A poll buried in the related thread showed 2/3 in favor of banning all politics. In case some didn’t see it, please vote here.
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Wendy
Aristotle did not just say humans were political, he DEFINED humans as “the Political Animal”, which is my main point about this poll: a rule against politics is absurd.
Perhaps a rule against posts concerning Political
Parties
Candidates
Platforms
Screeds
but open to discussion of laws related to economics and investing?
d fb
6 Likes
Looks like someone voted both yes and no.
Now THAT’S what a politician would do. 
3 Likes
The poll instructions are clear: “up to 2 choices”
JimA
3 Likes
If there’s only 10 people left participating on this board, there’s not much left to argue about.
TMF’s work is done.
intercst
6 Likes
That’s why I voted “no” to banning international politics. Not that my opinion matters - it’s de facto Wendy’s board - but after Foolmageddon, it’s probably not helpful to expand a ban. The Boards were always a wonderful community filled with a lot of smart, thoughtful people - but very few of them remained after the purge two years ago. There’s so little activity even now, compared to the good old days. Reducing activity seems like a bad step.
Domestic political debates tend to escalate into tantrums and poo flinging. They involve a lot of “team” behavior, esp. conservative v. progressive, red v. blue. International discussions don’t seem to do that. They’re not as disruptive - and it’s not like they’re generating so much OT content that it’s hard to avoid them if you want.
I just think the Boards are threadbare and nearly moribund enough without throwing out another category of topics. Any interesting conversation might be enough to prompt a poster to engage with the board, so winnowing down just means that people have fewer discussions they’re engaged in. Less likely to check in, less likely to include the Board in their “rotation” of places to go.
13 Likes
The purpose of METAR is Macroeconomics and investing. No, the board doesn’t need any conversations, just on-topic conversations (seasoned with the occasional interesting off-topic information). The last thing we need is to attract people who will clutter up the board with arguments and irrelevant opinions. They have come and gone in the past. Good riddance.
Wendy
1 Like
That makes more work for me since I will have to identify and negate both the votes of fools who vote both yes and no.
Wendy
We are pretty lax on what passes for economics. Most of the board does not have the background for actual economic discussions.
If we regulated for only econ people would be insulted. Even before I got into berating nonsense that does not pass for economics.
2 Likes
This is already the METAR policy. Any law that impacts economics and investments is allowed – as long as it has actually been signed into law. Proposals in Congress that have NOT been signed into law are not allowed because they are inherently political and often don’t pass so it’s a waste of time.
Wendy
1 Like
That’s my point. International discussions are among the interesting off-topic information that make the board more engaging. They’re not as numerous as domestic political discussions were in the old Board days, and don’t seem to have resulted in “clutter” that make the board less usable.
But, up to you. It’s your board.
3 Likes
So what do we do with conversations on and gas versus wind and solar? Most of those things are forecasted budgets. There are government finger prints all over all of it.
1 Like
Why? I had the option of choosing both and believe that choice made a statement. Why would you disenfranchise me?
JimA
3 Likes
International events do affect macroeconomics. I’d suggest discussing the events without advocating for any political positions. That is, it would be OK to say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is going to affect food prices, and why; it might even be OK to explain why Russia invaded Ukraine; but it would not be OK to say that people who don’t want us to send support to Ukraine are silly Trumpists who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Right?
5 Likes
@WilliB – Right! You put this very well.
Wendy
There is no rule against politics. There is only a rule against politics ON THIS BOARD! There are tons of places to discuss politics, twitter, facebook, reddit, and assorted other smaller groups. Even here there used to be Political Asylum and Atheists groups to discuss politics.
Or are you claiming that politics have to be discussed in EVERY conversation?
2 Likes
Sure, the statement that your opposite votes canceled each other.
Wendy
2 Likes
If one candidate wants to change the Fed and take away it’s independence, should we not talk about that?
Isn’t that a “what if” scenario that Wendy talks about and therefore almost completely political? Nothing has come to pass yet so anything discussed here is conjectural.
Pete
4 Likes