5 ms·

Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans

evan_ 6y ago
As much as there ever really were "small government republicans" there certainly aren't any today. "Owning the libs" is the only reason the current batch of conservatives gets out of bed in the morning. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-all-about-owning-the-libs-now_n_5bb78317e4b0876eda9dc907 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-...
- outworlder 6y ago
  > Owning the libs We should call what it is. They working to make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can. Whoever does this is working against their own country. This is unpatriotic.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." --Frank Wilhoit
  - oldsklgdfth 6y ago
    > make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can The main tool that populism leverages is anger. It is true on both sides of the political spectrum.
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    This is lazy thinking. Telling yourself that the other side is evil is a short-cut for the incurious.
- b0sk 6y ago
  Absolutely. To get a slice of that thinking. Here's Rush Limbaugh: (backstory: Trump has been repeatedly peddling an absolutely baseless claim that his TV critic Joe Scarborough murdered his employee couple of decades back. Her husband is now pleading that Trump is causing irreparable damage to their family). Anyway, here's Limbaugh: “The thing here is when you get to Trump and his conspiracy theories, he does it in a really clever way,” he proclaimed. “And this is where people don’t get the subtlety of Trump because they don’t think he has the ability to be subtle. Trump never says that he believes these conspiracy theories that he touts. He’s simply passing them on.” Asked by his producer whether he thinks “Trump cares whether Scarborough murdered anybody or not,” Limbaugh replied that the president doesn’t care but is tweeting about it “because it’s out there.” “So Trump is just throwing gasoline on a fire here, and he’s having fun watching the flames—and he’s having fun watching these holier-than-thou leftist journalists react like their moral sensibilities have been forever rocked and can never recover,” he concluded.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Most people, if they spent their time at work trolling and shitposting instead of doing the job they were paid to do, would simply be fired.
    - evan_ 6y ago
      he's doing what he was elected to do.
- tarkin2 6y ago
  "Owning the libs": Politics is no longer about how best to manage the state. It's about how to attack the vilified 'other side'. As long as Trump does that, he does no wrong with his supporters. No longer a society discussing its management. More a cultural civil war. A country divided, weakened.
orblivion 6y ago
Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.
- komali2 6y ago
  > supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses. Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.
- akersten 6y ago
  I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’m not personally concerned with the rights of private businesses as much as I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of expanding government power. And yes, that is a new position for me. These past few years have been quite the education about the downsides of federal power as a liberal.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Be careful not to allow yourself to be identified as a libertarian. That will get you ostracized by both sides, almost violently so. The only thing both sides agree on is that they don't have anywhere near enough input in your life.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    This probably has to do with the publisher vs platform debate. That means it is not about expanding government power but removing protections that the government granted to corporations.
Reedx 6y ago
Supposedly being the key word. Those that get into power tend to only grow the size of government and debt.
- phkahler 6y ago
  Yeah, neither party is concerned about the financial well being of the country. Seems like financiers are running things.
adrr 6y ago
It’s the same people who said the deficit was the top priority during the Obama administration. Once in power immediately increased the deficit.
slg 6y ago
>The draft order also requires the Attorney General to establish a working group including state attorneys general that will examine the enforcement of state laws that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts. >The working group will also monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or other users.[1] I'm sure there are plenty of "small government" and libertarian-leaning folks who are now in favor of government watch lists based off who and what US citizens interact with on social media. [1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-trump-executive-order/trumps-executive-order-targets-political-bias-at-twitter-and-facebook-draft-idUSL1N2DA09S https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-trump-executive-orde...
HPsquared 6y ago
To play devils advocate, isn't this a case of _removing_ a law? Sounds like a reduction to me.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Removing a law isn’t the same as reducing governmental power. In this case removing 230 would make what goes on Twitter mostly a matter for the courts, which would be a massive increase in the governments ability to police speech. The power and scope of the third branch shouldn’t be ignored, and “conservative” in the judicial sense is usually about reducing the scope of life that’s subject to the court’s control.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  It would be removing government granted protections that certain corporations have. The law would in all likelihood remain in tact.
HeroOfAges 6y ago
This isn't about moderation, or removing tweets or banning people. Twitter changed the content of The President's tweet. When they edited his content, they became a publisher. Had simply removed it, I think they'd still be ok, but when they changed the content, they risked losing their protections under Section 230.
- jjjensen90 6y ago
  You are incorrect, they did not edit his tweet, they editorialized it. Completely different, and also covered under section 230, and confirmed in court decisions up to the 9th circuit court.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
I'll take a stab at it. The government should only be as large as the entities threatening it's citizens rights. The scale of "small" is relative, especially when dealing with large multinational corporations.
centimeter 6y ago
I'm not a republican, but people on this site might have a hard time making the distinction, so here's my take: 1. These protections shouldn't be necessary in the first place. The first amendment should make most copyright enforcement, libel suits, etc. illegal. Of course, that's not the world we live in. 2. Freedom of association (being able to turn people away from your business) is absolutely a fundamental right, but I have zero sympathy for progressives when they get screwed on this, because they've done more than anyone in US history to eliminate freedom of association. They made this bed, now they have to lie in it. When you give the government the power to force people to work with parties they don't want to, obviously that's going to turn around and bite you in the ass at some point when you lose control of the institutions that decide how you're allowed to choose who you work with. So, on net, this sucks and I wish it was very different, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the people who brought this upon themselves.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mwBlVuHDNE 6y ago
Ok. My normal account is apolitical and I don't know if I would call myself a Republican, more of a conservative maybe. Regardless, for me this goes back to the Covington Catholic incident. Nick Sandmann sued the Washington Post, NBC, and CNN for defamation and settled. He had a pretty strong case. I think being able to sue for defamation is reasonable and not necessarily indicative of big government support. But Twitter can't be sued but that was where the videos of him were posted and it was where a Twitter mob formed and peopled doxed him and started to call for Nick's head. I remember seeing it all happen in real time on Friday on Twitter. By Sunday the news outlets were running with it. At that time, Twitter wasn't flagging content as misleading however, they were banning harmful rhetoric. I guess to me that sort of activity that happened in January 2019 is harmful rhetoric. The ability to let an angry mob defame someone like that and even threaten someone is something Twitter should take responsibility for. Every other publishing platform is held to those standards. If Twitter is profiting from the use which may include activities like defaming someone, then it makes sense that victims are entitled to some compensation from them in addition to any users. Although I appreciate there are fine legal arguments to be made here. And for the record, it seems like fairly normal discourse on Twitter to expose people with personal information for specifically being racist, misogynist, etc. without any evidence required and people usually condone this. This definitely can be damaging and I think people who are victims of this justly ought to be able to recover losses. Twitter doesn't seem to have much interest in stopping it like they do other forms of harmful speech so I think victims ought to be able to get justice and that has nothing to do with Trump's tweeting habits.

