Nazis did that to yhe Jews. First they'd torment them (check), then they'd strip them of their citizenship (almost there), then they'd "deport" them to camps (we got those, so check), then they'd exterminate them with Zyklon B (we're not there yet, but soon).
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
472 points (99.0% liked)
politics
26306 readers
2707 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
then they’d exterminate them with Zyklon B (we’re not there yet, but soon).
How are we going to find out?
Ideally we intercede before it gets there
With the squawking of the Rs, and the deafening silence from the Ds not pushing back and making this a talking point, every establishment figure is scared of this guy.
Good.
The establishment Democrats might have signed their own death sentence by attacking Zohran Mamdani
load more comments
(1 replies)
Can they actually do that?? Someone please advise.
There's a lot of shenanigans they could do within the law (not even mentioning the stuff they could do outside of the law):
If they "find" evidence of any crime committed before his oath ceremony, yes, it's possible. Within 5 years of naturalization, if they "find" evidence of "terrorist" or "communist" associations, yes.
Also, denaturalization is not done in a criminal court, it's a civil trial, below the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof that a criminal trial would require. I'm not sure if a jury is even required.
Just an example: If they find a video of him smoking weed an hour before his oath ceremony, technically that could be used against him, marijuana is still illegal under the controlled substance act. Not sure how that would practically play out in court tho.
I'm actually kinda worried for myself. I have no idea exactly how clean/by-the-books my parent's tax records are or if their taxes are even done correctly, if they did anything shady, and if it happened before my mom got citizenship, she could lose citizenship and I would lose it too. So... yea... no wonder why I can't sleep these days.
Or they could extend the definition of "terrorist" enough that pretty much anyone they want to target will qualify. And who would defend a terrorist?
Legally? No. Morally? They have none, so…. Probably.
Since when has legality stopped them
Plenty of times if you’ve been paying attention.
There's a hidden division in your question, whether intentional or not. "Can" they do that. Do you mean "are they legally allowed to do that", or "do they have the power to do that"?
In the former, no. In the later, possibly, yes.
Yea I meant can they really make that happen.
It really doesn't matter with this administration. They have shown time and time again that the old adage of "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" unfortunately works pretty effectively. Ffs the turd is adjudicated guilty of fucking rape... FUCKING RAPE and is very likely a pedo to boot, and a third of the country voted for him!
If you're born lucky, you live your life without consequences. There is no just god, smoke crack and worship no one.
I'm yet to see them ask for forgiveness...
Who's gonna stop them? The law has no bearing on their actions so far. It hasn't been a year yet.
True.
Every single Dem politician should be screaming about this at the top of their lungs. This is a direct threat to them as well, but they're not gonna do it.
Why?
Because AIPAC and their billionaire donors are telling them to stand down.
Establishment Dems put more effort into resisting Mamdani than they put into resisting Trump since 2016.
Dude literally said they spent more trying to fight him than they would be taxed. It really is just a dick measuring contest with rich people. They do not take risk assessment seriously.
Can you share some source for this aipac claim? I mean, fuck aipac, but I just want to make sure we don’t go down the shouting about the evil Jewish billionaires controlling everything route.
Democrats are obsessed with Israel. This ain't hard evidence, but it's telling
There's no "source", AIPAC deals directly with politicians and those discussions are not public. But we know that AIPAC gives lots of money to Democrats to the point that they can and have dictated policy, and we know that AIPAC's spokesperson has been on national news shows specifically to fearmonger about Mamdani. Most direct source here is gonna be using your noggin.
AIPAC's spokesperson has been on national news shows specifically to fearmonger about Mamdani
Wouldn't this be a source?
Not a source that AIPAC is telling dem leaders to stand down, which is what was requested.
But if you want to see it, Majority Report did a segment on it last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4H84ZeYNN4
This is an interesting question and I didn't have an immediate answer. Let me start off by pointing out that many many Jews in the US are horrified at the genocide in Gaza and do not want to be associated with AIPAC at all. The Jewish community in the US seems to be engaging in very serious internal debate on the topic (https://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/daughter-defense-apartheid/).
AIPAC itself doesn't seem to have any direct statements about Mandami at all. They do make the dubious claim that "are more than 6 million pro-Israel Americans" (https://www.aipac.org/). Since there are an estimated 7.1 to 7.7 million Jews in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews) they claim to represent the vast majority of Jews in the US.
I'm guessing that OP is referring to a sermon by Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove (https://pasyn.org/sermons/2025/on-the-record/). I can't find any statements on if he is or is not an official member of AIPAC but he is generally described as a very conservative by various Jewish publications. Jonathan Shulman then encouraged rabbi's across the country to sign the letter. (https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-873068). He left AIPAC after 18 because "the group's brand was becoming increasingly toxic amid the war in Gaza." As of Friday, over 1,000 rabbis have signed (https://jewishmajority.org/a-rabbinic-call-to-action).
