Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » answerMug Members » When you see a (serious) question here that piques your interest, do you research it before you answer?

When you see a (serious) question here that piques your interest, do you research it before you answer?

...

Posted - July 24, 2019

Responses


  • 4624
    It depends on the type of question.
    No - if it's about ethics, values, opinions or psychology, or things I know from experience.
    But yes if it requires knowledge or facts I don't have; I'll try to find the most reliable source of info or the latest updates.

    I hold back a fair bit on some of the political questions because I don't always have the full background.
    My knowledge of how the US political system works is very sketchy - only the basics.
    I do listen to professors discussing the latest events and their possible repercussions. What happens there affects us strongly here.
    The question that interests me most at the moment is what's causing the Dems to hold back on impeaching Trump. It looks as though they're uncertain as to whether they have a strong enough case to guarantee success. And with the next elections coming so soon, it appears that there may no longer be enough time.

      July 24, 2019 6:23 PM MDT
    2

  • 5391
    For only a sketchy understanding, you have a pretty good grasp. The Dems don’t have a smoking gun, only an inept, ranting lunatic who continues to act guilty.
    My take is Democrats intend to keep prodding and baiting Bozo the Potus to rave and act the fool in the eyes of voters. Today‘s Mueller Q&A in Congress, though boring and redundant, definitely had that result.

    Impeachments take a long time, guarantee nothing and expend political capital, there is less risk in causing the loon to hang himself. 
      July 24, 2019 7:04 PM MDT
    5

  • 4624
    Thank you - that strikes me as very perceptive and probably dead accurate.
    What could be a better tactic in opposition than tripping one's rival into shooting himself in the foot?
    Especially if he's predisposed that way and has no awareness of it.

    I'm hopeful that the future winner of the candidacy for the Democrats is one that all Dems will be keen to turn out to vote for.
    I hope the lack-lustre turn-out of the young that made Trump's election possible will have served as a lesson in not abdicating their right to vote.
      July 24, 2019 7:15 PM MDT
    2

  • 5391
    I’m inclined to think Trump’s exploits will fire up voter passions and participation on both sides. But I am also cognizant that he lost the popular vote in ‘16, and has done nothing toward winning many (or any) new supporters, given his ready hostility toward virtually everyone not named Trump, Putin or Hannity. This post was edited by Don Barzini at July 24, 2019 9:22 PM MDT
      July 24, 2019 7:35 PM MDT
    1

  • 4624
    As I remember, he won the election on the vote of the Electoral College, yes?
    It was explained to me by Nimmtitz (now one of the Mug's Benedict Arnolds) that the Electoral College ensures that there's always a gerrymander that favours the Conservative vote. Apparently, the forefathers wanted to ensure that change would be slow and cautious.
    But the result is that it takes an overwhelming public vote in order to get a Democratic government.
    Is that correct?
      July 25, 2019 2:24 PM MDT
    0

  • 5391
    Gerrymandering was an aftereffect of the Electoral college. Politicians molding voting districts to the advantage of the party in power. Win by one vote, you get all the Electoral Votes for that state.
    There is an ongoing debate that Electoral votes should be divvied out proportionally to the popular vote, but this idea has not come to fruition.
    Had this been the case, Trump (and GW Bush) would have never been elected.

    Otherwise, yes, you get the gist of it. The principle is to even out wild swings of political trends. 
      July 25, 2019 5:34 PM MDT
    1

  • 4624
    We have gerrymanders in Australia too.
    Our Constitution allows for the changing of boundaries for electorates to maintain balance as population densities change.
    But it gets used in the same way as yours, the party in power deciding the position of a boundary-based on most likely electoral advantage. These days its much harder for them to make the case for a change without the agreement of the locals.

    What's your view on proportional representation - are you for or against?
      July 25, 2019 6:23 PM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    Generally, I’m for it. 

    Gives more value to every vote.

    Candidates would have more incentive to campaign in every district, not just focus on ”key“ swing states. 
      July 25, 2019 6:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    It depends on whether or not I'm sure that the facts in my answer are correct.  If not, I research it.
      July 24, 2019 6:41 PM MDT
    5

  • 5391
    Yes, as my grasp of the topic dictates, it is important to me to have my facts straight.
    Usually only serious questions pique my interest anyway, and I consider it only fair to respond seriously to them*.
    I put no value in wasting words on stupid questions or trite banter. 

    *Not a comment on the value of THIS question.  
    Heheheh. ;-) This post was edited by Don Barzini at July 25, 2019 4:29 PM MDT
      July 24, 2019 7:24 PM MDT
    3

  •   July 24, 2019 7:26 PM MDT
    4

  • 53558

      No, not usually. If I choose to answer, I normally do so from the realm of knowledge I already have in the ol’ brain housing group (a military term).


    ~
      July 24, 2019 7:31 PM MDT
    1


  • I'll let you know as soon as I see a serious question.

    In the meantime,

    I post twinks.

    Male Beauty!  Mmm Mmm Mmm!



     
      July 24, 2019 7:53 PM MDT
    3

  • 11171
    Yes, I do. In fact, my curiosity is often piqued by what I read here. I may or may not answer the question, but I enjoy the fact that I have learned something.
      July 25, 2019 4:00 AM MDT
    5

  • 44669
    Hey...I do the same thing. Randy's question about aircraft carriers in the English Channel needed some research.
      July 25, 2019 9:32 AM MDT
    2