[thatboy]

This is kind of a meta post and not really political, Covid, or sports but hopefully not violating any rules...

Am I the only one besides Teejers, I think, that likes the politics — or is at least not opposed to political discussions on this site? Why can’t there be a separate political area, like there is a Covid part of this site? It seems like it would be easier to moderate than the constant self reflection and agonizing about whether so many posts are violating the Terry rule.

I know some people are loath to mix politics with everything and like keeping this forum as a respite from such things. But a separate board seems like something easily avoided for those so inclined.

The old CEB is a cautionary tale, in my opinion, of what kind of toxic things can creep into a politics board. So I understand the hesitation. But I must admit the last thread that was just locked (“Here we go again”) seemed entirely cordial, harmless, and enjoyable to me, at least. Reading through it brought back memories of the old CEB in its heyday when I used to have civil discussions with people I completely disagreed with. And yes, my mind was changed back then occasionally — contrary to Mick’s assertion.

I realize there’s a new CEB, but it seems to have inherited some of the unfortunate elements that degraded the old CEB... so maybe that’s my answer. Perhaps it’s not workable. But at the very least I must say I enjoyed that “Here we go again” thread. I wish there was a place with civil political discussions like that. But maybe it’s just me.

[thatboy]

This is kind of a meta post and not really political, Covid, or sports but hopefully not violating any rules...

Am I the only one besides Teejers, I think, that likes the politics — or is at least not opposed to political discussions on this site? Why can’t there be a separate political area, like there is a Covid part of this site? It seems like it would be easier to moderate than the constant self reflection and agonizing about whether so many posts are violating the Terry rule.

I know some people are loath to mix politics with everything and like keeping this forum as a respite from such things. But a separate board seems like something easily avoided for those so inclined.

The old CEB is a cautionary tale, in my opinion, of what kind of toxic things can creep into a politics board. So I understand the hesitation. But I must admit the last thread that was just locked (“Here we go again”) seemed entirely cordial, harmless, and enjoyable to me, at least. Reading through it brought back memories of the old CEB in its heyday when I used to have civil discussions with people I completely disagreed with. And yes, my mind was changed back then occasionally — contrary to Mick’s assertion.

I realize there’s a new CEB, but it seems to have inherited some of the unfortunate elements that degraded the old CEB... so maybe that’s my answer. Perhaps it’s not workable. But at the very least I must say I enjoyed that “Here we go again” thread. I wish there was a place with civil political discussions like that. But maybe it’s just me.

[2006alum]

We follow marching orders from Admin, who pays for and runs this site. A few years back there was an escalating brouhaha that led to a ban and a selfquit. I don't think anyone wants a return to that, least of all mods, who aren't thrilled about policing poster behavior, which always tends to bring out the worst in people when it's about politics. 

Maybe our views differ, but I did not see anything in the aforementioned thread that was especially novel or enlightening, and the frequent posters mostly repeated their common talking points. (I could have had "Frequent Cardboard poster COVID tropes" BINGO in about 10 posts.) Speaking only for myself, I am not looking to the Cardboard to inform my political viewpoint - there's all sorts of places to go for that, and a brobdingnagian swath of the internet that can suit your needs. Or you can start your own forum for Stanford alums to chat politics. 

One day soon, gods willing, we will have lots of Stanford sports to talk about and no COVID-19. Until then, we've found a workable if occasionally clunky compromise. COVID-19 has definitely proved challenging in that respect, but I think the general consensus has been the tradeoff is worth it because there have been a lot of really helpful conversations about the pandemic around these parts. 

My 2 cents.

[2006alum]

We follow marching orders from Admin, who pays for and runs this site. A few years back there was an escalating brouhaha that led to a ban and a selfquit. I don't think anyone wants a return to that, least of all mods, who aren't thrilled about policing poster behavior, which always tends to bring out the worst in people when it's about politics. 

Maybe our views differ, but I did not see anything in the aforementioned thread that was especially novel or enlightening, and the frequent posters mostly repeated their common talking points. (I could have had "Frequent Cardboard poster COVID tropes" BINGO in about 10 posts.) Speaking only for myself, I am not looking to the Cardboard to inform my political viewpoint - there's all sorts of places to go for that, and a brobdingnagian swath of the internet that can suit your needs. Or you can start your own forum for Stanford alums to chat politics. 

One day soon, gods willing, we will have lots of Stanford sports to talk about and no COVID-19. Until then, we've found a workable if occasionally clunky compromise. COVID-19 has definitely proved challenging in that respect, but I think the general consensus has been the tradeoff is worth it because there have been a lot of really helpful conversations about the pandemic around these parts. 

My 2 cents.

[OutsiderFan]

I have no dog in this fight, but my $.02.

First, whoever runs the board gets to decide what content it has and how the forums are configured on it.  I'm thankful to those who have provided it in any form the Cardboard exists, and would never tell them how to run it.

As for political discussion, I THINK what thatboy is angling at is that though "there are plenty of other places to discuss politics on the internet" is a true statement, there's a big difference between them existing and them existing with moderators or that include an audience that is capable of having smart, respectful debates. 

It seems the reality is there are few places people with different perspectives actually do co-mingle and have respectful discussions. The Bootleg used to have the "Thunderdome" board, which would not qualify as respectful discussion. I only saw it a few times because it was low brow, offensive, and not appealing to me in the least. That's not the culture of the Cardboard, nor will it ever be.

There have been some heated debates on this board over the last few months that have delved into politics and difficult to discuss issues, some made by me. I have been impressed by how genuinely civil the discussions have been, given the sometimes passionate nature of the arguments made. The hardest thing to do when engaging with someone with whom you disagree is to not get personal when debating a topic. The denizens of this board have done a very impressive job presenting their perspectives, even when inflammatory, without making personal attacks on others. In my experience this is rare. So I can see why one might appreciate that this board has shown the ability to have sometimes emotional debates on sensitive and controversial topics, and want to be able to have more of those discussions on the Cardboard because its community has demonstrated the ability to have them, unlike all those other places on the internet that can't.

I don't like the idea of a Politics board, because that's not what this forum is about in terms of mission. But I do not have a problem with political discussion entering into approved discussion topics, because sometimes it's virtually impossible to have those discussions without politics or personal values intermixing in the discourse. That said, I think one thing that keeps the board discussion civil and not going overboard on political discussion is "the Terry Rule."  But it's kind of like the speed limit.  Sure, you aren't allowed over 55 or 65, but who doesn't drive faster than that on the freeway?  Of course, most of us don't drive 75-80+ either, just like most of us know not to go too far on political discussion on this board.

In the end, all behavior boils down to show you can be trusted to handle your business without going off the rails, hurting others, and/or causing destructive division, and you don't need to be regulated. Demonstrate you can't be trusted to behave responsibly, and face regulation.

[OutsiderFan]

I have no dog in this fight, but my $.02.

First, whoever runs the board gets to decide what content it has and how the forums are configured on it.  I'm thankful to those who have provided it in any form the Cardboard exists, and would never tell them how to run it.

As for political discussion, I THINK what thatboy is angling at is that though "there are plenty of other places to discuss politics on the internet" is a true statement, there's a big difference between them existing and them existing with moderators or that include an audience that is capable of having smart, respectful debates. 

It seems the reality is there are few places people with different perspectives actually do co-mingle and have respectful discussions. The Bootleg used to have the "Thunderdome" board, which would not qualify as respectful discussion. I only saw it a few times because it was low brow, offensive, and not appealing to me in the least. That's not the culture of the Cardboard, nor will it ever be.

There have been some heated debates on this board over the last few months that have delved into politics and difficult to discuss issues, some made by me. I have been impressed by how genuinely civil the discussions have been, given the sometimes passionate nature of the arguments made. The hardest thing to do when engaging with someone with whom you disagree is to not get personal when debating a topic. The denizens of this board have done a very impressive job presenting their perspectives, even when inflammatory, without making personal attacks on others. In my experience this is rare. So I can see why one might appreciate that this board has shown the ability to have sometimes emotional debates on sensitive and controversial topics, and want to be able to have more of those discussions on the Cardboard because its community has demonstrated the ability to have them, unlike all those other places on the internet that can't.