As much as there ever really were "small government republicans" there certainly aren't any today. "Owning the libs" is the only reason the current batch of conservatives gets out of bed in the morning. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-all-about-owning-the-libs-now_n_5bb78317e4b0876eda9dc907 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-...

outworlder 6y ago
> Owning the libs We should call what it is. They working to make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can. Whoever does this is working against their own country. This is unpatriotic.
- evan_ 6y ago
  "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." --Frank Wilhoit
- oldsklgdfth 6y ago
  > make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can The main tool that populism leverages is anger. It is true on both sides of the political spectrum.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  This is lazy thinking. Telling yourself that the other side is evil is a short-cut for the incurious.
b0sk 6y ago
Absolutely. To get a slice of that thinking. Here's Rush Limbaugh: (backstory: Trump has been repeatedly peddling an absolutely baseless claim that his TV critic Joe Scarborough murdered his employee couple of decades back. Her husband is now pleading that Trump is causing irreparable damage to their family). Anyway, here's Limbaugh: “The thing here is when you get to Trump and his conspiracy theories, he does it in a really clever way,” he proclaimed. “And this is where people don’t get the subtlety of Trump because they don’t think he has the ability to be subtle. Trump never says that he believes these conspiracy theories that he touts. He’s simply passing them on.” Asked by his producer whether he thinks “Trump cares whether Scarborough murdered anybody or not,” Limbaugh replied that the president doesn’t care but is tweeting about it “because it’s out there.” “So Trump is just throwing gasoline on a fire here, and he’s having fun watching the flames—and he’s having fun watching these holier-than-thou leftist journalists react like their moral sensibilities have been forever rocked and can never recover,” he concluded.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Most people, if they spent their time at work trolling and shitposting instead of doing the job they were paid to do, would simply be fired.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    he's doing what he was elected to do.
tarkin2 6y ago
"Owning the libs": Politics is no longer about how best to manage the state. It's about how to attack the vilified 'other side'. As long as Trump does that, he does no wrong with his supporters. No longer a society discussing its management. More a cultural civil war. A country divided, weakened.

orblivion 6y ago

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

komali2 6y ago
> supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses. Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.
akersten 6y ago
I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m not personally concerned with the rights of private businesses as much as I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of expanding government power. And yes, that is a new position for me. These past few years have been quite the education about the downsides of federal power as a liberal.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Be careful not to allow yourself to be identified as a libertarian. That will get you ostracized by both sides, almost violently so. The only thing both sides agree on is that they don't have anywhere near enough input in your life.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  This probably has to do with the publisher vs platform debate. That means it is not about expanding government power but removing protections that the government granted to corporations.

Reedx 6y ago

Supposedly being the key word. Those that get into power tend to only grow the size of government and debt.

phkahler 6y ago
Yeah, neither party is concerned about the financial well being of the country. Seems like financiers are running things.

adrr 6y ago

It’s the same people who said the deficit was the top priority during the Obama administration. Once in power immediately increased the deficit.

slg 6y ago

>The draft order also requires the Attorney General to establish a working group including state attorneys general that will examine the enforcement of state laws that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts. >The working group will also monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or other users.[1] I'm sure there are plenty of "small government" and libertarian-leaning folks who are now in favor of government watch lists based off who and what US citizens interact with on social media. [1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-trump-executive-order/trumps-executive-order-targets-political-bias-at-twitter-and-facebook-draft-idUSL1N2DA09S https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-trump-executive-orde...

HPsquared 6y ago

To play devils advocate, isn't this a case of _removing_ a law? Sounds like a reduction to me.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Removing a law isn’t the same as reducing governmental power. In this case removing 230 would make what goes on Twitter mostly a matter for the courts, which would be a massive increase in the governments ability to police speech. The power and scope of the third branch shouldn’t be ignored, and “conservative” in the judicial sense is usually about reducing the scope of life that’s subject to the court’s control.
_-david-_ 6y ago
It would be removing government granted protections that certain corporations have. The law would in all likelihood remain in tact.

HeroOfAges 6y ago

This isn't about moderation, or removing tweets or banning people. Twitter changed the content of The President's tweet. When they edited his content, they became a publisher. Had simply removed it, I think they'd still be ok, but when they changed the content, they risked losing their protections under Section 230.

jjjensen90 6y ago
You are incorrect, they did not edit his tweet, they editorialized it. Completely different, and also covered under section 230, and confirmed in court decisions up to the 9th circuit court.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

I'll take a stab at it. The government should only be as large as the entities threatening it's citizens rights. The scale of "small" is relative, especially when dealing with large multinational corporations.

centimeter 6y ago

I'm not a republican, but people on this site might have a hard time making the distinction, so here's my take: 1. These protections shouldn't be necessary in the first place. The first amendment should make most copyright enforcement, libel suits, etc. illegal. Of course, that's not the world we live in. 2. Freedom of association (being able to turn people away from your business) is absolutely a fundamental right, but I have zero sympathy for progressives when they get screwed on this, because they've done more than anyone in US history to eliminate freedom of association. They made this bed, now they have to lie in it. When you give the government the power to force people to work with parties they don't want to, obviously that's going to turn around and bite you in the ass at some point when you lose control of the institutions that decide how you're allowed to choose who you work with. So, on net, this sucks and I wish it was very different, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the people who brought this upon themselves.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mwBlVuHDNE 6y ago

Ok. My normal account is apolitical and I don't know if I would call myself a Republican, more of a conservative maybe. Regardless, for me this goes back to the Covington Catholic incident. Nick Sandmann sued the Washington Post, NBC, and CNN for defamation and settled. He had a pretty strong case. I think being able to sue for defamation is reasonable and not necessarily indicative of big government support. But Twitter can't be sued but that was where the videos of him were posted and it was where a Twitter mob formed and peopled doxed him and started to call for Nick's head. I remember seeing it all happen in real time on Friday on Twitter. By Sunday the news outlets were running with it. At that time, Twitter wasn't flagging content as misleading however, they were banning harmful rhetoric. I guess to me that sort of activity that happened in January 2019 is harmful rhetoric. The ability to let an angry mob defame someone like that and even threaten someone is something Twitter should take responsibility for. Every other publishing platform is held to those standards. If Twitter is profiting from the use which may include activities like defaming someone, then it makes sense that victims are entitled to some compensation from them in addition to any users. Although I appreciate there are fine legal arguments to be made here. And for the record, it seems like fairly normal discourse on Twitter to expose people with personal information for specifically being racist, misogynist, etc. without any evidence required and people usually condone this. This definitely can be damaging and I think people who are victims of this justly ought to be able to recover losses. Twitter doesn't seem to have much interest in stopping it like they do other forms of harmful speech so I think victims ought to be able to get justice and that has nothing to do with Trump's tweeting habits.