Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

conix, blackhawks beat me to it, but, anyway - you voted for Trump twice,. How many of your

"Law and order. Accountability. Freedom of Speech. Individual Responsibility. Small Government (check US history)."

did he and his (your) Republicans represent? "Small government"? Nope...

The true size of government is nearing a record high
Paul C. Light Wednesday, October 7, 2020
FixGov

Editor's Note: This post is part of a series on the need for government
reform and how to get it done. For more on this topic, visit the series page. ..
https://www.brookings.edu/series/case-for-major-government-reform/

President Barack Obama entered office with the Great Recession raging and the true size of the federal workforce at about 10 million civil servants, postal workers, active duty military, contractors, and grantees. He raised the total with billions in economic stimulus to 11.3 million, then backed it down to about 9 million before leaving office. With the economy in full-throated rebound, Obama gave Donald Trump the rare opportunity to rebalance the federal government’s blended workforce.

Despite campaign promises to the contrary, Trump opened the contract and grant spigots instead, adding more than 2 million jobs to the blended federal workforce, including 1 million in the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Health and Human Services alone.

Continued - https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/07/the-true-size-of-government-is-nearing-a-record-high/

Ok. The only other of those, umm, attributes you could possibly think you might
validly hang on to would be " Freedom of speech". Alas, no way to that too:

conix, Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee
[...]
In the effort to make campuses more welcoming to historically marginalized communities, colleges promulgated speech regulations that were designed to eliminate hate speech and other communications that members of university communities deemed offensive.

Although the impulse behind these codes was virtuous, their legal application was profoundly problematic. University speech codes tended to possess three salient characteristics. First, they were aimed directly at the suppression of words and ideas. Second, they were usually broad and vague, leaving teachers and students with little guidance as to the law’s true meaning. And third, they typically relied on the subjective feelings of community members .. https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/622a46c26c90860020506788/campus-free-speech-cant-survive-cultural-change-emma-camp-self-censorship/ .. for enforcement.

To give you a concrete example, here are parts of a speech code I successfully challenged .. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/280/357/2501172/ .. in federal court in 2003: “The expression of one’s beliefs should be communicated in a manner that does not provoke, harass, intimidate, or harm another” and “no person shall participate in acts of intolerance that demonstrate malicious intentions toward others.”

For students of the First Amendment, the problems with this language were obvious. What is an “act of intolerance”? How does one define provocative speech? The speech code did not say. A robust marketplace of ideas simply cannot exist if my free-speech rights end the instant another person feels offended by my words.
[...]
But here’s the reality of the First Amendment: No viable constitutional doctrine declares “Free speech for me and not for thee.” Every single free-speech win for a conservative corporation or individual is also a win for progressive liberty. Each and every First Amendment case mentioned above expanded the zone of American freedom.

That was the problem. It turns out that all too many Republicans want to maximize their own freedom and minimize their opponents’. Why? For many of the same reasons advanced by the architects of campus speech codes: Some ideas are allegedly too dangerous to be shared.

And that brings us back to the education gag orders. According to the PEN America database, more than 100 pending state bills .. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tj5WQVBmB6SQg-zP_M8uZsQQGH09TxmBY73v23zpyr0/edit%23gid=1505554870 .. would limit or constrain free speech in public education. The bulk of these bills attempt to regulate speech regarding race. Framed as “anti–critical race theory .. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/gops-critical-race-theory-fixation-explained/618828/ ” bills, they typically purport to ban the instruction or inclusion of certain “divisive concepts” in public-school classrooms, in college classrooms, and sometimes in public employment or government contracting.

Read: The GOP’s ‘critical race theory’ fixation, explained
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/gops-critical-race-theory-fixation-explained/618828/

The language of the bills varies, and they often target concepts that are alien to CRT, but they typically share the goal of suppressing ideas that Republicans dislike. Make no mistake, some of those ideas are truly bad. Some of the statutory language is specifically aimed at speech so vile (for example, the idea that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex”) that, if uttered in certain contexts, it could constitute a civil-rights violation. But other prohibitions are far more troublesome even if you agree with the law’s underlying sentiment.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168714505

you can't claim that either.