I don't like the idea of a Politics board, because that's not what this forum is about in terms of mission. But I do not have a problem with political discussion entering into approved discussion topics, because sometimes it's virtually impossible to have those discussions without politics or personal values intermixing in the discourse. That said, I think one thing that keeps the board discussion civil and not going overboard on political discussion is "the Terry Rule."  But it's kind of like the speed limit.  Sure, you aren't allowed over 55 or 65, but who doesn't drive faster than that on the freeway?  Of course, most of us don't drive 75-80+ either, just like most of us know not to go too far on political discussion on this board.

In the end, all behavior boils down to show you can be trusted to handle your business without going off the rails, hurting others, and/or causing destructive division, and you don't need to be regulated. Demonstrate you can't be trusted to behave responsibly, and face regulation.

[Mick]

I have no dog in this fight, but my $.02.

First, whoever runs the board gets to decide what content it has and how the forums are configured on it.  I'm thankful to those who have provided it in any form the Cardboard exists, and would never tell them how to run it.

As for political discussion, I THINK what thatboy is angling at is that though "there are plenty of other places to discuss politics on the internet" is a true statement, there's a big difference between them existing and them existing with moderators or that include an audience that is capable of having smart, respectful debates. 

It seems the reality is there are few places people with different perspectives actually do co-mingle and have respectful discussions. The Bootleg used to have the "Thunderdome" board, which would not qualify as respectful discussion. I only saw it a few times because it was low brow, offensive, and not appealing to me in the least. That's not the culture of the Cardboard, nor will it ever be.

There have been some heated debates on this board over the last few months that have delved into politics and difficult to discuss issues, some made by me. I have been impressed by how genuinely civil the discussions have been, given the sometimes passionate nature of the arguments made. The hardest thing to do when engaging with someone with whom you disagree is to not get personal when debating a topic. The denizens of this board have done a very impressive job presenting their perspectives, even when inflammatory, without making personal attacks on others. In my experience this is rare. So I can see why one might appreciate that this board has shown the ability to have sometimes emotional debates on sensitive and controversial topics, and want to be able to have more of those discussions on the Cardboard because its community has demonstrated the ability to have them, unlike all those other places on the internet that can't.

I don't like the idea of a Politics board, because that's not what this forum is about in terms of mission. But I do not have a problem with political discussion entering into approved discussion topics, because sometimes it's virtually impossible to have those discussions without politics or personal values intermixing in the discourse. That said, I think one thing that keeps the board discussion civil and not going overboard on political discussion is "the Terry Rule."  But it's kind of like the speed limit.  Sure, you aren't allowed over 55 or 65, but who doesn't drive faster than that on the freeway?  Of course, most of us don't drive 75-80+ either, just like most of us know not to go too far on political discussion on this board.

In the end, all behavior boils down to show you can be trusted to handle your business without going off the rails, hurting others, and/or causing destructive division, and you don't need to be regulated. Demonstrate you can't be trusted to behave responsibly, and face regulation.

I think Stanford fans, politics and the Cardboard meshes just about as well as whiskey, car keys and 16 year old boys.  This is the only forum (frankly the only time in my life) I've been on where I've been called a racist.  The so-called Terry rule is chiefly to silence conservatives and I've been called out multiple times for not denouncing Trump quickly enough or often enough. The fact that some of you either don't understand that or don't care tells me all I need to know about this place, vis-a-vis politics.  So as a moderate-left registered independent, I love political discussions with people from all angles, but I think I'll pass on political discussions here.

[Mick]

I have no dog in this fight, but my $.02.

First, whoever runs the board gets to decide what content it has and how the forums are configured on it.  I'm thankful to those who have provided it in any form the Cardboard exists, and would never tell them how to run it.

As for political discussion, I THINK what thatboy is angling at is that though "there are plenty of other places to discuss politics on the internet" is a true statement, there's a big difference between them existing and them existing with moderators or that include an audience that is capable of having smart, respectful debates. 

It seems the reality is there are few places people with different perspectives actually do co-mingle and have respectful discussions. The Bootleg used to have the "Thunderdome" board, which would not qualify as respectful discussion. I only saw it a few times because it was low brow, offensive, and not appealing to me in the least. That's not the culture of the Cardboard, nor will it ever be.

