- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What has happened to this country? Everyone now craves the control of big government?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:21 pm to Tiger1242
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:21 pm to Tiger1242
As an advocate for small federal government, it still has its proper roles. One of the primary ones is controlling illegal immigration and vetting who is coming in.
0
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:38 pm to AGGIES
quote:
We went from: “Don’t Tread on Me”
To: “It’s ok - Tread on Me”, “But Tread on Them First”
That needs altering a bit.
It went to:
"We are not going to sit and be restricted, be spied on, be ridiculed, be investigated, be expected to show up for congressional committees due to subpoena and be prosecuted if not, watch others destroy subpoenaed evidence with no consequences, have to the elected president under constant threat of impeachment, have government forced social media censorship, have BS fisa warrants spy on us, etc and just be expected to act nice when the shoe is on the other foot.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:43 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Wanting illegals out of the country and wanting fraud prosecuted is wanting more big Gov?
Better yet. National sovereignty is defined as a function of the US government in the Constitution. Written by the OG small government, people centered, advocates.
It's not a new thing instituted by republicans.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:48 pm to carhartt
quote:
Laziness and the promise of free stuff.
and undeserved, obscene profits. Everyone is on the take.
Doctors and hospital administrators are the worst but only because 1/2 their entire market is government cheese.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:26 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
That meme is aboslutely retarded.
Govern me harder Daddy!
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:28 pm to Tiger1242
No one has political principles anymore. It’s just us v. them. We oppose anything they want and they oppose anything we want.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:29 pm to Tiger1242
It’s only cool because their big orange fleshlight is in charge. If there was a D next to his name then this sub would be rioting.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:40 pm to ClemsonKitten
quote:
It’s only cool because their big orange fleshlight is in charge. If there was a D next to his name then this sub would be rioting.
Ummm you mean like you folks believed when the FBI was running down people on social security that were walking around an open Capitol on 1/6/21? Remember how that was fun and everyone was getting what they deserved?
Remember prior to that when people were forbidden to assemble and were arrested for it. And you folks were saying how they got what they deserved?
Now for context you can read my other posts in this thread.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:43 pm to UtahCajun
quote:Populism isn’t about simply “appealing to voters.” In political theory, populism has a specific structure: politics framed as a moral conflict between “the real people” and a corrupt or illegitimate elite, combined with the claim that only one movement or leader authentically represents the people. Institutions that mediate power, courts, media, elections, civil service, are treated as suspect when they constrain that claim.
all democratically elected officials, by default, must be populists or they wouldn't get the votes.
Populism is not universal. Plenty of elected officials appeal to voters while emphasizing institutional legitimacy, pluralism, compromise, and procedural limits. That is mass politics, not populism.
MAGA, for example, maps onto the core features almost perfectly. It explicitly divides the country into “real Americans” versus elites and internal enemies, treats unfavorable institutions as rigged or illegitimate, and centers representation in a single figure or movement that claims to speak for the people as such. You can strip away any ideology entirely and the populist structure is still there.
When you define populism is so broadly that every elected politician qualifies simply for seeking votes, the term stops distinguishing anything at all. At that point it no longer describes a political style, only the existence of elections. You're just "category flattening."
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:43 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Govern me harder Daddy!
I remember these rallying cries by the left after Ruby Ridge and Waco. During Covid lockdowns. During an administration getting busted for FISA abuse.
Oh.... wait a minute..
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:43 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Diversity brings low trust and the corresponding call for a strong man to keep those not trusted in line.
You’re blaming the lack of trust in the government on diversity, and not the dude who’s constantly saying the election was stolen, they are out to get me, there’s a deep state and it won’t let me do things, etc?
Do you realize how dumb that is?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:52 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
I remember these rallying cries by the left after Ruby Ridge and Waco. During Covid lockdowns. During an administration getting busted for FISA abuse.
