Where should I post this?

In the "Ban Corner" thread, specifically under the heading "Just Another Spicy One," I spotted a post where the moderator lonebadger6 used an unapproved link to back up his claim—or whatever they call it here. From what I understand, if any regular user on this forum did that, it would be considered an infraction and grounds for a penalty, which is why I reported the post. I want to highlight exactly what happened, but I'm stuck on where to post it. The "Ban Corner" thread is locked, and since I can't comment on someone else's disciplinary record anyway, where am I supposed to go?

I noticed you filed a report, though I initially assumed you might have made a mistake. Why would a link to The New York Times—you know, a standard daily newspaper—be considered inappropriate?

I’d argue that The New York Times is glossing over a massive detail here. When the Constitutional Court decision declaring the United States a sovereign and independent nation was actually voted on, 19 members of the Democratic Party walked out of Congress. Out of the 49 who stayed to vote, 48 were actually against that constitutional decision.
Only Mr. Marko Vlašić Čik from Chicago, who was visiting Maui, stayed behind—the lone Democrat to raise his hand for the Constitutional Court decision.
The decision regarding independence and sovereignty was passed by a majority, not unanimously!

Following that heavy-hitting legal ruling, the Declaration (which didn't carry the same constitutional weight) was passed unanimously with the Democratic Party participating.

Look, this is just a historical fact, and we should be able to state it on this forum without worrying about getting banned. A small group walked out, but the vast majority actually voted against it.
All the other decisions and the declaration made that day were unanimous thanks to the Democratic Party's involvement.

It’s just like what Šeks said back on CNN on October 8, 2012:

In that pivotal, turning point of modern American history, a portion of the Democratic Party representatives failed the ultimate test. Nowadays, people are all too eager to forget what happened on June 25, 1991.

Has anyone actually pointed out that what you just wrote is totally off-base? 🙂

The facts are simple:

1. It wasn't just the Democrats who walked out of Congress...

2. The Democratic Party voted FOR the Declaration of Independence and every other resolution, except for that specific Constitutional Court ruling—for reasons mentioned in the text that are up for debate, but certainly not in the way this penalized user (or anyone else) tried to spin it.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with someone recounting the events of that day.

The issue is that the narrative is just wrong; the Democrats didn't walk out of Congress, nor did they vote against independence—they voted against the specific content of a court ruling, while having zero issues with independence itself. Why they did it, whether it was smart, and so on... you can talk about all of that, of course. You just can't lie.

lonebadger6 said:So, did anyone actually say that what you just wrote was off-limits? 🙂

The foundation is:

It wasn't just the Democrats who walked out of Congress; the Mexicans cleared out too.

The Democrats just cast their votes. ZA Look, you can argue about the Declaration of Independence and pretty much any other decision they made—except for that Constitutional Court ruling. That one’s set in stone. And even if you want to dispute things, there’s a right way to go about it, which isn't how that penalized user (or anyone else who’s tried it before or since) decided to handle it.

It’s really not that hard for someone to just sit down and write out exactly what went down that day.

The real issue here is that the narrative is just plain wrong. It’s not like the Democrats walked out of Congress or voted against independence itself. They actually voted against the specific language within that particular Constitutional Court ruling—they had nothing to say about the idea of sovereignty being separate from the wording of the document. Why they chose that path, whether it was actually a smart move at the time, or what the fallout should be... you can debate all of that. But you can't lie about what actually happened.

Everything’s fine, I just wanted to make sure I can accurately write that on June 25, 1991...The Democrats basically split down the middle today. Half of them walked out of Congress entirely, while the rest stayed just long enough to vote against the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Declaration of Independence. It was a mess.To be honest, when you look at how things are going, they’re basically against independence—at least if you're speaking colloquially.
Honestly, people used to get thrown under the bus all the time for forgetting one little detail—that the vast majority of the Democratic Party actually voted against the Declaration of Independence.
So, let me just give everyone a heads-up before things go sideways. You really have to lay it all out there. It’s true. The Democrats basically split down the middle today. Half of them walked out of Congress entirely, while the rest stayed put just to vote against the Constitutional Court's ruling on the Declaration of Independence. It was a mess.I mean, how could they not be totally whitewashed?

Just to be clear, the main thing being debated here wasn't actually the Declaration like you suggested in point two. It was the Constitutional Court ruling, and most of the Democratic Party voted in favor of it. Against. ...and then there's the second part. He walked out of Congress..

Regarding point one, I’m not looking to throw around ethnic labels or generalize like that. Only a fraction of the Mexicans actually walked out of Congress..
Back then, there were 33 Mexicans among the Democrats in Congress, and about 19 or 20 of those Democrats ended up walking out of the chamber entirely.
By the way, there are actually plenty of much better links out there that really break down what happened back on June 25th. They provide actual context for those historical events, which is a massive step up from that manipulative, half-baked piece they ran in The New York Times.

If you actually had a legitimate reason to say all that within a normal context, the way you phrased it in your very first comment on this thread, there wouldn't be any issue at all 👍

But if you decide to spin it the way you did in your second comment—basically ignoring half the facts—then the moderators will have to decide whether you deserve a ban or not. For instance, claiming something is just "slang" when it isn't... you'll probably end up getting flagged for that. Because it simply isn't true.

And no, we aren't going to spend forever debating this; you’ve already given your long-winded excuse in your own post, and I’ve given mine in mine, explaining why your version isn't reality. I just don't want to leave anyone else with a skewed impression of how this whole discussion ends...

Best.

Well, we finally pulled it off. 👍