There have been some heated debates on this board over the last few months that have delved into politics and difficult to discuss issues, some made by me. I have been impressed by how genuinely civil the discussions have been, given the sometimes passionate nature of the arguments made. The hardest thing to do when engaging with someone with whom you disagree is to not get personal when debating a topic. The denizens of this board have done a very impressive job presenting their perspectives, even when inflammatory, without making personal attacks on others. In my experience this is rare. So I can see why one might appreciate that this board has shown the ability to have sometimes emotional debates on sensitive and controversial topics, and want to be able to have more of those discussions on the Cardboard because its community has demonstrated the ability to have them, unlike all those other places on the internet that can't.

I don't like the idea of a Politics board, because that's not what this forum is about in terms of mission. But I do not have a problem with political discussion entering into approved discussion topics, because sometimes it's virtually impossible to have those discussions without politics or personal values intermixing in the discourse. That said, I think one thing that keeps the board discussion civil and not going overboard on political discussion is "the Terry Rule."  But it's kind of like the speed limit.  Sure, you aren't allowed over 55 or 65, but who doesn't drive faster than that on the freeway?  Of course, most of us don't drive 75-80+ either, just like most of us know not to go too far on political discussion on this board.

In the end, all behavior boils down to show you can be trusted to handle your business without going off the rails, hurting others, and/or causing destructive division, and you don't need to be regulated. Demonstrate you can't be trusted to behave responsibly, and face regulation.

I think Stanford fans, politics and the Cardboard meshes just about as well as whiskey, car keys and 16 year old boys.  This is the only forum (frankly the only time in my life) I've been on where I've been called a racist.  The so-called Terry rule is chiefly to silence conservatives and I've been called out multiple times for not denouncing Trump quickly enough or often enough. The fact that some of you either don't understand that or don't care tells me all I need to know about this place, vis-a-vis politics.  So as a moderate-left registered independent, I love political discussions with people from all angles, but I think I'll pass on political discussions here.

[terry]

I'd prefer to keep the Cardboard free of politics. I believe the Cardboard should be a place where we as Stanford fans can unite around a shared interest in Stanford sports. Political discussions tend to divide us over issues having nothing to do with Stanford sports. To me, political discussions detract from the Cardboard's goal of bringing together Stanford fans. I used to participate in the Bootleg's Current Events Board and I eventually decided that it had become too divisive and contentious. I'd prefer that the Cardboard not go in that direction.

By the way, I just want to clarify that I didn't invent the "Terry rule." That name came from a post in which I described the policy that the moderators already had adopted -- specifically, that the Cardboard's "no politics" rule had been relaxed only for the limited purpose of allowing discussion of the political response to Covid-19. I support that approach, but I didn't come up with the idea.

[terry]

I'd prefer to keep the Cardboard free of politics. I believe the Cardboard should be a place where we as Stanford fans can unite around a shared interest in Stanford sports. Political discussions tend to divide us over issues having nothing to do with Stanford sports. To me, political discussions detract from the Cardboard's goal of bringing together Stanford fans. I used to participate in the Bootleg's Current Events Board and I eventually decided that it had become too divisive and contentious. I'd prefer that the Cardboard not go in that direction.

By the way, I just want to clarify that I didn't invent the "Terry rule." That name came from a post in which I described the policy that the moderators already had adopted -- specifically, that the Cardboard's "no politics" rule had been relaxed only for the limited purpose of allowing discussion of the political response to Covid-19. I support that approach, but I didn't come up with the idea.

[dabigv13]

Agree, as usual, with Terry's post.

I think I was perhaps one of the first student posters, in 2002. There was an ad for the site in the Stanford Daily, and I was a frosh who actually enjoyed going to the football games even in the era of Teevens. I met several posters on the board at Zot's for drinks back then, I think garvin and Nan3cy were there at least. Certainly glad they introduced me to it. And in recent Rose Bowl years have met posters at LA meetups for drinks.

I think we all show our asses a bit when things turn political on the board, and it's nicer when putting a name and a face and a handle together is not accompanied with political garbage, but rather their bad opinion on goal line fades or the run/pass balance or whatever.

[dabigv13]

Agree, as usual, with Terry's post.

I think I was perhaps one of the first student posters, in 2002. There was an ad for the site in the Stanford Daily, and I was a frosh who actually enjoyed going to the football games even in the era of Teevens. I met several posters on the board at Zot's for drinks back then, I think garvin and Nan3cy were there at least. Certainly glad they introduced me to it. And in recent Rose Bowl years have met posters at LA meetups for drinks.

