Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

Firstly, let me apologize of my arguments are not up to what I would normally like to post. I either have the plauge or some hitherto unknown flu virus that is worse than death itself. My fever's finally down to 102, so I have that going for me which is nice. If I miss something someone said to me, it's not because I don't want to engage in the issue.



Right. We do. But the government does not have the right to compel you to speak.



I corrected my initial post. I meant automatic registration, not mandatory registration. If a person doesn't want to be registered, I think it's fine to allow them to opt out or resend their registration should they wish to do so.



I think that voting is the action of a good, intelligent and informed citizen. I believe voting is a right. I believe that anyone who wants to vote should be able to vote. I believe we should do a lot of things to make it even easier to vote. I think those that chose not to vote are wrong, but I do not think they should be made to do so.

There may not be a good reason for me other than I just don't think it's a good idea. I worry about the penalties for those who cannot vote. Are there financial penalties? Are we going to arrest them? not let them get assistance? Because those who do not vote now because they cannot would be far more negatively impacted than those who simply elect not to vote.

So, I'm still firmly in the no column. However, depending on the proposal, I'd be open to looking into it more. Maybe I'm entirely wrong. It's been known to happen far too often.

Even if you're charged of a crime, the courts cannot compel you to speak. However, you still have to show up in court

Similarly, a citizen is well within their right to decline to vote in written form after they've showed up at the booth.

As for penalties for not showing up, I'd say a fine is fine. $20 should be an acceptable fine, unless the person in question can prove financial hardship.

Jury duty is boring though. You sit in a huge room for hours with a bunch of strangers.

You have no soul

 

[User 406]

Firstly, let me apologize of my arguments are not up to what I would normally like to post. I either have the plauge or some hitherto unknown flu virus that is worse than death itself. My fever's finally down to 102, so I have that going for me which is nice. If I miss something someone said to me, it's not because I don't want to engage in the issue.

Oh, no problem, you need to take care of your health first and foremost. I was watching you beat your head against a particular brick wall in the debate thread and was thinking, "Man, he's got a fever, this can't be helping it." :X

Right. We do. But the government does not have the right to compel you to speak.

Well, in one case they already do, with the American Community Survey, which you are required to complete by law if you're selected. I've had to fill it out a couple times now. Granted, they haven't prosecuted anyone for non-compliance in decades, but it's still a requirement.

There may not be a good reason for me other than I just don't think it's a good idea. I worry about the penalties for those who cannot vote. Are there financial penalties? Are we going to arrest them? not let them get assistance? Because those who do not vote now because they cannot would be far more negatively impacted than those who simply elect not to vote.

As to this, I also want our mandatory voting system to basically bend over backwards to cater to the voter, where you can cast your vote long before the election, at many different locations, post offices, libraries, BMV locations, change it at any time, even use secure online methods that people talked about earlier. Voting should absolutely be a zero effort endeavor for everyone. And no doubt we'll be more likely to get any or all of these before we get mandatory voting.

So, I'm still firmly in the no column. However, depending on the proposal, I'd be open to looking into it more. Maybe I'm entirely wrong. It's been known to happen far too often.

Fair enough, I'd just say that I don't necessarily agree with voting falling under free speech or free expression, because while it may be similar in the aspect of expressing an opinion, it has fundamentally concrete consequences for our country's governance that set it apart. It is not simply a freedom to be enjoyed, but rather a tool for operating a nation. If you're a citizen, you are required to fulfill a social contract, and part of that should be shouldering your part of the shared responsibility of steering our ship of state.

 

[Wilsongt]

I am slowly seeing "What about support for the Kenyan terrorist attack?" creep in on my Facebook wall...

 

[User 463088]

Even if you're charged of a crime, the courts cannot compel you to speak. However, you still have to show up in court

Similarly, a citizen is well within their right to decline to vote in written form after they've showed up at the booth.

Ah, but they're still being forced to participate. Even the act of going to the polls could be seen as an act of expression. For example, what about an anarchist who doesn't believe in government. Would it not be infringing upon their rights to go? Or someone who believed the US should be a Monarchy with Hillary Clinton as our Queen? Or the religious individual who doesn't believe they should engage in political activity.

As for penalties for not showing up, I'd say a fine is fine. $20 should be an acceptable fine, unless the person in question can prove financial hardship.

But see, this is my biggest problem. Those that don't vote tend to be poorer. Who are the non-voters? Many who don't vote don't have a way to do it. (Thats one of the reasons I love doing the voter outreach to drive people to the polls.) If you have a poor, rural person who isn't able to get to a voting place or doesn't have the means to fill out an online (or in person) form to get permission to opt out of voting, a small fine would be a lot harder on them.

That's why I prefer policies that encourage voluntary participation. Like I said, automatic registration is a good place to start. Making it possible for everyone to vote by mail (no stamp required) with the ability to track the ballot's location. Require employers to give people paid time off to vote if necessary.

 

[User 406]

I am slowly seeing "What about support for the Kenyan terrorist attack?" creep in on my Facebook wall...

It's a fair question. It barely got any attention, Beirut didn't move the needle much either, but Paris is everywhere. There is a pretty obvious double standard.

 

[Konka]

Ah, but they're still being forced to participate. Even the act of going to the polls could be seen as an act of expression. For example, what about an anarchist who doesn't believe in government. Would it not be infringing upon their rights to go? Or someone who believed the US should be a Monarchy with Hillary Clinton as our Queen? Or the religious individual who doesn't believe they should engage in political activity.



But see, this is my biggest problem. Those that don't vote tend to be poorer. Who are the non-voters? Many who don't vote don't have a way to do it. (Thats one of the reasons I love doing the voter outreach to drive people to the polls.) If you have a poor, rural person who isn't able to get to a voting place or doesn't have the means to fill out an online (or in person) form to get permission to opt out of voting, a small fine would be a lot harder on them.

That's why I prefer policies that encourage voluntary participation. Like I said, automatic registration is a good place to start. Making it possible for everyone to vote by mail (no stamp required) with the ability to track the ballot's location. Require employers to give people paid time off to vote if necessary.

I still have to pay taxes even if I don't believe in taxes.

 

[User 463088]

Oh, no problem, you need to take care of your health first and foremost. I was watching you beat your head against a particular brick wall in the debate thread and was thinking, "Man, he's got a fever, this can't be helping it." :X

I'm a glutton for punishment, I think. On the plus side it's taken my mind off of it! So that helps.

As to this, I also want our mandatory voting system to basically bend over backwards to cater to the voter, where you can cast your vote long before the election, at many different locations, post offices, libraries, BMV locations, change it at any time, even use secure online methods that people talked about earlier. Voting should absolutely be a zero effort endeavor for everyone. And no doubt we'll be more likely to get any or all of these before we get mandatory voting.

I agree with every single one of these things.

Fair enough, I'd just say that I don't necessarily agree with voting falling under free speech or free expression, because while it may be similar in the aspect of expressing an opinion, it has fundamentally concrete consequences for our country's governance that set it apart. It is not simply a freedom to be enjoyed, but rather a tool for operating a nation. If you're a citizen, you are required to fulfill a social contract, and part of that should be shouldering your part of the shared responsibility of steering our ship of state.

I have a very odd streak on some of these personal freedom things. There are some things that I absolutely 100% believe the government should be in control of (healthcare, educational access/funding, etc). Then there are those things that I don't think they need to be in control of. Not because I think government is bad. Not because I don't think they can do it, but because I don't think they need to.

 

[brainchild]

Ah, but they're still being forced to participate. Even the act of going to the polls could be seen as an act of expression. For example, what about an anarchist who doesn't believe in government. Would it not be infringing upon their rights to go? Or someone who believed the US should be a Monarchy with Hillary Clinton as our Queen? Or the religious individual who doesn't believe they should engage in political activity.



But see, this is my biggest problem. Those that don't vote tend to be poorer. Who are the non-voters? Many who don't vote don't have a way to do it. (Thats one of the reasons I love doing the voter outreach to drive people to the polls.) If you have a poor, rural person who isn't able to get to a voting place or doesn't have the means to fill out an online (or in person) form to get permission to opt out of voting, a small fine would be a lot harder on them.

That's why I prefer policies that encourage voluntary participation. Like I said, automatic registration is a good place to start. Making it possible for everyone to vote by mail (no stamp required) with the ability to track the ballot's location. Require employers to give people paid time off to vote if necessary.

