this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1014 points (99.4% liked)

politics

22929 readers
3588 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] 17 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

If they destroy the first, use the second. That's why it was ratified!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It wasn't. At all. And you can clearly see armed people aren't lining up to stop a clearly lawless authoritarian tyrant from holding power over them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

This all just got started. People are still hoping something changes before they have to commit murder. By next summer, the attitude will be different.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

Just started? Are you fucking joking?

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

The law was put on place to maintain a standing US military, which was used to crush rebellions. People aren't attacking the government to put down tyranny. That's not a function of the US legal system.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

That is a gross perversion if the 2nd Amendment, and the exact opposite of the intention if the Founding Fathers.

In a letter of thanks for a copy of the new Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

In the same letter, he also wrote:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.

In the same letter he also made an extremely prescient statement that seems to predict the rise of MAGA's adherance to the Conservative Propaganda Machine:

The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

He was clearly in favor of rebellion, especially since he was instrumental in the rebellion that created America, and they clearly meant the 2nd Amendment to protect us from tyranny by giving us the means to rebel.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago

Free means all.

Rise, or fall.