I think we all show our asses a bit when things turn political on the board, and it's nicer when putting a name and a face and a handle together is not accompanied with political garbage, but rather their bad opinion on goal line fades or the run/pass balance or whatever.

[oregontim]

I came for the Covid, but I'm an alum and a sports fan especially football, basketball, and lately women's basketball too, so I suspect I'll be "came for Covid, stayed for Cardinal" when we finally get sports going again.

As for politics, I've been drawn into politics lately way more than any time since I was a college kid in the 60s, because of what feels like urgency and a very high level of lasting threat. I see myself sometimes as the poor idiot in the cartoon who is typing like mad because "somebody is wrong on the Internet." I worry that it gives a fake sense or having done something for good, having mattered, as I correct those in the other tribe. That's delusional, I know, but at least I'm aware of it.

However, I have had my mind changed occasionally, most recently by Goose in a post on "here we go again...". And I've made mistakes I had made on facts and evidence corrected two or three times, and recognized my error in some (rare) cases. I'm pretty sure I've seen others acknowledge legitimate corrections and convincing arguments. Kudos to the group for that.

I lean against setting up a political discussion for the selfish reason that I'll be drawn to it if we do, and I'll waste time and energy and stress correcting the other tribe's talking points, which will end up being my sound and fury achieving nothing. I'm likely to be repetitive and strident. On politics in 2020, I can't help it. Can any of us?

So I'm hoping it will end up as I said above, "came for the Covid, stayed for the Cardinal."

[oregontim]

I came for the Covid, but I'm an alum and a sports fan especially football, basketball, and lately women's basketball too, so I suspect I'll be "came for Covid, stayed for Cardinal" when we finally get sports going again.

As for politics, I've been drawn into politics lately way more than any time since I was a college kid in the 60s, because of what feels like urgency and a very high level of lasting threat. I see myself sometimes as the poor idiot in the cartoon who is typing like mad because "somebody is wrong on the Internet." I worry that it gives a fake sense or having done something for good, having mattered, as I correct those in the other tribe. That's delusional, I know, but at least I'm aware of it.

However, I have had my mind changed occasionally, most recently by Goose in a post on "here we go again...". And I've made mistakes I had made on facts and evidence corrected two or three times, and recognized my error in some (rare) cases. I'm pretty sure I've seen others acknowledge legitimate corrections and convincing arguments. Kudos to the group for that.

I lean against setting up a political discussion for the selfish reason that I'll be drawn to it if we do, and I'll waste time and energy and stress correcting the other tribe's talking points, which will end up being my sound and fury achieving nothing. I'm likely to be repetitive and strident. On politics in 2020, I can't help it. Can any of us?

So I'm hoping it will end up as I said above, "came for the Covid, stayed for the Cardinal."

[lex24]

I’ve tried pretty hard to follow the Terry Rule. (As I think others generally do)  Perhaps failed at times.  But I think when politics do get discussed it’s generally quite civil. Which is refreshing. 

I do think,however,  there has been a tendency to “call the game” and shut the thread when a comment comes from someone that is less progressive than most of the Board.

So all I ask is invoke it evenly.

[lex24]

I’ve tried pretty hard to follow the Terry Rule. (As I think others generally do)  Perhaps failed at times.  But I think when politics do get discussed it’s generally quite civil. Which is refreshing. 

I do think,however,  there has been a tendency to “call the game” and shut the thread when a comment comes from someone that is less progressive than most of the Board.

So all I ask is invoke it evenly.

[OutsiderFan]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:

- Limited government interference
- Constitution and rule of Law
- Individual liberty and reverence for democracy
- Anti-Russia and Pro-NATO
- Fiscal responsibility
- Free trade
- Conservation of resources
- Respect for science and intellectualism
- Project American influence and values in foreign policy
- Character and "family values"

To me, conservative now means:

- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
- Hate and bigotry
- Deny truth and embrace conspiracy theories
- Ally with Russia to weaken United States
- Embrace of fascism
- Anti-intellectualism
- Shitting on the Constitution and rule of law
- Disenfranchising people from voting
- Weakening American influence in world
- Grifters, liars, and con men

Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

[OutsiderFan]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:

- Limited government interference
- Constitution and rule of Law
- Individual liberty and reverence for democracy
- Anti-Russia and Pro-NATO
- Fiscal responsibility
- Free trade
- Conservation of resources
- Respect for science and intellectualism
- Project American influence and values in foreign policy
- Character and "family values"

