> we all acknowledged that all that "anti-woke"/"free-speech" stuff was a complete smokescreen

Tell me you're in an echo chamber without telling me you're in an echo chamber.

What do you think about all the things going on under the current US administration which include but are not limited to: flag burning ban[0], retribution against law firms for supporting opponents of the admin[1], antifa being designated a terrorist organization[2], deportation of anti-Israel protesters[3], threatening broadcast licenses[4], or suing pollsters because he didn't like the results[5]?

We're equating these government actions to lefties being mean on twitter and cancel culture?

0: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/pros...

1: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/democratic-lawmaker...

2: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...

3: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-judge-rules-trum...

4: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/trump-threatening-broadcast-...

5: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjg2n3xv7zo

▲

NoImmatureAdHom 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The president is a person and can make whatever proclamations he wants. Sometimes people will even do what he says! But the way the system works is:

- orange man makes dumb obviously unconstitutional proclamation about flag burning

- most likely nobody does anything about it, but if someone does there is a law suit

- the courts are like 'lol no'

- back to status quo ante

▲

nozzlegear an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You're forgetting a step:

- The entire MAGA zeitgeist takes the president's word as gospel and shifts into overdrive in an attempt to enact his proclamation through: A) social pressure; B) new state laws; C) lawsuits of their own; or, when all else fails, D) just ignoring court orders.

Because the president (this one especially, but also his predecessors) is more than just a person.

▲

hypeatei an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you'd be fine with say, Kamala, running on a campaign of crushing dissent because the courts will say "lol no"? Is that what I'm reading?

I certainly don't think any camp would be okay with that, let alone MAGAs (and for obvious reasons)

It's a common trope of centrists and republicans to say that it's okay for Trump to explore the outer limits of legal theory and executive power, but at the same time freak out at what a Democrat might do with the government.

▲

HeyThereDave 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unfortunately, step 3 is no longer a given.

▲

NoImmatureAdHom 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think any person would have disagreements with what the courts find no matter the time period. I personally don't think things have gotten worse in this regard, and they may even have improved.

Generally the courts more reasonable than people think. You hear about the inflammatory rulings because that's what drives clicks.

https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-part...

538 shows an increase in political polarization, but they're still unanimous on lots of things.

	▲	cassepipe 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> So you'd be fine with say, Kamala, running on a campaign of crushing dissent because the courts will say "lol no"? Is that what I'm reading? I think you forgot to answer to that comment so I am reminding you

▲

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How have you missed all the federal judges blocking Trump's actions?