Let me be clear in saying that I'd agree with you if these hypothetical people were willing to give up their citizenship, but something tells me there's a snowball's chance of that ever happening.

So long as people reap the benefits of being a citizen, we need them to contribute, even if it's just to say that they have no opinion. The governance of our nation depends of how well our democracy is represented. All citizens have a direct effect on the outcome, and I believe that making participation mandatory is the very least that citizens can do for their country.

As for poor people being fined, penalties aren't suppose to feel good. Fines are supposed to be a deterrent. The whole idea is to avoid the fine by participating. Nevertheless, if someone can't afford it, they can be exempted on the basis of financial hardship.

 

[User 406]

I have a very odd streak on some of these personal freedom things. There are some things that I absolutely 100% believe the government should be in control of (healthcare, educational access/funding, etc). Then there are those things that I don't think they need to be in control of. Not because I think government is bad. Not because I don't think they can do it, but because I don't think they need to.

See, I look at it this way: Our government is us. All of us. Our government should be firing on all cylinders. It shouldn't be "We The People* -- (* whoever felt like it or was able to show up)"

On a related note, I also think that our representatives should not be allowed to duck votes in their various chambers. We got world spanning video chat, you can cast a damn vote and do your job.

 

[brainchild]

See, I look at it this way: Our government is us. All of us. Our government should be firing on all cylinders. It shouldn't be "We The People* -- (* whoever felt like it or was able to show up)"

On a related note, I also think that our representatives should not be allowed to duck votes in their various chambers. We got world spanning video chat, you can cast a damn vote and do your job.

Yeah, completely agreed. I've never understood why this was allowed. It's literally part of their job!

 

[Konka]

Yeah, completely agreed. I've never understood why this was allowed. It's literally part of their job!

 

[dabig2]

Yeah, completely agreed. I've never understood why this was allowed. It's literally part of their job!

Can't get put on record for supporting or being against some single issue. Could get primaried. It's horrible.

 

[Wilsongt]

And he is on record saying "Fuck my attendance. Let's make sure Hillary isn't president." If most of his non-elderly, working constituants were to miss as much work as he did they would be fired instantly.

 

[brainchild]

Can't get put on record for supporting or being against some single issue. Could get primaried. It's horrible.

Tough titties. Seriously!

Being concerned about your political reputation should not take precedence over your congressional responsibilities!

 

[User 406]

I will however accept the hypocrisy if any and all Republicans want to stop voting.

Like ever.

Please?

 

[kingkitty]

Once it comes down to Bernie vs Rubio, the contrast between attendance will be the final dagger into Rubio's campaign.

Actually, I don't think any voter cares that much about attendance.

 

[brainchild]

Don't even get me started on this tool.

I will however accept the hypocrisy if any and all Republicans want to stop voting.

Like ever.

Please?

LMAO

 

[RastaMentality]

Sanders aide pushes back against CBS switch to foreign policy focus for debate

A top aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., one of the three candidates, got into a lengthy dispute with executives from CBS, the network hosting the debate, during a conference call on Saturday morning. A staffer for one of the other campaigns who was also on the call described the exchange to Yahoo News as “heated” and even “bizarre,” and a second source on the call confirmed the nature of the exchange.

The dispute centered on CBS’s decision to increase the emphasis on terrorism, foreign policy, and national security in the wake of the attacks that left more than 100 people dead in Paris on Friday night. According to the rival staffer, Sanders strategist Mark Longabaugh lit into CBS vice president and Washington bureau chief Christopher Isham when the changes to the debate were detailed on the call.

“It was a little bit of a bizarre scene. The Sanders representative, you know, really laid into CBS and basically … kind of threw, like, a little bit of a fit and said, ‘You are trying to turn this into a foreign policy debate. That’s not what any of us agreed to. How can you change the terms of the debate, you know, on the day of the debate. That’s not right,’” the staffer recounted.

Another person who was on the call confirmed to Yahoo News that Longabaugh had a lengthy dispute about the changed plans for the debate format during the call with CBS. The Sanders campaign declined to comment.
The rival staffer said the CBS representatives on the call argued they were not completely switching the focus for the debate.

