this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
446 points (99.1% liked)
politics
21931 readers
3734 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For how many years have Republicans gone on about the constitution and the first amendment, and cried censorship at the slightest criticism of their utterances? And now Trump is explicitly having people arrested and deported for vocing opinions, and Republicans range from silent to enthusiastic. They never believed in the constitution or in free speech. They just didn't like it when people disagreed with them.
They never believed in the constitution or in free speech. They just didn't like it when people disagreed with them.
The evidence has always been in their actions. Hate speech hampers freedom of speech, and they wanted to protect hate speech. This puts them in direct conflict with a genuinely free society.
Preserving the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest amount of people usually means giving up some smaller specific freedoms, like, you know, the freedom to threaten the lives of minorities.
Personally, I think they should be allowed to threaten - and for those minorities and good folk to openly promise bloody murder if the racists tried their luck.
The right-wing traditionally has a monopoly on violence, not just physical, but also in speech. When you are free of consequence, your reach will grasp ever further. Like what Trump is doing with his EOs.
I love the energy, but the reality is that minorities do not have the power of the oppressors. Allowing that kind of back and fourth will be met with larger consequences for one group than the other. But again, conceptually, I'm with you.
IMO, the thing of most value for my position is that it normalizes opposition and resistance. After MLK died, the media was used to enshrine his approach in the history books...and Malcom X was a footnote at best for most students. It is through offering the promise of violent revolution if peaceful evolution wasn't negotiated, is how we got here without too many corpses.
By removing the notion of violence from protest, things were lost:
1: Fewer people to protest anything. The elimination of 'rough' characters simply meant fewer people to raise signs, fists, or to speak.
2: It has become taboo to associate with people who believe in giving as good as they get, or being aggressive. This means that kind protestors simply don't communicate with the violent ones, so there is less coordination for their goals.
3: A wider array of actions to do for protest. For example, ignoring 'safe space' rules, such as the perimeter around JD Vance's house, or burning Teslas in America, or displaying the (wax) severed heads of Trump and friends. These aren't kind things, but they certainly give a message to the people in charge.
If roughness in politics among everyday people was ordinary, we might have more work strikes - or the people in the US Treasury could have denied DOGE unlawful entry, because the spirit of opposition was ingrained into people in that other timeline.
Yep, this is the big issue. Majorities rule by force. If the minorities were able to change things by fighting back, they would have already done so. But as it currently stands, one side has a much larger capacity for violence, and it is not the minority.
At this point, the attempts to explain to the uneducated are futile, there is no going back.
Americans, sadly even the good ones, will now reap what the R's have sown.
There is nothing left to defend if nobody is willing to defend it.
Maybe this time explaining this in reaction to them behaving this way for the millionth time in the last 50 years will get em.
No? Maybe we should take action instead. This is no surprise. We know what they are.
Translation: "Illegal" -> "Waah, me no like!"
The Free Speech crowd will be here any minute now! /s
One day he'll be convicted in the court of public opinion but by then Not Sure will be the smartest person in history and President Camacho will pardon him.
I'd say he's gonna be the bad guy in the documentary, but he's gonna be the bad guy in the cautionary warning we leave to any spacefaring species that finds our ruins on the dead earth.
So… back to Tritler Bingo….
Did anyone have:
Trump not only takes a page from Hitler’s playbook, but openly recites it for all to hear?
He spent a lot of time preparing for that.
Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump.
Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?”
“I don’t remember,” I said.
“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”)
Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
That's not quite true. Hitler wasn't an effective speaker when he started, knew it, and got a lot of coaching. From the beginning, when he was an Army snitch spying on the fascists, he was being groomed.
Honestly, the two are complete opposites when it comes to style of speech: Hitler imparts certainty in the listener, and Trump causes utter confusion. The only similarity is that both are completely evil.
imparts certainty in the listener
Trump does too if you're a moron.
His speeches sound like a grandpa getting more and more senile. I'm convinced a lot of his supporters have never listened to one in its entirety.
Yeah man. It's the free space in the center. You got to read the full board.
Soon, he will begin borrowing from Putin's book by making criticising the government illegal, and forcing news organizations to register as foreign agents.
Once donvict can finish the creation of The Ministry of Love, he'll be able to sic the Thought Police on these illegal news outlets.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Truth will be very busy putting out the real news. Faux, Breitbart, Newsmax, OAN, and a whole lot of podcasters and youtubers are going to be subsidiaries in this new glorious world of free speech maximalism.
I would love to hear him cite the exact laws he thinks they have broken and in what way.
"I'm the President, and I say it's illegal, so it's illegal! Isn't that how it works?"
Unfortunately at this moment in time it seems to be that way.
After trump is finally ousted and declared anathema, we should make it illegal to be orange.
I'm willing to make exceptions for the jaundiced.
I guess if you make all of the articles about journalists being traumatized then you get no stories about the other victims...
A sure sign of a stable, competent, and entirely not corrupt leader if I've ever seen one!
So tired of this childish twat and his supporters.
i have run out of things to say about what’s going on with him. all the shitty awful things he says/does/will do.
all i have left now is “this fucking guy”
I've been going with a hearty sigh, followed by "...god dammit." for awhile now.
If you start looking, you will always find something in such a large organization. Whether that’s worth it, well…