I agree with several statements above, paraphrased (I hope not too poorly) below:
- Discussion of actual political policy has been very poor in last few years for several reasons, including lack of good-faith arguments and lack of any philosophical or consistent policy-based argument by current administration (e.g. what we think today has no bearing on what we thought yesterday or will think tomorrow).
- Those that would be primary drivers of discussion above include @Ghost of LL, @longhornmatt, and potentially @Brisketexan (only mentioning potentially because I think he started becoming less conservative before this administration, for right or wrong). These voices have become stridently anti-current administration, so not much debate there. Other "true believes", including Swam4Texas, @EMAWesome, @markstanco, @TahoeHorn (and his acknowledged sock @MixtyMotions), are part of that latter group of drive-by comments, lack of follow through on discussion, etc. i can only think of one conservative poster who genuinely seems to want to have conversation (@Wulaw Horn). @Anastasis doesn't count here as he hates both sides.
- That leaves primary discussion being either "How bad were things today" or discussion over issues that are fact-based, not belief-based. Here there is certainly a grey area as difference between fact and implication of fact is not always as clear as it may seem, but I refer to things like legal or political rationale with Mueller Report and Flynn Hearing. Not discussion over whether behavior is wrong or right, but about what the basis for certain court rulings, committee reports, etc. I personally have enjoyed following these conversations, although I have not contributed.
What does that leave us? There have been cool discussion on philosophy, existence of God, etc., but I don't see how there can be any actual policy-based discussion in CR without actual policy to debate. The Columbus discussion (and I understand that this is only an example for you) should not be CR-bound, and is going to necessarily get smaller viewership (and therefore discussion) because of its presence in CR. That could easily be in DT, except for it would get sidetracked with Trump this and Trump that. Our national discourse is so broken that everything is viewed through policy, and so it comes back to lack of consistent policy to use to formulate arguments.
That's a lot of words, and it probably looks like I'm saying it's all the other guys's fault. And it's true, both for us guys as well as the other guys. This is a symptom, not a casual factor. I think I need that ledge now. Any scotch left?