18

The answer was flagged: This answer is being deliberately provocative by using a neo-pronoun ("xyrself") where none is called for. I don't know about deliberately provocative, but I agree that the use of the neo-pronoun in the answer is unnecessary and would probably prove to be a distraction. The edit may look minor, but I think it's a helpful one and ...


8

The question asks for a term. The answer offers just that. It certainly isn't a great answer, probably not even a good one, but it is an answer nonetheless. I see no reason to remove it. If you feel the answer is not helpful, downvote it and move on.


6

Someone can ask a new question on more neutral terms, e.g. what is publicly known about how the US list in question is determined. It's probably a better solution than deleting 95% of the body of a push question... Also, even if we delete the push part, the question as asked is probably mainly asking for speculation. In fact, the (negatively voted) answer ...


5

I think you are correct that the statement is missing a word. I suspect it should read "Processes are central to how legislation is made." I personally think this is more naturally phrased as "Policies are central to the making of legislation." I think the point of that phrase is to signal that it is often difficult to talk about legislation meaningfully ...


3

The answer in question repeats a part of the accepted answer (which seems was posted first as well). So it's not adding much if anything, but there are no specific flags for "duplicate answers". It does seem to be "gaming the system" to gain easy rep without saying anything new, so I've downvoted and VTD as well (it appears I'm the 2nd VTD).


3

I think there are two things going on here, so I will attempt to explain as best as I can. The rule in general Since I didn't make the rule, I can't say for sure why it is the way that it is. What I can do is make an argument for why it should be the way that it is. The problem with something as nebulous as politics is it can be hard to draw a clear line ...


3

I came across it in the low-quality queue. I voted to delete it because it adds no supporting evidence to show why it shapes Democrats' views (which is the subject of the question). I don't think this would have been a good comment either. The reason for that is that it lacks any evidence or reasoning why this is relevant to the question. If this had been a ...


2

I've added a proposed tag synonym in the opposite direction, i.e. to https://politics.stackexchange.com/tags/history/synonyms since JJ's comment has received some upvotes. The synonym still needs some upvotes of its own to become effective.


2

I declined the flags because the answer did, indeed, appear to be an answer to the question that was asked. It was deleted by vote by 4 high-rep users. Moderators aren't the only way an answer can be deleted.


1

Caveat: I'm not a particularly active user on this particular site, so the below is more from general Stack Exchange experience, and may not reflect local nuances. I think your question could be on-topic, if it was simultaneously more focussed, and more general. Your case for the original question being on-topic appears to be summarised in this sentence: ...


1

If it were me that was interested in this topic, I would start with a milder approach, and I would start by asking in meta where the constraints of on-topic-ness are also bit milder. I might ask Is politics SE capable of political introspection? or something similar, and perhaps break it down into two parts; Does politics (as defined in the main site'...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible