No US politics here. 7 march 2016

Img_4858

There will be no further discussion of US politics on SST.  You trolls can fight it out elsewhere.  Violators of this policy will be banned at the first violation.  There will be no discussion of this policy.  pl

This entry was posted in Administration, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to No US politics here. 7 march 2016

  1. Pat,
    I may have missed what triggered this new rule, and while I generally applaud trying to keep SST free of political vitriol, I’m a fan of giving people at least one warning. Mostly because I know I’m liable to forget this post and slip up at some point, and wouldn’t want to get myself banned. 🙂
    ~Jon

  2. Valissa says:

    Thank you!

  3. Master Slacker says:

    Thank You, too!

  4. Jag Pop says:

    Appreciate all you do

  5. Serge says:

    A very good decision.
    Completely off topic, but the ISIS attack yesterday on Tunisia from Libya has yet to be mentioned and represents a watershed event both for local and international politics regarding a possible intervention in the country. The first attack of its kind, 53 killed in a coordinated(albeit seemingly poorly-planned,and in the end,failed) attempt to take territorial control of a city pushing 100,000 in population.
    Abu Musab al Zarqawi said of Ben Gardane during the 2004-07 Iraq years after seeing the disproportionate number of Tunisians coming to jihad from the town: “If Ben Gardane had been located next to Fallujah, we would have liberated Iraq.”. The trend has continued today

  6. Degringolade says:

    Thank you very much for the decision.

  7. A. Pols says:

    While I understand and appreciate this policy, I do wonder how to separate domestic politics from foreign policy what with everyone tugging at the govt’s sleeve over foreign affairs. I participate in tech forums and even there people go nuts over politics and its connection, however tenuous, to the matters at hand.
    Your ire is well understood though; trying to run and moderate a comments section involves having to read crap that is bound to piss you off, stuff that never gets posted of course.
    Cheers…

  8. turcopolier says:

    A. Pols
    There is a limit to how much personal, sneering troll and partisan abuse I will put up with. some of these people take a childish pleasure in thinking they are mocking you without being direct. They are a joke that I do not appreciate. US politics provides a rich field for them. pl

  9. alba etie says:

    Serge
    And there is still talk of some type of EU / NATO military & diplomatic push in Libya too. Its also interesting that the US and African Union said they walloped Al Shabah north of Mogadishu yesterday . Al Shabah says its in direct competition with ISIS in the Horn of Africa – is that true ?

  10. alba etie says:

    Col. Lang
    Thank you for being such a professional & critical owner, referee and curator here SST . Its exactly this referring & curating that allows so many of we lay people to learn here at SST . We all need to remember that being here is a privelege not to be abused – ever .

  11. optimax says:

    My grandmother use to say that it is a secret ballot and it is nobodies business how she votes. She was part of the first generation of women given the vote in the US. God bless her soul.

  12. rjj says:


    [conspicuous compliance gesture to offset potential boundary trespasses]

  13. ked says:

    One of the things I’ve always respected about you Col, is the explicit principle,
    “This is my site and I run it the way I damn well please.”

  14. rjj says:

    If one were to request specific terms/period/duration of said ban, would it be construed as a discussion of the policy?

  15. Robb says:

    Thank you sir!

  16. turcopolier says:

    rjj
    Write me off-line about it please. pl

  17. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I generally agree with your sentiments in this brief post however it may become problematic as the campaign proceeds if foreign policy becomes a major differentiating issue. This will especially be the case if Clinton and Trump obtain their parties’ nominations and Hilary aggressively pursues cross-over votes from neocon sympathizers and Trump doubles down on the hints he’s dropped about moving foreign policy needle somewhat toward what J.Q. Adams expressed in his 1820 speech as Secretary of State in the Monroe administration:
    “[The United States] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

  18. Medicine Man says:

    I can’t say I blame you, Col. Personally I have been avoiding all threads directly devoted to politics on SST for months now.

  19. Lars says:

    As we march on in history, I also think it will be hard to separate domestic and foreign policy. That does not mean that you can’t separate discussion about policy and politics. Most discussions about politics are largely meaningless, since they are mostly based on opinions. Given, as it has been declared, that the US is the most important nation at this time, it is of value to discover what policies, both domestic and foreign, various pretenders espouse. They do indeed matter.
    But even discussions about policy can become messy. The good news is that there is a rather comprehensive body of actual knowledge to be found in these pages. It may result in opinions, but that can be illuminating.

  20. turcopolier says:

    Lars
    The no-politics ban does not extend to interactions of US politics and foreign affairs. What I don’t want is political advocacy on SST. pl

  21. LeaNder says:

    Pat, if I may, thanks for this note.
    Can’t help, but it triggers this:
    “Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.”
    In a way it reminds me of earlier puzzlements cum judgement and assumption in comparative contexts. Some of which I have to admit I regret. 😉

  22. IMO nothing much of interest in American politics now except for the Contest Republican Convention in Cleveland. ILIA IACTUS SUNT?
    And HRC is correct to describe the FBI investigation as a SECURITY REVIEW. Long before any criminal indictments the FBI Director task to identify all security breeches linked to HRC server. If he concludes none, like HRC, then hoping the report can be made public. Again if HRC becomes President she will be totally compromised by foreign intelligence services by their knowledge of her as Secretary of State service.

  23. Jackrabbit says:

    https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2016/03/07/camp-clintons-laughable-claim-that-petraeuss-offense-was-worse/?singlepage=true
    Now with Pagliano apparently poised to cooperate with the FBI, the claim that Mrs. Clinton is not a criminal suspect is untenable. So Clinton and her supporters are changing tack: instead of implausibly insisting there is no crime to investigate, they argue that there is no crime worth prosecuting.

    [In fact] Clinton’s misconduct is more egregious than Petraeus’s [who, although facing the possibility of three felony charges, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor]. The latter only shared top secret information with a single person: Paula Broadwell, his biographer/paramour. Ms. Broadwell, a West Point grad and former military officer, had a security clearance

    Clinton robotically stresses that her classified emails were not “marked classified,” [but] neither were Petraeus’s diaries. He was charged anyway and pled guilty, because he was well-aware (as are all high-ranking national security officials) that the lack of classified markings is not a defense.

    The contention that General Petraeus’s misconduct is more serious than Mrs. Clinton’s is specious. Moreover, the Petraeus plea deal, while (in my view) disgraceful, has no necessary or enforceable precedential effect

  24. optimax says:

    Xol.
    Is this ok?
    The DNC says Bernie needs to pull out so Hillary can concentrate on beating Trump.

  25. rjj says:

    inspired typo, wrc. Ilia iacta sunt means the guts have been emptied (spent, tossed).

  26. rjj says:

    credit the muse for that. it happens a lot.

  27. cynic says:

    In appreciation of your owl pictures Colonel, here’s a site with some pleasant photographs of owls and other birds in a couple of London’s parks.
    http://kensingtongardensandhydeparkbirds.blogspot.com/

  28. Cee says:

    Col. Lang,
    I agree, this political season has become quite toxic. I was just made aware of something that was NOT on the local news during my time here in Florida for the past six weeks.
    I think the following is worth discussing because it’s so outrageous and it pertains to foreign policy and more war for us but I understand if you chose not to post it.
    My regards.
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/02/glenn-greenwald-hillary-clinton-vows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel-3304198.html

Comments are closed.