My read on this is that AIPAC is now known to be bad marketing and it's already getting rebranded; the people behind it will just regroup under a new name. While they didn't claim responsibility for the letter, their supporters created and spread it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
They are the same group of billionaires. Just with different T-shirts to perform for the poor
"A great American city is on the precipice of being run by a communist who has publicly embraced a terroristic ideology,”
I'd love for reporters to start pushing politicians when they say dumb shit. Don't just let them say it and then gawk at the camera like you're Jim from the office or move on with questions.
"in what way are you concluding that Mr. Mamdani is a communist? Are you aware of the difference between communism and socialism, and could you explain how he is a communist?"
"what terrorist ideology? waits for answer In what way is this the ideology of a terrorist?"
Show that they have no idea what the words they spew mean. Show that they're just using buzzwords that sound scary.
And then give the facts.
Too often they treat what these people say as if it the news itself. Unbiased, and a source of truth. Reporting has just become gossip repeating the worse people say.
This really is a big problem, "look at what this person said" type stories are basically how Donald Trump Rose to power, his words quoted as if they were the news itself, without any sort of filtering to fact checking. If he had simply been reported as lying without repeating the LIE his power would be significantly reduced
You hit the nail on the head. It's insanely frustrating.
It's beyond frustrating, they are complicit in the evil that's taking place
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's a consequence of access journalism. And the false notion that neutrality is possible. The grain of wood is biased. The proteins that make up our body and its biological functions fold in a biased way. The fundamental particles and fields of the universe have biases too.
There is nothing wrong with bias as long as it is biased in favor of the truth. Performative neutrality, presenting two positions weakly/lazily as equally plausible. It has no value. If we lived in a society where individuals not only had the time, but desire to independently research everything for themselves as well. This wouldn't be such a problem. But we don't.
People read reporting and articles to be informed. When the reporting doesn't present anything definitive other than party A said one thing and party B said another thing. Then the reader simply chooses the one they prefer. Regardless of the facts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
if only....
i don't really ever watch news anymore, but when I did I would scream at the television, "ASK A FUCKING FOLLOW-UP QUESTION"
I don't know what is being taught as journalism anymore but it seems to be just take the statement, get the sound bite, and think up a clickbaitable title.
I was watching PBS tonight and one of the guests called Mamdani a "socialist". And everyone just kind of went along with it. It really, really chaps my hide.
As a journalist, you will never get another interview if you are hard on your guests.
Now days, politicians choose their interviewers and the choose the questions. There is no hard hitting interviews any more.
I know people who got journalism degrees. They work in other areas now. You can't have true journalism when the powers that be don't want to rock the gravy boat.
"wow, this politician is saying batshit crazy things. This will earn me a lot of clicks. Gotta release the article before the other news sites do. I'll use AI to write it up."
load more comments
(9 replies)
Translation: "The GOP really can't afford for democratic socialism to spread throughout the country. We will be labeled as criminals, called evil, jailed as terrorists and violaters of human rights. The wealthy will be less wealthy. The poorest will have more needs net. This is unacceptable!"
“If Mamdani lied on his naturalisation documents, he doesn’t get to be a citizen, and he certainly doesn’t get to run for mayor of New York City. A great American city is on the precipice of being run by a communist who has publicly embraced a terroristic ideology,” Representative Andy Ogles from the Republican party said in an October 29 news release, after asking US Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Mamdani.
Andy Ogles you are pathetic. Have you considered calling him a poopoo head?
Republican.
Ah!
Will they apply this same standard to the first lady and her anchor child?
or to Musk? it is a fact he lied on his naturalization documents regarding his studies and employment. nothing will be done.
Assuming Mamdani is a commie and a radical islamist, he made no attempt to hide it - as evidenced by the fact that the very fascists who want to strip him of his citizenship are themselves aware of it.
This naturally leads to the following question: what do the fascists make of the fact that a majority New Yorkers voted for him, thereby indicated that they WANT a communist islamist running their city?
Are the fascists implying that most New Yorkers are fucking morons who can't see a dangerous individual when they see one, or that a majority of New Yorkers should be either deported or thrown in the slammer for communist tendencies and terrorism?
What the fascists fail to realize is that they're spitting in the face of several million people and insulting their intelligence, and that sure as hell won't earn them any good will.
A lot of kentuckians thought they had a right to vote for mayor of New York and governor of Virginia
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm actually surprised there was no widespread attempt to claim Kamala Harris wasn't a citizen like there was with Obama
They were still campaigning against Biden. No doubt that would have come up if we had a 2 year campaign for her
view more: next ›