this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
693 points (98.6% liked)

politics

26257 readers
3628 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
 

House Republicans are exploring ways to prevent Zohran Mamdani from ever being sworn in as mayor even if he prevails in Tuesday’s election by using the Constitution’s “insurrection clause,” The Post has learned.

The New York Young Republican Club is pushing to prevent the NYC mayoral frontrunner from taking the oath of office Jan. 1 under an idea floated this summer.

It cites language in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the Constitution barring from office anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or who has “given aid or comfort to the enemies.” The group argues that Mamdani’s own statements calling to resist ICE could violate the prohibition.

It’s the same provision Colorado used to try to kick Trump off the ballot last year, only to get slapped down by the Supreme Court. The high court ruled that it was up to Congress to enforcement the amendment, giving majority Republicans a chance to test their authority.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They're not..

trump was a neoliberal for decades before the normal effects of aging set in, then he went full... Well full maga. Be cause he was raised by psychopath narcissists.

Take people like Johnson, Rubio and Cruz tho who got a couple decades left, they're republicans.

Like, there's not a huge amount of differences, but neoliberals are inarguably better than republicans.

That's why I still voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris, despite knowing I'd hate them as presidents and that a popular candidate would win easier.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Trump was neoliberal when he served the markets and had to adapt to them. Trump went truly fascist when he realized the markets could serve and adapt to him.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What the hell? Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. They both participate in neoliberalism as it has been since, like, the 1970s/1980s. When everything started being dismantled.

Neoliberalism is an economic and political theory advocating for free-market capitalism with minimal government intervention, emphasizing privatization, deregulation, and free trade.

So, NAFTA, deregulating all sorts of industries, a lack of regulation on the tech industry, dismantling or not supporting unions, etc.

This tariff stuff does not change anything, imo.

Are you guys all neoliberalism supporters or something?

Neoliberalism is maintained with the two party system we have. And the two sides participate in the ratchet effect.

This is why both sides are going crazy over Zohran.

It feels like you are just using labels a bit wrong. I’m not arguing against your point, just your choice of labels. All these downvotes without proper explanation to help me understand is really lame.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It feels like you are just using labels a bit wrong

No ..

You just have personal definitions that are different than everyone else, and you're getting upset everyone trusts the dictionary more than you

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was taught by various sources that the reason there is some truth to the idea that democrats and republicans are the same is that they are both participating in perpetuating and spreading neoliberalism. That’s the point of view I have. Do you disagree with that?

I’m not trying to redefine anything, I’m expressing a point of view. From what I can tell, republican/democrat and neoliberal are not mutually exclusive terms.