“The CBS folks were like, ‘Look, we’re not turning this into a foreign policy debate. We’re going to reorder the questions so that we’re leading off with a foreign policy focus based on what happened last night,’” the rival staffer said.

According to the staffer, representatives for the two other candidates, Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chimed in to say, “We completely agree with CBS.”

Kinda embarrassing.

 

[Konka]

Sanders aide pushes back against CBS switch to foreign policy focus for debate


Kinda embarrassing.

He's completely out of his element when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[brainchild]

Sanders aide pushes back against CBS switch to foreign policy focus for debate


Kinda embarrassing.

Bernie, fire your fucking clown car of advisors. Immediately.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not particularly. You know that fear and aggression, however meaningless, will win such a discussion given the current climate, so if you dont wanna indulge in either of course youll try to cockblock those questions.

Thats a demonstration of not being completely deluded about how things will go down, nothing more.

But yes, the staffer chose a Very Crappy way to show that.

 

[User 463088]

He's completely out of his element when it comes to foreign policy.

Well, hopefully, as President he can send everyone a letter letting them know he'll only deal with economic issues. All foreign policy issues must be submitted to him in advance.

 

[Konka]

Well, hopefully, as President he can send everyone a letter letting them know he'll only deal with economic issues. All foreign policy issues must be submitted to him in advance.

The Donald would never let something like this happen. Bernie can't make a deal. Make America Great Again.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The Donald would probably threaten to pull out, because he has that sort of leverage right now.

On the one hand, I imagine whatever limited debate prep that Sanders did wasn't in line with a new focus on foreign policy. And it's not his natural wheelhouse, while Clinton can talk about random far flung countries on the fly.

On the other, shit happens, deal with it. Lots of shit tends to happen that a POTUS would have to deal with.

 

[User 406]

On the one hand, it did just blow up into a huge issue so it's understandable that CBS would want to include it...

On the other hand, it is pretty shitty for the campaigns for CBS to change things up at the last minute like that...

On the gripping hand, these people are running for President of the God Damn U. S. of A., and should be able to demonstrate the flexibility needed to handle a crisis they weren't planning for on the fly...

On the Serena Williams forehand, this doesn't really change the calculus on foreign policy in any meaningful way other than emotionally, and as such really only has the potential to make things at best embarrassingly jingoistic and at worst frothily xenophobic...

On the hrair hand, if they don't include it, all we'll get is WHY COME THEY NOT CARE ABOUT PARIS noise afterwards, granted the Republican "candidates" will do that anyway even if all three Democrats pledge to Possible Nuke Area? ISIS...

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't think Serena's forehand is accurate. Which is surprising considering how many grand slams she's won with it.

Would someone here be willing to explain to me why a YouTube video by SecularTalk (?) is so important that it trumps (Ha!) every single thing that's come out since the first debate?

I don't know who that is, and I don't care to find out.

 

[User 463088]

Would someone here be willing to explain to me why a YouTube video by SecularTalk (?) is so important that it trumps (Ha!) every single thing that's come out since the first debate?

 

[East Lake]

I agree with Coriolanus, this is a news station and I don't think it's cynical to think these people benefit from hysteria. Despite what CBS said I'd be worried half the debate slides into this topic and it's one that rewards whoever is the most unrealistic warmonger.

 

[brainchild]

Not particularly. You know that fear and aggression, however meaningless, will win such a discussion given the current climate, so if you dont wanna indulge in either of course youll try to cockblock those questions.

Thats a demonstration of not being completely deluded about how things will go down, nothing more.

But yes, the staffer chose a Very Crappy way to show that.

I agree.

It's funny because everyone harps on Hillary's vote for Iraq (including me), but I didn't hear too many complaints from the public at the time. And during 9/11, pretty much every American was ready watch the world burn.

Appealing to emotion is nothing new and I don't think Bernie is weak on foreign policy for not going that route. Nevertheless, it will make him look weaker in the debates on this issue. Still, his aides are making him look worse, and he needs to find new council before his campaign implodes on itself.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This isn't the GOP debate where you can get away as easily with citing thingsthatheydon'tknowabout resources or talking about how China is getting all up in Syria without pushback and you know Putin very well because you met him once.

