This is a solo Tweet and not a thread. ThreadReaderApp is more fun when you unroll Twitter threads. Learn more about it here.
:(
Millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard. I will object on January 6 on their behalf Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @HawleyMO

6 May
No. What I say is that the Supreme Court changed course in 1911 and limited the reach of federal antitrust law, a major about face that helped entrench corporate power. Wilson’s antitrust reforms didn’t change this outcome, but built on it & worked within it
For that reason, I conclude “the new FTC ... emerged as a project to regulate and normalize the corporate behemoths rather than dissolve them.” Here again, I am following progressive scholarship, particularly Martin Sklar, whom I cite
You can disagree with this interpretation, but it’s not a “factual error.” And again, there’s a lot of scholarship on this that this reviewer either doesn’t know or ignores
Read 4 tweets
5 May
A few further thoughts on the lefty unease with history on display in the @WIRED and @newrepublic write ups of my book. These folks try to take me to task for calling Woodrow Wilson a corporatist, a position the authors appear to dislike because Wilson was a Democrat
There is some irony here. The fiercest critics of Wilson as a corporatist come from progressive historians, who have argued for decades now that Wilson was basically okay w/ monopoly power & corporate power more generally
I think these historians are largely correct, and I cite some of the extensive secondary literature in the book. My lefty critics, however, don’t engage with any of this historical debate or even seem aware of it. They claim that calling Wilson a corporatist is a factual “error”
Read 11 tweets
3 Feb
.@JoeBiden & Dems are jamming through a budget that will be full of left-wing giveaways, risks Medicare funding and gives crumbs to working people.
I’m proposing amendments to take on corporate power, which the Dems are too scared to touch. We need to start by axing tax breaks for corps that ship jobs overseas and cheat our laws every day
Then we need to take on Big Tech. We should move to block new mergers & acquisitions for the most powerful tech corps that are killing small biz
Read 4 tweets
29 Jul 20
Some questions for the #BigTech moguls appearing today on the House side. @tim_cook does @Apple rely on forced Uighur labor in its downstream suppliers? Is @Apple #slavefree?
.@sundarpichai is @Google still developing a search engine for the #China market? Will you guarantee @Google will never censor on behalf of the #CCP?
.@Jeff_Bezos will you commit to making sure the @amazon marketplace is #slavefree?
Read 4 tweets
6 Jun 20
Utterly false. The female victims, none of whom spoke English, were freed, not charged. The participants in the ring were charged. I’ll never forget seeing the conditions in which the victims were kept -
Not allowed to leave the parlors, forced to eat all their meals & sleep in a small room they shared with other victims. I remember the pink suitcase of one young woman who had only just arrived (from Asia via California), spoke no English, & hadn’t even had time to unpack
Before being forced into sex work. This is the exploitation you are defending. And it’s revolting
Read 5 tweets
4 Jun 20
Okay, let’s get some facts straight. This article perpetuates a distorted history of Section 230 that I notice is becoming common in some quarters. Myth: Under Section 230, tech platforms & other publishers are treated the same; no special treatment nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/…
Uh, no. This mistake comes from lack of familiarity with the case law. Courts have interpreted 230 to allow platforms to alter & modify 3d party content *without being treated* like a publisher. Backpage, for example, was helping design 3d party content & still claiming immunity
In other words, under the guise of “content moderation,” tech platforms are now acting like traditional publishers but without the liability
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(