4 ms·

Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social progr

by yibg 2y ago

Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

runjake 2y ago
Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)
- dehugger 2y ago
  The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".
  - runjake 2y ago
    Sure fine but they describe themselves as the “party of personal freedoms” so the same applies, in my mind. The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.
    - birksherty 2y ago
      > party of either thing Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead. Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.
- rpgwaiter 2y ago
  Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.
  - Smeevy 2y ago
    Exactly. I was looking this up and only saw a couple of failed attempts at cutting military budgets since the 80s. One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Clinton/Gore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_... Also the only time the US had a budget surplus (1998-2001) in recent times.
      - Smeevy 2y ago
        Thanks so much. I was positive I was missing something there.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  Thank you for demonstrating the hilarious insanity of bothside-ism by jokingly equating people running around carrying guns with people who do not identify as heterosexual, made me spill my Coke. You are joking, right?
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    I ran into this problem when I was a smart ass early 20 something on 4chan. Those were fun times being sarcastic and hyperbolic for effect. Up until I realized that it wasn't just edgy satire for a good chunk of the crowd. They actually believed a lot of the ridiculous shit we were saying. Then I learned about Poe's law and cut WAY back on my online shitheadedness. But no... Unfortunately a lot of folks who say crazy stuff believe it.
- yareally 2y ago
  No one is banning guns at the state level, but they are with abortion
duped 2y ago
Republicans are the party of white Christian conversatives, so whatever message is most expedient to appealing to them at the moment is what they stand for. "Small government" meant "get the Black President out of my healthcare." "Personal freedoms" meant "let me discriminate against people." Never take a Republican at face value, especially if you're not in their in group. Get them alone and they'll tell you what they mean behind what they say.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
- QuantumGood 2y ago
  Never take propaganda from large organizations at face value.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
> Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs) Yeah, and guess how? By claiming the program is rife with abuse, demanding all sorts of record-keeping and auditing...and then a few years later shouting blue-bloody-murder about "administrative cost" in the program. I wonder what the actual stats are for TANF and SNAP in terms of paper-pushing and auditing vs funds dispersed to recipients. > remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ) Or the really big one: abortion. Doing things like passing legislation that forces doctors to say certain things to their patients, for example...and mandate medical procedures like forcing the mother to go through an ultrasound so they have to see the fetus and if it's old enough, listen to its heart. Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if democrats passed legislation mandating doctors tell their patients that the vast overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports efficacy of vaccines, and oh by the way, flu shots are now compulsory? They'd lose their goddamn minds and riot in the streets (er...again?)

by yibg 2y ago

runjake 2y ago

Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)

dehugger 2y ago
The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".
- runjake 2y ago
  Sure fine but they describe themselves as the “party of personal freedoms” so the same applies, in my mind. The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.
  - birksherty 2y ago
    > party of either thing Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead. Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.
rpgwaiter 2y ago
Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.
- Smeevy 2y ago
  Exactly. I was looking this up and only saw a couple of failed attempts at cutting military budgets since the 80s. One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Clinton/Gore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_... Also the only time the US had a budget surplus (1998-2001) in recent times.
    - Smeevy 2y ago
      Thanks so much. I was positive I was missing something there.
DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
Thank you for demonstrating the hilarious insanity of bothside-ism by jokingly equating people running around carrying guns with people who do not identify as heterosexual, made me spill my Coke. You are joking, right?
- tstrimple 2y ago
  I ran into this problem when I was a smart ass early 20 something on 4chan. Those were fun times being sarcastic and hyperbolic for effect. Up until I realized that it wasn't just edgy satire for a good chunk of the crowd. They actually believed a lot of the ridiculous shit we were saying. Then I learned about Poe's law and cut WAY back on my online shitheadedness. But no... Unfortunately a lot of folks who say crazy stuff believe it.
yareally 2y ago
No one is banning guns at the state level, but they are with abortion

duped 2y ago

Republicans are the party of white Christian conversatives, so whatever message is most expedient to appealing to them at the moment is what they stand for. "Small government" meant "get the Black President out of my healthcare." "Personal freedoms" meant "let me discriminate against people." Never take a Republican at face value, especially if you're not in their in group. Get them alone and they'll tell you what they mean behind what they say.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]
QuantumGood 2y ago
Never take propaganda from large organizations at face value.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

> Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs) Yeah, and guess how? By claiming the program is rife with abuse, demanding all sorts of record-keeping and auditing...and then a few years later shouting blue-bloody-murder about "administrative cost" in the program. I wonder what the actual stats are for TANF and SNAP in terms of paper-pushing and auditing vs funds dispersed to recipients. > remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ) Or the really big one: abortion. Doing things like passing legislation that forces doctors to say certain things to their patients, for example...and mandate medical procedures like forcing the mother to go through an ultrasound so they have to see the fetus and if it's old enough, listen to its heart. Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if democrats passed legislation mandating doctors tell their patients that the vast overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports efficacy of vaccines, and oh by the way, flu shots are now compulsory? They'd lose their goddamn minds and riot in the streets (er...again?)