It rewards whoever can convey they have the strongest grasp on international affairs and security issues and is ready to handle global leadership and crisis management immediately.

 

[User 406]

I don't think Serena's forehand is accurate. Which is surprising considering how many grand slams she's won with it.

Well, I unfortunately subscribe to the fatalist perspective that while we're certainly doing our best to pretend that we aren't increasing our involvement, we're totally getting sucked in again, and that'll hold regardless of who our next President is. The Republicans would ensure it will be as catastrophic as possible, but the Democrats will still carefully, sensibly, and pragmatically drag us back into a years long Mideast Category 5 shitstorm.

So a major terrorist attack isn't really going to change that.

 

[User 463088]

I agree.

It's funny because everyone harps on Hillary's vote for Iraq (including me), but I didn't hear too many complaints from the public at the time. And during 9/11, pretty much every American was ready watch the world burn.

Appealing to emotion is nothing new and I don't think Bernie is weak on foreign policy for not going that route. Nevertheless, it will make him look weaker in the debates on this issue. Still, his aides are making him look worse, and he needs to find new council before his campaign implodes on itself.

I agree with you, especially about dealing with his staff. However, there's really no one left Hillary got most of the good ones early on in the primary. Devine may be the best player left on the board. He's terrible, but he's better than nothing, I suppose.

 

[brainchild]

This isn't the GOP debate where you can get away as easily with citing thingsthatheydon'tknowabout resources or talking about how China is getting all up in Syria without pushback and you know Putin very well because you met him once.

It rewards whoever can convey they have the strongest grasp on international affairs and security issues and is ready to handle global leadership and crisis management immediately.

That may be true, but then there are times like these, like the tragedies in Paris, where appeals to emotion would carry the strongest arguments in a debate, Republican or Democratic.

 

[danm999]

They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 14, 2015

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-donald-trump-paris-tweets

Huh, not sure why she really thinks that beyond the old canard conservatives do national security better (or are perceived to I guess).

Trump has been pretty spotty, I'd wager to say bad, on foreign policy. Between not knowing China wasn't in the TPP, to the third debate where he promised he'd figure out his foreign policy stances by the time he was elected.

And If I remember he was basically backing up Paul last debate with a non-interventionist strategy against ISIS and let Putin sort it out which I imagine makes things a little clunky if he's trying to pivot into full warmonger this week (maybe no one will notice I guess).

 

[Konka]

Huh, not sure why she really thinks that beyond the old canard conservatives do national security better (or are perceived to I guess).

Trump has been pretty spotty, I'd wager to say bad, on foreign policy. Between not knowing China wasn't in the TPP, to the third debate where he promised he'd figure out his foreign policy stances by the time he was elected.

And If I remember he was basically backing up Paul last debate with a non-interventionist strategy against ISIS and let Putin sort it out which I imagine makes things a little clunky if he's trying to pivot into full warmonger this week (maybe no one will notice I guess).

It's Ann Coulter.

 

[User 463088]

Huh, not sure why she really thinks that beyond the old canard conservatives do national security better (or are perceived to I guess).

Trump has been pretty spotty, I'd wager to say bad, on foreign policy. Between not knowing China wasn't in the TPP, to the third debate where he promised he'd figure out his foreign policy stances by the time he was elected.

And If I remember he was basically backing up Paul last debate with a non-interventionist strategy against ISIS and let Putin sort it out which I imagine makes things a little clunky if he's trying to pivot into full warmonger this week (maybe no one will notice I guess).

You made the erroneous assumption that Ann Coulter thinks about anything.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ann Coulter wakes up every day praying for another large terrorist attack so that otherwise reasonable people will get angry enough to agree with her bigoted views.

 

[brainchild]

I don't know who that is, and I don't care to find out.

Strong liberal Bernie supporter. I actually find his commentary hilarious. He's one of those people where even if you disagree with him, you can't help but to recognize his talent as a great commentator with a good sense of humor.

 

[danm999]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ann Coulter wakes up every day praying for another large terrorist attack so that otherwise reasonable people will get angry enough to agree with her bigoted views.

You made the erroneous assumption that Ann Coulter thinks about anything.

It's Ann Coulter.

Yeah but it's not like a left vs. right thing is it? She could have said this would have given another Republican the advantage.

