[ath3nd]

> I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.

Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?

- hostility towards non traditional sexuality

- immigration being used as the scapegoat for economic problems

- strong feeling of national exceptionalism

- assault on women's productivity rights

- politicizing of science

- deportation for political reasons

- "Roman" salutes

It brings parallels with some things happening in Europe some time ago.

> activist groups are coming for all of American life.

I wonder who's actually going for all of American life though. Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

And guess who goes against this American way of life value? An orange grandpa married to an immigrant. You really can't make this up.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...

[throwing_away]

> Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?

Up until you got to the "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.

Or rather, it will sound like whichever side you aren't. That's the point.

But using "Then they came for the Jews" when you're discussing deportation of these particular people is perhaps a new level of absurdity in the discourse.

[mmooss]

> "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.

The liberals / Dems can barely organize a picnic. They can't agree on anything. There is no Fox News, there is nobody they bow down to. The obsequiousness to Trump is unprecendented.

[throwing_away]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/04/04/picnic-before...

[brandonmenc]

> Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?

Birthright citizenship was to ensure freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.

It's served its purpose and we can repeal it and join the vast majority of nations that don't have this pathway.

[Braxton1980]

And the 2nd amendment was for an armed milita to protect the country.

[mmooss]

If you want to repeal it, then convince your fellow citizens to do that. The president can't do it.

[brandonmenc]

Someone mentioned the 2nd Amendment in this thread.

If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.

The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.

[mmooss]

> If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.

That's speculation about specuation about an undefined interpretation. We are bounded by law, including by the Constitution.

> The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.

There is variation in interpretation, but within bounds. If you want to eliminate Constitutional gun rights, you would need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[SauciestGNU]

Ok, but if we want to repeal it there's a defined process for that. The president doesn't just get to declare people's citizenship invalid, that's Nazi shit. That's why I call Trump and everyone who tacitly or explicitly supports him a Nazi. He's trying to rule by executive fiat to enforce white nationalism.