To me, conservative now means:

- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
- Hate and bigotry
- Deny truth and embrace conspiracy theories
- Ally with Russia to weaken United States
- Embrace of fascism
- Anti-intellectualism
- Shitting on the Constitution and rule of law
- Disenfranchising people from voting
- Weakening American influence in world
- Grifters, liars, and con men

Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

[OutsiderFan]

Saw this after making my "what is conservative" post, and thought it bolstered it, so here it is.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...ion-400039

[OutsiderFan]

Saw this after making my "what is conservative" post, and thought it bolstered it, so here it is.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...ion-400039

[2006alum]

Ugh. The last two posts seem akin to staring the Terry Rule straight in the face and throwing a molotov cocktail at it. I suggest the comments section of that POLITICO article as a better venue to debate the tenets of contemporary American conservativism.

[2006alum]

Ugh. The last two posts seem akin to staring the Terry Rule straight in the face and throwing a molotov cocktail at it. I suggest the comments section of that POLITICO article as a better venue to debate the tenets of contemporary American conservativism.

[Goose]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:



- Limited government interference

.......

To me, conservative now means:



- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
........


Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

OF, the problem here is that you conflate Donald Trump with conservatism. He has nothing to do with conservatism. Never has. The fact that you conflate the two show that Trump has won. Yet another citizen has got it wrong.

I stop here, because for sure this is outside the Terry rule IMHO.

[Goose]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:



- Limited government interference

.......

To me, conservative now means:



- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
........


Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

OF, the problem here is that you conflate Donald Trump with conservatism. He has nothing to do with conservatism. Never has. The fact that you conflate the two show that Trump has won. Yet another citizen has got it wrong.

I stop here, because for sure this is outside the Terry rule IMHO.

[fullmetal]

I agree with the rule and its justifications.  The national political discourse (external to this board) has shifted dramatically since I started posting in the early '00s, and rather than seeing Overton windows shift, I think they've expanded widely on both ends, though more so toward the right.  Not only have the acceptable topics of discussion shifted, but the tone/nature/purpose of political discourse has changed as well.  Somewhere along the line, party officials figured out that polarization and doubling down on values/messaging would bring more ROI than appealing toward the mythical swing voter.  Given the percentage of inactive-yet-eligible American voters, this was only a natural efficiency.  Such polarization has led to the denigration, demonization, and drawn battle lines between political camps, and this rush toward political extremes has no place in a sports forum dedicated to supporting Stanford sports teams.

[fullmetal]

I agree with the rule and its justifications.  The national political discourse (external to this board) has shifted dramatically since I started posting in the early '00s, and rather than seeing Overton windows shift, I think they've expanded widely on both ends, though more so toward the right.  Not only have the acceptable topics of discussion shifted, but the tone/nature/purpose of political discourse has changed as well.  Somewhere along the line, party officials figured out that polarization and doubling down on values/messaging would bring more ROI than appealing toward the mythical swing voter.  Given the percentage of inactive-yet-eligible American voters, this was only a natural efficiency.  Such polarization has led to the denigration, demonization, and drawn battle lines between political camps, and this rush toward political extremes has no place in a sports forum dedicated to supporting Stanford sports teams.

[OutsiderFan]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:



- Limited government interference

.......

To me, conservative now means:



- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
........


Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

OF, the problem here is that you conflate Donald Trump with conservatism. He has nothing to do with conservatism. Never has. The fact that you conflate the two show that Trump has won. Yet another citizen has got it wrong.

I stop here, because for sure this is outside the Terry rule IMHO.

Au contraire mon fraire. I'm one of the few who do get it. You'll notice I didn't refer to the POTUS in my post of former and current versions of conservatism. The fact is the current POTUS serves at the pleasure of the Republican Party, which effectively defines what main stream conservatism is in the United States.

It is total myth that the guy in the White House now exists as some gravitational force pulling the GOP to adopt his definition of conservatism. The reality is the GOP pulled him in because it wanted the version of conservativism it now has, and found a Trojan horse to inject it. If anyone doubts this, read the party, I'm sorry, there is no party platform this year. It's whatever the POTUS wants to do because you can't seriously put the things the GOP wants to do in an actual platform. Well, you could, but it doesn't have the courage to say what it really wants to do. If it did, it would spell it out. 

There seems to be a fight going on for what it means to be conservative. The GOP is having a convention this week touting what it believes conservativism is today. Meanwhile, there is a counter programmed convention going on that is touting what the GOP defined conservative to be prior to when Obama was President: https://www.cfp2020.us. No wonder nobody can define what conservativism is right now.

[OutsiderFan]

What is a conservative? I used to have a great deal of respect for conservative thought:



- Limited government interference

.......

To me, conservative now means:



- Selling out country and once held values for party or tribe
........


Which definition of conservative are we being asked to treat "evenly" exactly?  The one above or the one below?

OF, the problem here is that you conflate Donald Trump with conservatism. He has nothing to do with conservatism. Never has. The fact that you conflate the two show that Trump has won. Yet another citizen has got it wrong.

I stop here, because for sure this is outside the Terry rule IMHO.

Au contraire mon fraire. I'm one of the few who do get it. You'll notice I didn't refer to the POTUS in my post of former and current versions of conservatism. The fact is the current POTUS serves at the pleasure of the Republican Party, which effectively defines what main stream conservatism is in the United States.

It is total myth that the guy in the White House now exists as some gravitational force pulling the GOP to adopt his definition of conservatism. The reality is the GOP pulled him in because it wanted the version of conservativism it now has, and found a Trojan horse to inject it. If anyone doubts this, read the party, I'm sorry, there is no party platform this year. It's whatever the POTUS wants to do because you can't seriously put the things the GOP wants to do in an actual platform. Well, you could, but it doesn't have the courage to say what it really wants to do. If it did, it would spell it out. 

There seems to be a fight going on for what it means to be conservative. The GOP is having a convention this week touting what it believes conservativism is today. Meanwhile, there is a counter programmed convention going on that is touting what the GOP defined conservative to be prior to when Obama was President: https://www.cfp2020.us. No wonder nobody can define what conservativism is right now.

[oregontim]

I agree with the rule and its justifications.  The national political discourse (external to this board) has shifted dramatically since I started posting in the early '00s, and rather than seeing Overton windows shift, I think they've expanded widely on both ends, though more so toward the right.  Not only have the acceptable topics of discussion shifted, but the tone/nature/purpose of political discourse has changed as well.  Somewhere along the line, party officials figured out that polarization and doubling down on values/messaging would bring more ROI than appealing toward the mythical swing voter.  Given the percentage of inactive-yet-eligible American voters, this was only a natural efficiency.  Such polarization has led to the denigration, demonization, and drawn battle lines between political camps, and this rush toward political extremes has no place in a sports forum dedicated to supporting Stanford sports teams.

Yes, well said. I agree with Fullmetal on this and it’s an excellent summary of what’s happened, IMO.

[oregontim]

I agree with the rule and its justifications.  The national political discourse (external to this board) has shifted dramatically since I started posting in the early '00s, and rather than seeing Overton windows shift, I think they've expanded widely on both ends, though more so toward the right.  Not only have the acceptable topics of discussion shifted, but the tone/nature/purpose of political discourse has changed as well.  Somewhere along the line, party officials figured out that polarization and doubling down on values/messaging would bring more ROI than appealing toward the mythical swing voter.  Given the percentage of inactive-yet-eligible American voters, this was only a natural efficiency.  Such polarization has led to the denigration, demonization, and drawn battle lines between political camps, and this rush toward political extremes has no place in a sports forum dedicated to supporting Stanford sports teams.

Yes, well said. I agree with Fullmetal on this and it’s an excellent summary of what’s happened, IMO.

[2006alum]

Unless the unintentional point of this thread was to serve as an exemplar of posts that violate the Terry Rule, I'm not seeing why this is on a COVID board, and the last half dozen posts have nothing to do with COVID, so I'm going to temporarily come out of Mod sabbatical and close it. Not sure why folks feel the need to play with fire.

[2006alum]

Unless the unintentional point of this thread was to serve as an exemplar of posts that violate the Terry Rule, I'm not seeing why this is on a COVID board, and the last half dozen posts have nothing to do with COVID, so I'm going to temporarily come out of Mod sabbatical and close it. Not sure why folks feel the need to play with fire.