If politics and world events influence price (and it surely does) why should we be afraid of discussing them? Additionally, I don't want some faceless, unidentified moderator deciding what gets posted. The world has enough of that bullshit already.

You can just go over to Zero Hedge and vent your political fantasies.

Discuss politics when making a clear relationship to members market expectation, else avoid it.

As long as everyone agrees that the point is to discuss the market impact of the politics and not the "true merits" of the politics.

Put differently, there should be no discussion of what is good or bad politically. Instead, the discussion should what affects the politics has on the markets.

Let me take a stab at this from a different direction.

Definition of politics from Wikipedia: "Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status."

Is that not what a market is? We gather together in a group to decide on a price in a system that involves power relations between different participants, and the distribution of resources.

MARKETS ARE POLITICS

The idea that you can somehow separate them into two different buckets is a fundamental misunderstanding of the system of which were are engaged in. The market is not some machine. It's a living system that is constantly evolving and changing based on the decisions that we make. That's politics. Trading without understanding that living system and the direction it is pointing will lead to bad trading. Especially at this point with how involved the federal government is in the workings of the financial market. Would we even have a market right now if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve and Fiscal Stimulus? (aka: politics). If a headline comes out tomorrow with a surprise change in the size of the next stimulus check, that's going to trump anything you see on your chart or volume. Given this situation I would not recommend ignoring how Joe Manchin might vote on further stimulus spending. Because it matters. It probably matters more than almost anything else you can look at right now.

Do people have disagreements and fight sometimes in politics? Yes. That's just how it goes, and it is no different in trading. It might not seem so apparent when you're online instead of behind the CME by the horse, but it is the nature of the thing. Conflicts are involved in any system that involves power dynamics and different interests. If that process is not something you enjoy then I'd suggest finding a different profession.

Politics in regards to the merits or detriment of proposed or passed legislation and regulation as it applies to finance and economics... yes, please.

Pontificating about one's worldview? I don't know. I could take it or leave it.

I haven't posted before, but I have done a lot of reading on the forum, and this is a question I have a connection to so I thought I would comment. My vote is absolutely, emphatically yes. The reason for this is that as a software engineer involved in algorithm design, I have seen exactly how our heightened degree of choice in terms of the information we are exposed to serves to limit and reinforce our views. Social media algorithms, TV networks with either a liberal or a conservative bias (but rarely neutral), right or left wing blogs and publications . . . it's all an echo chamber that cuts us off from opposing views and further divides us. We've begun to want and expect for everything we are shown to be pre-tailored to our own personal views, and become increasingly intolerant of any disagreeing opinions--to the point where we can't even engage in rational civil discourse anymore. I don't believe this is sustainable, and for this reason, I've been lobbying social media networks to change their algorithms for some time now. Unfortunately, I don't expect that they ever will. But maybe there is still room for exposure to alternate perspectives in online communities such as this one.

I understand this forum wasn't created to discuss politics, but it is a community, and I think people should be able to speak to each other about it if they wish, while maintaining mutual respect. Yes, politics is difficult to talk about, perhaps more so now than ever before. That is exactly why we need to be able to discuss it in a respectful and controlled manner. I believe it is bad for society for us to compartmentalize ourselves into this political view or that one, until we are so disdainful of any belief that doesn't match our own that we aren't even able to see our shared identity as Americans (in my case, anyway--it works the same for whatever nationality you pick). This compartmentalization is the problem, not the solution.

I hope you will allow civil discussion of politics on the forum, in appropriate subsections if this is deemed necessary. What we need is more communication and mutual understanding. Not less.

Big Mike 

Hey guys, I would like to hear from you - should civil discourse of politics be allowed in the off-topic section of our community? Mike

"civil discourse of politics"?

There is no such beast. That is the epitome of an oxymoron.

Naw, I get what you are saying about citations and rules and moderation, etc. but I come here for trading ideas and information, not politics. So statements about actions taken by politicians or governments that affect the markets are both fine to post and are, by definition, statements of fact -- e.g. "Yellen called a meeting over concerns of market manipulation."

To hear someone's opinion about the meeting or about market manipulation or what should or should not be done about it is, for me, just flotsam and jetsam that I have to wade through to get to useful information. E.g. "There was an options sweep yesterday of <fill in the blank>."

If political opinions were delegated to their own room, that would be fine. But otherwise, I already have a venue for discussing politics - I mean, really, how many public forums can you go to and NOT be hit in the face with political discussion.

"And that's all I have to say about that." Forest Gump.

koganam 

"civil discourse of politics"? There is no such beast. That is the epitome of an oxymoron.

Since it's been done, it can't be an oxymoron. I admit I am uncertain why you believe that, but I think it may be symptomatic of the problem. In fact, civil discourse one of the major goals of any democratic system, including our own. It is hard to imagine a lasting democracy where people cannot express alternate political viewpoints to each other and still remain rational human beings. You have a choice whether to maintain civility with people you disagree with, either in politics or anything else.

If you really believe this kind of behavior doesn't exist, try watching old news broadcasts or even political debates on YouTube prior to the year 2000. It isn't impossible--it just requires a bit of self management and a basic level of politeness.