That's the point. Now, some people on both sides are craving the control of big government.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:08 pm to CleverUserName
quote:That’s almost a trick question, because most of what’s called “conservative” today is conservative only in branding, not in its actual relationship to government power.
I guess I need an example of popular conservative thought that is wanting to give the government more control.
But tariffs.
Tariffs are the federal government directly intervening in markets by law. They are taxes set and enforced by the state, collected at the border, backed by penalties, and designed to coerce private economic behavior. It’s the government deciding which goods cost more and which industries get shielded.
Trump didn’t just tolerate tariffs, he expanded them massively using executive authority. Steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels, hundreds of billions in Chinese imports. That’s not small government conservatism. That’s centralized economic control justified as nationalism.
You can argue tariffs are worth it. You can argue they’re necessary. But you can’t argue they’re less government. They are literally higher taxes imposed by the federal government to manage markets.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:11 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
That's the point. Now, some people on both sides are craving the control of big government.
No it's not the point. It's not a tit for tat.
It's the Great Society, then Ruby Ridge, then Waco, then "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor while saving 2,500 bucks", then the nuclear option, then FISA abuse, then BS Russian Collusion investigations with FISA abuses, then one National Security advisor is targeted by the FBI for BS reasons, then it's BS it's BS howling about the 25th amendment, then BS Impeachment, then certain people only getting prosecuted for defying subpoenas and other certain people get a pass, then certain people getting perp walked at dawn in front of the news while others skate, then Covid lockdowns-regulations-requirements, then old stuff that used to warrant impeachment is not important anymore, then the 25th amendment is no longer a thought, then it's cocaine in the White House with no answers, then it's not important the president's brother had a company that defrauded Medicaid when the worry a few years ago was of the president's family profiting from the Oval Office, then it's nationwide manhunts with televised perp walks for older people because of 1/06/21,
And then the left flips their shite over law enforcement arresting illegals. Which is an actual constitutional activity enshrined in the Constitution per National Sovereignty.
And then we wind up with "both sides" threads on here with memes from people that can't meme.
Is it really a belief amongst you that the left can do as they please and punish their opponents while the right needs to toe the line "because they are supposed to be principled"?
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:18 pm to SpecialK_88
I said nothing about trust in government.
You are hallucinating.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:19 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
That’s almost a trick question, because most of what’s called “conservative” today is conservative only in branding, not in its actual relationship to government power.
It's actually not. The trick played is people saying they are conservative when they are not.
quote:
But tariffs.
Tariffs have been enacted by the U.S. off and on since 1789. You wanna gripe at someone about the imposition of tariffs? Go shout at the graves of George Washington and the other founders. After all, the founders agreed that tariffs were the most efficient and politically agreeable way of raising public funds.
So that's not a Trump thing. That's a founders thing. And I tend to agree with them more than anyone else.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:27 pm to kingbob
quote:I actually agree with most of what you’re saying here, and I think this is where the conversation usually gets muddled by people talking past each other.
Even people who believe in small government believe in some government. There are certain things that even the most “freedom loving” among us believe is a fundamental function which government is supposed to do. One of those is police its borders and control who is allowed in. Another is ensuring that taxpayers dollars are not embezzled and wasted, but spent where they will provide the public good or service voters demand.
When you have flagrant flaunting of immigration laws combined with rampant fraud embezzling of taxpayer dollars, government action isn’t overreach, but necessary to prevent the loss of legitimacy. If government refuses to enforce its borders, and refuses to root out rampant, open, and obvious fraudulent spending of tax dollars, it will lose all legitimacy, and citizens will simply stop paying taxes or obeying their government entirely.
For this form of government to continue, it must serve its created function. It must enforce its immigration laws, it must enforce its borders, and it must punish corruption and fraud. To do otherwise is to utterly destroy itself.
Small-government doesn’t mean no government. It means limited scope, defined functions, and legitimacy tied to core duties. Border enforcement, fraud prosecution, and basic law enforcement absolutely fall inside that scope. A government that can’t enforce its own laws or protect its revenue base isn’t “small,” it’s dysfunctional.
