this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
928 points (99.4% liked)

politics

22912 readers
5603 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Top Trump official Stephen Miller's recent declaration that anyone who "preaches hate for America" will face deportation has ignited alarm online, with critics warning the statement disregards First Amendment protections.

Social media users and legal analysts raised immediate concerns, pointing out that expressing dissent or criticism of the government is protected under the First Amendment. Some worried the administration was veering into authoritarian territory.

The backlash has reignited broader debates over the limits of free speech, especially as civil liberties fall under scrutiny. While immigration enforcement remains a core theme of President Donald Trump's platform, critics are increasingly questioning whether rhetoric like Miller's is a precursor to more aggressive suppression of dissent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

His first term was a shitshow.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, no, this term there's a lot less kayfabe, a lot more actual speedrunning tyranny. Not to say that they weren't angling at tyranny before, but it's clear they learned their lessons and came back with a plan.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Or at least concepts of a plan

[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, dude. Trump sounds like a fucking idiot, but he's got a team of actual super villains working right underneath him.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago

I agree. I was just making reference to that quote of his from the debate or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

Project 2025 laid all this out, but apparently he knew nothing about it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

For us, yes. For Republicans, no. In Trump's first term:

He stacked the Supreme Court in his favor (2 of the 3 he appointed helped steal the 2000 election for Bush)
He appointed a record number of federal judges (260, most of which come from the Federalist Society)
He reversed a CFPB rule that made it easier to file class action lawsuits against banks for fucking us over
He oversaw more federal executions of prisoners than any president in 120 years
He cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, the lowest rate since 1939
He pulled the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and our spot was filled by China

There is so much more that he got done which set the stage for what is happening now. For example, he tried to pass about two thirds of the Heritage Foundation's 'Mandate for Leadership' policies in his first term, which is what inspired them to write 'Project 2025', another iteration of the Mandate on steroids.

The fact that Trump lost the election in 2020 is a total fluke, and it took a global pandemic that killed over a million Americans to make him lose.

His first term was far from a shit show in terms of making the current shit show possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"He stacked the Supreme Court in his favor (2 of the 3 he appointed helped steal the 2000 election for Bush)"

Fucking, what!?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago

Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh worked on the legal team for Bush in 2000, helping swing the case after the Brooks Brothers Riot.