739
Trump administration raises possibility of stripping Mamdani of US citizenship
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
739 points (99.5% liked)
politics
24561 readers
2770 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m not convinced you would need to rise up. Just collectively stop going to work. The house of cards falls pretty quickly on capitalism if there are no workers to exploit.
All the power is in the populace if they all agree to take it back together.
It’s the laziest thing a person could do really. Just stay at home, ration food and wait until the billionaire folks lose their minds.
With at least 70% of us living paycheck to paycheck, and 48% of us having $1,000 or less in savings, I don't think that a national strike is likely. I agree that it would be by far the most impactful thing we could collectively do, but hell - at least half of us are one missed paycheck away from homelessness, and America really fucking hates the homeless. Combine that with the fact that most people get their family health insurance from their job, and the fact that our Senate just voted to practically obliterate medicare / medicaid, and you get an extra level of devastating consequences for losing your job. And people would lose their jobs. Even if a significant amount of people are participating in the nation-wide strike, employers would be very heavy-handed with the dismissals. I just don't think that it's in the cards for us.
When you get enough people who are homeless, they will decide to take the homes of others for themselves. Republicans and the elite will soon be fueling the growth of backyard crops. After all, that bunch has to end up somewhere.
...seriously. Our "leaders" don't understand that they have destroyed the shield of civility. They won't be able to protect themselves from what is to come.
Reminds me of this poem from Carl Sandburg:
We are terrified of losing our jobs. We are told there is always another person waiting for your job. We are often a couple pay checks away from ruin.
Maybe we need to stop spending. Don't buy it if we don't need it. Live Spartan for a month.
I think a general strike would be effective, but dangerous when people are kept so close to poverty.
Remember the pandemic, we "all" stopped going into work? Except the grocery store workers, and the food processor workers, and those that distribute the food, and water treatment plant staff, and the power plant, and hospital staff, and taxis, and drug store workers, and so on and on. Do those people stop working? How many people can't obtain the things they need beyond their next paycheck? What if in addition, the store shelves are empty?
I agree, it's the most feasible way to fight back, so don't get me wrong. But just like union dues and preparation enable a local strike, accounting for food, water, amenities...a general strike would need to do that or else we would be fighting a war of attrition not just against billionaires with multi-year bunkers but also against ourselves.