

    Votes: 12 46.2%
  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anything political related to nuclear threats is automatically a Geopolitics issue which has its own subsection.

So why have a political subsection. Abortion and Gun rights have zero relation to nuclear threats which is what this website hyper exclusively monitors and assess. And is also what people come here for.
 
NuclearID said:
So why have a political subsection. Abortion and Gun rights have zero relation to nuclear threats which is what this website hyper exclusively monitors and assess. And is also what people come here for.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the election of politicians affect a country's nuclear policy?
 
NuclearID said:
Anything political related to nuclear threats is automatically a Geopolitics issue which has its own subsection.

So why have a political subsection. Abortion and Gun rights have zero relation to nuclear threats which is what this website hyper exclusively monitors and assess. And is also what people come here for.
Click to expand...
Economics, natural disasters, and humor have nothing to do with nuclear threats either so by that logic we should get rid of those sections as well.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Doesn't the election of politicians affect a country's nuclear policy?
Click to expand...
The election itself, no. But whatever the elected or would be elected official says would be if it relates to nuclear threats. Say if the running candidate wants to put a no fly zone over Ukraine or Syria (one of the two) as Hilary Clinton did.

But that would be geopolitical not political and not about the election itself.
 
RockerMan said:
Economics, natural disasters, and humor have nothing to do with nuclear threats either so by that logic we should get rid of those sections as well.
Click to expand...
But logic has nothing to do with politics. Sometimes logic is completely absent in politics. :ROFLMAO:

I support keeping the politics forum. I would support a subscription wall for political forums if feasible and cheap as a compromise solution.
 
NuclearID said:
The election itself, no
Click to expand...
Absolutely it does. The people elected will be the ones who get a country into or out of a war.

NuclearID said:
But that would be geopolitical not political and not about the election itself.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Debating between Candidate A and Candidate B should not go into Geopolitics.
 
Personally, I think there aren’t a whole lot of topics and subjects within US politics that actually relates to Nuclear War.

Discussing political strategy, political science, specific pieces of intel, military movements etc, is required to maintain an accurate understanding of where we are at defcon-wise. Topics like abortion, LGBTQ issues, government shutdown, illegal immigration, ICE, etc don’t have anything of contributing value, with regards to the defcon level.

Having the politics section seems a bit pointless, as it is currently. I hate to see all speech and opinion blocked here, but I would counter and say yes, the politics section as we know it should be gone. What should replace it is temporary pop-up topics/sections for specific world events, like elections, and alien contact, and eventually exopolitics should we get there. These are just examples. People do need an outlet occasionally.
 
I say keep the forum. Killing it will not stamp out political poo-flinging. Instead, people will simply debate politics in other forums - including the geopolitics forum.

It's mostly US politics that gets debated anyway, and you can rightfully argue that US political turmoil has geopolitical implications.
 
Socom7 said:
It's mostly US politics that gets debated anyway, and you can rightfully argue that US political turmoil has geopolitical implications.
Click to expand...
You can absolutely argue this. However, moderators have to work their tails off to keep that section civil, and 80% of the time at least, the thread gets closed to further discussion because people can’t help themselves but to debate the person and not the position, then insults get thrown, and it becomes a mess.

DEFCON Warning System, in order to be taken as a serious player on the web for unbiased, level headed intelligence analysis, can’t have a bunch of butthurt keyboard warriors slinging arrows at each other all day. No one will take the site seriously if political biases are brought into the open. Intel analysis is just about the most Omni-partisan thing you can imagine.
 
Spyglass said:
DEFCON Warning System, in order to be taken as a serious player on the web for unbiased, level headed intelligence analysis, can’t have a bunch of butthurt keyboard warriors slinging arrows at each other all day.
Click to expand...
standing-ovation.gif
 
Sad people want to see this place held back. Because DWS truly can't reach it's full potential with that diseased limb attached to the forums. Needs to be amputated.
 
NuclearID said:
Sad people want to see this place held back. Because DWS truly can't reach it's full potential with that diseased limb attached to the forums. Needs to be amputated.
Click to expand...
It's important that when you express an opinion, that you don't sit on the fence. Make sure to tell us how you really feel. It's sometimes hard to tell. :). /Sarcasm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom