I had no idea you'd been here this long. 
What would you say is the biggest change you've noticed in the forum culture in your time here? What's your favorite animal?
It's hard to be sure because my posting habits have also changed, but I think that the degree and quality of elections/demographics related posting has fallen. For example, in Political Geography and Demographics (the main elections related board I used to post in) we once had posters like Abdullah or Reagant who would make very thorough posts on ACS reports, demographics, etc -- today we don't. It's harder for to be so sure for other boards, but I get the same impression there as well. For example, I can't remember any recent equivalent to the HenryWallace vs. everyone else type debates that used to be very common the History board. I don't want to appear too confident in this assertion though -- It's possible, like I said, that I am mainly picking up on my own personal changes in focus, or being unduly nostalgic.
Favorite animal: I've always been a fan of tigers -- beautiful animals that seem smarter than lions, which I also like.
1. Why don’t you think conservatives need to pivot economically. Wouldn’t you say the core of economic Conservatism needs to be competition and don’t companies like Amazon, Walmart etc hurt small businesses. So why shouldn’t conservatives be for say stronger anti trust laws to promote competition in the marketplace again .
Also given the trend of hedge funds buying up more and more single family homes , wouldn't you say that’s problematic as that makes it harder for individuals to reach for the American dream and own a home itself.
The reason I’m asking this is because I do think there is a debate internally among conservatives whether we should pivot economically or not (Spearheaded by people like Oren Cass)
2. Are you a fan of any pro sports and if so what’s your favorite teams to follow
3. Are you a fan of Star Wars and if so what’s your favorite Movie in the saga
In discussing economics, I start from the moral role of government, and then go to the practical effects. Of course, I'm glad to discuss economics under different premises -- ie, ignoring the moral role, only considering the moral role -- but I believe one has to start with the moral role of government to avoid wrongdoing. Even if slavery were practically efficient, for example, it would still be wrong to declare anyone with an IQ below 110 a slave. Applying similar logic here, to a much less extreme example, I firstly oppose a "pivot" because it would be morally wrong. The individuals who own Walmart and Amazon have the right to cooperate with small businesses. The individuals who own the hedge funds have the right to buy homes. They retain this right because no government either has been or even
could have been granted the power to prohibit men from engaging in legitimate commercial transactions.
Then, going on to the practical effects, I think that the policies you discuss would be very bad for Americans. Amazon and Walmart do drive small businesses out by competing with them, to be sure, but they do so by offering better products and lower prices. Banning them would save small businesses, but it would also raise prices and hurt consumers. Similarly, banning hedge funds would mistake a symptom for a cause. Hedge funds have invested significantly in housing because prices are high and rising due to supply shortages created by government. Banning hedge funds from investing in housing would marginally adjust the existing supply in favor of home ownership rather than renting, worsening the affordability of renting and negatively impacting housing construction (thus raising both rent/ownership prices in the long term!) in exchange for a short term fall in ownership prices. The better solution is to lessen regulations on private construction of housing, which would make both owning and buying homes cheaper.
It is a debate among some conservatives, but I think those that tend to be "debating" it are (frankly) weirdos on a fringe. Oren Cass is primarily funded from the Left and his policy suggestions don't seem to have gotten much traction within the party. That's not to say I'm not concerned by some loss of support for the free market, particularly by more opportunist politicians such as Rubio, Hawley, Vance, etc, or there being some not very well thought out attempt to ban "Blackrock buying homes" or whatever, but as far as I can tell the Trump Admin, the overwhelming majority of the base, and most elected officials remain committed to free market policies. If anything, I'm more worried about certain forms of subsidies being implemented through tariffs/national security funding, but that debate seems to fall on different lines.
That would be the reverse of competition, which normally aims to achieve a maximally efficient market equilibrium at the expense of sinecured businesses/jobs. You would prioritize the latter over the former.
2. Never been a big sports guy, but my relative ranking to watch would be football > baseball > basketball, and to play baseball > football > basketball. Hockey seems interesting but have never checked it out. Teams wise, Patriots/49ers for football, Yankees/Giants for baseball. (Hometown connection to Patriots player, partially grew up in Bay Area, family from NYC, partially grew up in Bay Area).
3. Yes -- would have to say IV (chronologically) because it's the linchpin, but I also really liked the Battle of Hoth (V) and the clones versus droids battle in II.
What issue, if any, do you consider yourself aligned with the left over the right on?
This is a tough question because I tend to approach almost everything from a right-wing perspective, even if I have a left wing answer on a particular question.
For a semi-serious, semi "This is the best I can do" answer: I increasingly accept that America's history and sense of self cannot be separated from white supremacy and that right-wing attempts to defend America as being a colorblind are at odds with the majority of American history. The CRTists are stupid, but they're not wrong in saying that even men like Lincoln were very profound racists. The American Revolution wasn't fought for slavery, nor was the Texas Revolution, and liberty really was the defining feature/distinction of early and modern American life. But white supremacy was also taken as a given throughout our society, and not just in a "well, so was everyone else" way. Even after the Civil War, states that had never had slavery or that had long since abolished it voted against letting black men vote. And if Lincoln hadn't died, neither the 14th or 15th amendments probably would have been passed. I struggle to reconcile this with my idea of America as being on a path to a moral imperative.
