Is the truth a defense?
If it’s in any way debateable is it then verboten?
No.
My non-moderator’s opinion …
A political jab is any reference to a political issue that is made for the purposes of displaying one’s own annoyance and/or provoking someone else’s annoyance that is not in furtherance of the topic.
Yeah, I know, it’s got plenty of weasel room. The point is, like “don’t be a jerk”, you should know it when you see it. If the topic is “Why were the Republicans so concerned about Clinton getting a bj in office?”, then mentioning “vast right-wing conspiracies” may be on topic. If the topic is “Why does Hillary Clinton wear so many ugly pant-suits?”, then mentioning “vast right-wing conspiracies” is a political jab. It may be humerous from a certain perspective, but it’s still something of a poke.
Just because Hillary said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against them does not make it a legitimate comment in any thread. Just because Clinton got a bj in office does not make it legitimate to drop into any thread on Clinton.
A lot of it is context.
If there’s a GQ question like “How many cancer screenings did Planned Parenthood do last year,” the answer, “A lot more than next year if Romney gets his way” would be a political jab, because it doesn’t help to answer the question, whether it’s true or not.
If the question had been, “What are Planned Parenthood’s forecast budgets for 2014,” then a comment about Romney’s opinions would be relevant.
And the specific comment that prompted this thread was about the opinions of a United States presidential candidate in a thread about healthcare in the UK. That’s completely irrelevant.
The Truth™ varies depending on viewpoint and political orientation in many cases. So, what YOU might think is The Truth(aar) someone else might not accept as such…and vice versa.
A political jab would be a political pot shot or hand job that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. That’s my take anyway.
-XT
What if you refer to “politicians” in general but its pretty obvious that one side does it more often than the other?
Gary’s first rule of politics: any nonpartisan statement that you make in a political debate will be taken as partisan, with each side thinking you’re supporting the other side.
Why are you trying to find ways to weasel around the rules?
Innat what rules are for? 
He’s not. He’s just asking questions.
As samclem already said, no.
It’s verboten if it’s not both unequivocally factual - e.g. a quote from the party’s platform for example - and specifically relevant to the subject of the thread. If in doubt, then refrain from making the remark.
That’s generally “obvious” mainly to partisans.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:4, topic:615951”]
And the specific comment that prompted this thread was about the opinions of a United States presidential candidate in a thread about healthcare in the UK. That’s completely irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think it may be an oblique reference to the warning I gave the OP for this post:
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
Don’t forget that third moment when Democrats realize that they can intimidate/marginalize their opponents or rally their allies.
[/QUOTE]
It appeared to me that the OP had opened that thread not for the purpose of informing himself about the history of the term “wetback,” but instead to take issue with the fact that it is generally considered offensive. If he had wished to do that, he should have opened a thread in GD. The gratuitous swipe at Democrats was irrelevant to the subject of the thread, and the OP was the first to introduce politics into the thread. He’s been around long enough to know that such remarks are not acceptable in GQ, which is why he received a warning.
The Mods in their response have covered everything.
One thing I would add, and I expect it to go no where, is that a people outside of the USA get tired of the American political comments. I can’t talk for everyone of course.
Actually, Cicero, you’ve nailed it. Many of the American Dopers are sick and tired of it too, and that’s one of the reasons we’re working to compartmentalize the commentary on the U.S. presidential election, keeping it in the Elections forum unless it’s specifically germane to a discussion elsewhere.
Another poster in a GQ thread on Social Security was reprimanded a couple of days ago for a political comment. It applied to every politician in Washington. Is the rule “no political jabs” or “no politics” ?
BTW…I’m still interested in the history of the term “wetback” … I sure wish I hadn’t given you the opening to shut it down. Another poster linked to that thread a few days ago. I trust he is too.
So open a GQ thread asking for the history of the term “wetback”. It should be possible to get that without political jabs.
He did, although the discussion was originally focused on when the term became a slur. The discussion could probably be elaborated upon but it seems to have been answered in a general way.
Ler’s be clear… that is the original thread. There is still plenty of ignorance to be fought for anyone who wants to fight the good fight. Operation Weback anyone?
As far as “political jabs” I’m still unclear on the concept. I think I know what a jab is… and it isn’t a general criticism of politicians. Now that may be some “shit” where it doesn’t belong but I see alot of threads that withstand alot of shit before a mod decides to reprimand anyone or close it down.
Since you didn’t post a link to your example, I have nothing to evaluate to try to clarify.
A general remark about politicians as a whole may be out of place in a discussion in GQ, depending upon the topic and the question. That’s not something a generic statement is going to do well at explaining. But I will try.
GQ is about asking questions to get factual answers. Slamming politicians is not satisfying that tone or agenda. If you want to slam politicians, you have Elections, Great Debates, MPSIMS, and The BBQ Pit, depeding upon your tone and the content. It doesn’t belong in GQ.
My $3.75 (inflation).
This is the thread Whatthe is talking about..
This is the post -complete- that drew the warning:
[INDENT]social security still takes in more money than it pays out, it is just that congress takes the surplus to use on their pork barrel earmarks. If they weren’t whores selling out to special interests, SS would have no problems. [/INDENT]
Is that a political jab? Not toward a specific political party, but it uses imprecise and inflammatory language that is apt to hinder getting the General Question resolved. It’s bad soapboxing that is going to offend a lot of people through its lack of nuance or specifics.
It’s as unhelpful as GQ joke posts, but without the entertainment value.
That’s the one. I do understand that political “shit” is especially stinky but if “jab” is as precise as it gets then the mods have way too much leeway to warn posters they don’t like or close threads they don’t like. And if the mod population is close to the overall population of the board we all know what they don’t like.