[teejers1]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

The anti-politics rule is silly on this or any other forum of Stanford fans - who are all big boys and girls who can intellectually fend for themselves, without getting their tighty whiteys/panties in a bunch.  Hell, the rule should be revoked solely for running garvin, IIRC, (and redrum?) off the board.

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

Still, that's a pretty nifty "rule" for those sensitive to political commentary that might . . . what? . . . hurt their feelings?

[teejers1]

Why did they even start trials on this? Was it at direction of Trump or his appointees? Goose will tell me soon this is just all how a normal functioning democracy is supposed to work, and the fact the Army stopped testing the snake oil is evidence things are working just fine.

This MF Trump needs to go to jail just like all of his associates. They're all corrupt grifters, and I cannot wait for all the dirt to spill out once he leaves office.

Waiting for the Terry rule claim.  Oh right, it's anti-Trump (crickets).

Point of parliamentary clarification: Terry's rule doesn't say that one cannot discuss politics (pro or anti-Trump, or, for that matter any other politician).  The rule is that one cannot discuss politics outside of the context of COVID-19.  I looked at every post in this thread.  Although they are universally anti-Trump, including my own post starting the thread, all the posts that mention Trump mention him in the context of either COVID-19, his response to the pandemic, or his endorsements or alleged cures for COVID-19.

If you want a pro-Trump comment in there for balance, you can point to Operation Warp Speed as a model of how to speed up development of a vaccine.  If we get a vaccine out of it in the next 12 months (either before or after Nov) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to cite Trump's encouragement. 

BC

The anti-politics rule is silly on this or any other forum of Stanford fans - who are all big boys and girls who can intellectually fend for themselves, without getting their tighty whiteys/panties in a bunch.  Hell, the rule should be revoked solely for running garvin, IIRC, (and redrum?) off the board.

But it's also just precious that politics are "allowed" on the Covid board because . . . well, because all of the political commentary starts and ends with Trump being an idiot and enabler!  (And I have no problem with the rips because he deserves it in 90+% of the instances we see here).

Still, that's a pretty nifty "rule" for those sensitive to political commentary that might . . . what? . . . hurt their feelings?