I guess she really likes Trump huh.

 

[User 463088]

Yeah but it's not like a left vs. right thing is it? She could have said this would have given another Republican the advantage.

I guess she really likes Trump huh.

The only person to the right of Coulter is possibly Hitler. I hav eno idea what Coulter likes outside hating everyone that isn't immediately in love with her far, far right wing dogma.

 

[Teggy]

The only people to the right of Coulter are possibly Hitler. I hav eno idea what Coulter likes outside hating everyone that isn't immediately in love with her far, far right wing dogma.

She has been campaigning with Trump.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

The only person to the right of Coulter is possibly Hitler. I hav eno idea what Coulter likes outside hating everyone that isn't immediately in love with her far, far right wing dogma.

 

[Coriolanus]

This isn't the GOP debate where you can get away as easily with citing thingsthatheydon'tknowabout resources or talking about how China is getting all up in Syria without pushback and you know Putin very well because you met him once.

It rewards whoever can convey they have the strongest grasp on international affairs and security issues and is ready to handle global leadership and crisis management immediately.

Ymean pushback like when they all pretended that gun control was totes doable u guyze?

Sometimes it rewards what you said, yes. Right after a tragedy? Unlikely.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Do you think a posture of aggression will actually play well within a Democratic primary electorate that has little to no taste for foreign military intervention, excessive intelligence gathering and current covert or aerial stealth activities?

 

[Cerium]

Politico is covering Bernie's refusal to discuss terrorism.

This shit is so bizarre I think someone should make a thread.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign said Saturday it was more interested in preserving its full 90 seconds of opening remarks during the second Democratic debate than devoting more time to discussing the terrorist attacks that killed at least 120 people in Paris on Friday.

In a conference call with all three campaigns, debate host CBS suggested changing the format of the forum to create more time for a foreign-policy discussion. But Sanders' team forcefully opposed any changes.

“We had agreed on opening and closing statements, the timing of those," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said about the debate format that was settled before the attacks on Friday. "Others attempted to change those. We pushed back on those and ended up prevailing. We're very happy about that.”

When asked for more details, he smiled: "Let's just say we won."

When a reporter suggested to Weaver that the changes seemed appropriate in light of the biggest terrorist attack in over a decade, he said: "Of which we have a minute and a half to speak to that. I don't even know what the argument is about."

Weaver argued it was important to keep the 90 seconds allotted to an opening statement, instead of cutting it down to 30 seconds, because Sanders still needs to introduce himself to the country. “A large number [of Americans] have never seen Bernie Sanders speak before, or hear his message,” he explained.

 

[User 463088]

Do you think a posture of aggression will actually play well within a Democratic primary electorate that has little to no taste for foreign military intervention, excessive intelligence gathering and current covert or aerial stealth activities?

Not at all. However, I expect that all the campaigns should be comfortable talking about how they plan on dealing with global terrorism. I doubt any of them will be more hawkish than usual.

 

[brainchild]

Do you think a posture of aggression will actually play well within a Democratic primary electorate that has little to no taste for foreign military intervention, excessive intelligence gathering and current covert or aerial stealth activities?

Context is key. We're all human after all. I'm against the death penalty, but if someone murders one of my family members, I might have a temporary lapse in judgment.

Emotion can override logic, that's why the appeal to emotion is such a powerful tool, regardless of how fallacious it is.

 

[User 463088]

Politico is covering Bernie's refusal to discuss terrorism.

This shit is so bizarre I think someone should make a thread.

I would, but there's not a snow balls chance in hell that I'd appear non-biased. I no want to get ban hammer.

I love how its somehow everyone else's fault that Americans don't know who Bernie is. He's been in the Senate since 2006. Warren's been in since 2012, and everyone knows who she is.

 

[Cerium]

I would, but there's not a snow balls chance in hell that I'd appear non-biased. I no want to get ban hammer.

Pretty sure you won't be banned for posting a Politico article.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean you won't, but I don't really know what you're hoping to accomplish with a thread about it when the debate is about to go ahead anyway and it's already being discussed in the debate thread. And when it inevitably devolves into a pissing match between the Standers and the Shillaries then it will probably be locked anyway.