That said, it’s still honest to acknowledge that when you expand agencies, increase enforcement capacity, add personnel, funding, and authority, you are literally growing the government. Sometimes that growth is justified. Sometimes it’s necessary. But it doesn’t stop being growth just because the function is legitimate.
I think a principled small-government conservative can support targeted expansion in specific areas where the state has a clear, limited mandate, while still opposing broad regulatory creep, economic micromanagement, or ideological social enforcement. The key difference is whether power is being expanded to perform a narrow, defined function, or expanded to manage society at large.
Where people get hung up is pretending those distinctions don’t exist, or redefining “small government” to mean “any use of power I approve of.” You don’t have to do that to make your argument. You can just say: yes, this is more government, and yes, it’s warranted.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:32 pm to CleverUserName
quote:That’s a dodge, and a poor one.
Tariffs have been enacted by the U.S. off and on since 1789. You wanna gripe at someone about the imposition of tariffs? Go shout at the graves of George Washington and the other founders. After all, the founders agreed that tariffs were the most efficient and politically agreeable way of raising public funds.
So that's not a Trump thing. That's a founders thing. And I tend to agree with them more than anyone else.
I never claimed tariffs were invented by Trump, or that they’re historically novel. Your question was for a current, popular conservative position that supports expanding government power. MAGA supports tariffs. Full stop. That satisfies your request regardless of whether George Washington also liked them.
And appealing to the founders doesn’t change what tariffs are: federally imposed taxes used to shape markets, enforced by the state, often expanded by executive discretion. Under Trump they were dramatically broadened and celebrated by the conservative base. That is conservatives supporting more government control in a specific area.
You can argue tariffs are justified. You can argue they’re good policy. But pointing out they existed in 1789 doesn’t make them “small government,” and it doesn’t answer the example challenge.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:42 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
That’s a dodge, and a poor one.
Nope, not a dodge. But again. The imposition of taxes is a constitutional activity. Spelled out.. not some vague language some activist judge says is spelled out. Love it or hate it.
But you are saying "a current, popular conservative position that supports expanding government power. MAGA supports tariffs. Full stop."
It's not an expansion. It's an original government idea. The great society was an expansion. The patriot act was an expansion. The ""affordable"" care act was an expansion. Tariffs is not an expansion since it's a founders approved means.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:57 pm to CleverUserName
quote:This isn’t complicated.
Nope, not a dodge. But again. The imposition of taxes is a constitutional activity. Spelled out.. not some vague language some activist judge says is spelled out. Love it or hate it.
But you are saying "a current, popular conservative position that supports expanding government power. MAGA supports tariffs. Full stop."
It's not an expansion. It's an original government idea. The great society was an expansion. The patriot act was an expansion. The ""affordable"" care act was an expansion. Tariffs is not an expansion since it's a founders approved means
Two yes-or-no questions:
Do higher or broader tariffs increase federal control over markets through taxation and enforcement? Yes.
Do a large number of modern conservatives, especially MAGA, actively support higher and broader tariffs? Also yes.
If both of those are true, then conservatives are supporting an increase in government control. That’s the example you asked for.
Whether tariffs are constitutional is irrelevant. Lots of expansions of government power are constitutional. Your question wasn’t “is this allowed,” it was “do conservatives support it.” They do.
Appealing to the founders doesn’t rescue the argument either. The founders approving a tool doesn’t mean every use, scope, or expansion of that tool would earn their endorsement. They also approved armies, taxes, and surveillance in limited forms. That doesn’t mean every modern expansion of those powers ceases to be an expansion because the concept existed in 1789.
You can believe tariffs are justified. You can believe they’re necessary. But redefining “expansion” to mean “anything the founders once endorsed in principle” drains the word of meaning. At that point, “small government” just means “government actions I approve of,” which is exactly the inconsistency you're displaying here.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News