Sure - that thread by **Jefferson ** was the OP without a debate posited. It was closed for lack of substance, see the part about ‘let’s you and him fight’. The comment about Ivanka was an off hand comment in an ongoing thread. Different things altogether. That’s if you’re referring to the latest in this thread.
If you are referring to the thread in the OP, JC got to it before me, but I agree that it was more of a rant and would have taken the same course. The OP seemed genuine, but misplaced in forum geography. In the example you linked, it almost seemed like trolling (let’s you and him fight) but I wanted to give him a chance to flesh it out. He declined to do so which was consistent with my thinking, so I closed the thread. Not enough evidence for a warning for trolling per se, but enough to close the thread for lack of substance. As he was later banned for trolling, I’m comfortable with my assessment.
And to be clear - I, and all the moderators appreciate the reports. I take all the reports seriously and evaluate each as they come. Truth be told I tend to read almost every thread, but some I skim and some I read after they’ve already petered out. Some topics I’m not that interested in so I tend to avoid those, but if there is a report I make a point to read the entire thread for context (unless it’s ungodly long).
Well I had assumed you appreciated what seem to be obvious facts such as:
[ol]
[li]Tiffany Trump and Ivanka Trump are two different people.[/li][li]One year old babies don’t have “developing breasts”[/li][li]Howard Stern and Donald Trump are also two different people[/li][/ol]
And so on. But perhaps not.
My goof. When a father is objectifying his daughters, it’s possible to lose track of which one it is.
No less creepy.
Read the links, he does refer to Ivanka as being voluptuous.
Trump was quite agreeable to Stern’s description.
Discussing whether your one year old daughter would eventually develop big breasts is certainly coarse, and possibly creepy as well. But the important thing in the context of this particular discussion - which is about whether Trump has a sexual interest in his daughter - is that it’s not the same as talking about the actual breasts of the daughter.
The “voluptuous” remark was made in the context of denying Stern’s suggestion that she had had implants.
What you need to understand WRT issues like this is that it’s not like a guy like Trump either has no faults or has a sexual relationship with his daughter. There’s enormous middle ground between those two positions. So you don’t get to make far out accusations and then reject any countering of them with the assertion that this amounts to “defend[ing] the pig”.
In any event, this is probably too far afield from ATMB territory, so I don’t intend to continue this discussion after this post.
To clarify, I’m curious whether you have any basis for suggesting that these posts might attract the attention of the Secret Service. Has that occurred on other message boards, or is it speculation on your part?
Seriously, though, the only point I’m trying to make is that a lot of people are slamming the OP of this thread as out of touch. And while I think a “warning” is a bit much, similar threads have been mod’ed in the past, so moderating this one would not be some crazy, unprecedented action. I’d like to see any contentless OP mod’ed in GD or Elections. Those forums should have a higher standard for an OP than just throwing some crap up against a wall and seeing if it sticks.
But it was moderated. JC moved it into the Pit. The OP argued that instead it should have been disappeared and the poster warned. That is what others are slamming him for. And quite rightly. That demand is embarrassing at best. Short of active calls for harm - not mere heated hyperbole - no political statement against a prominent politician should ever be disappeared. The OP is unequivocally wrong about this.
