How can Quora be more inviting to Republicans, conservatives, and others who do not share the dominant viewpoints on Quora?
Republicans,conservatives,and others who do not share the dominant viewpoints on Quora.Book TV, CNN,the CATO institute,and currently the Charlie Rose show were corrupted in this manner.It is self destructive to bend the rules for those who are philosophically against the principles of this siteConservatives have falsely represented themselves as some kind of persecuted minority in this site.Republicans have formed anonymous downvote cabals on this site.Exclusively in the US context,it is my experience that left-liberals are idealists who believe in democracy and conservatives are cynics who believe in the power of money more than ideas.there have been previous Trojan Horse types of questions, all with the intent of getting "real pros" such as Republican Congressmen to use this site for press releases and political spam.Republicans and conservatives have the same rights as others within this site, more influence than most outside this site, and those who do not share the dominant views are being treated more than fairly.A great deal of this attitude comes from concrete experiences in the 1960s anti-war movement when special efforts were made to reach out to the Republican pro-Nixon,pro-war faction.Bad idea.
How can I downvote Donald Trump democratically online?
Become a socialist and pledge your support for communism. Then, you will receive your Democrat downvote right card. Go ahead and cast your Republican downvote. The DNC has now approved. Welcome to communism.Socialist candidates the 'future of our party,' says DNC Chairman Tom Perez
Why doesn't the Republican Party get banned for their racist views?
Why don't we ban those racially diverse Democrats? :) After all, they want to be like those Socialists in Scandinavia with all their racially diverse ... oh that's not working here, is it?I guess the downvotes that will ensue on my answer here would indicate that they'd agree that banning a different opinion by their constituency would be an OK thing to do.A party isn't racist because its constituency is a certain way. It's policies aren't racist *because* of its constituency, unless it can be argued that because 80% of blacks vote Democrat that the Democrats are therefore anti-white. Which, arguably, this question strongly points to that.Source: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation So, with all these people heavily aligned with Democrats, why does one need to ban the Republican Party? It seems that the natural thing would be to use the ban hammer of voting to get them out of office. In either way, it appears the Tyranny of the Majority keeps rearing its ugly head. "If the Republicans win, racism! If the Democrats win, censorship!"Theoretically, you should have the power to get what you want by voting. What? You don't trust your party to win? Maybe you should have better candidates.This is just a mess. This, coupled with "Why don't we force everyone to vote?Does compulsory voting strengthen or weaken democracy?Should voting be made compulsory?Well, obviously, if we ban the alternatives, it makes it easier for people to choose correctly, doesn't it? No need for this thing called democracy.
Are most US-based Yahoo News readers conservative?
I might be opening a can of worms here but I'm simply baffled about this. I notice that on many news articles about various subjects, comments and how much they get upvoted or downvoted seem to indicate how readers as a whole feel about something. For example, I often see that some of the most vitriolic comments against Obama may get 300 upvotes vs 40 downvotes, while a pro-Obama comment may have those numbers in reverse (I am not an Obama supporter by any means). Some of those upvoted comments are something you wouldn't say to your mother or in a formal environment. I have also seen similar rating patterns when it comes to talking about "liberals" or "conservatives." Any insights?