this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
552 points (98.8% liked)

politics

25359 readers
2876 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
 

Politico reports that at a Hamptons fundraiser last Saturday, Cuomo told his well-heeled supporters that, contrary to all available evidence, he could win the New York mayoral race as an independent—because he was likely to have the implicit support of President Donald Trump.

The imperative of defeating Mamdani justified the new coalition Cuomo is trying to create of his die-hard loyalists (who are Democrats) with Trump Republicans.

Some of that latter group might be tempted to back Curtis Sliwa, the actual GOP nominee in the race. Cuomo told these donors, “We can minimize [the Sliwa] vote, because he’ll never be a serious candidate. And Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani. And you’ll be wasting your vote on Sliwa.” Cuomo went on to emphasize that he’d be a mayor who could find common ground with Trump:

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] icystar@lemmy.cif.su 8 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Why do people in major cities like New York and Las Vegas love getting conned?

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago

What happened in las Vegas?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 hours ago

Because establishment candidates have big money and the media like New York Times behind them.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 46 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The " dems are different from repubs" crew is eating a shit sandwich now.

Its RICH VS POOR YA GOONS

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 hours ago

They're both owned by the rich and most of the same SuperPACs. If anyone thinks they both didn't support what Trump wanted, they've been fooled by the propaganda of those SuperPACs.

[–] MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But the Dems didn't elect this guy. He lost the Dem vote.

But yes, it is Have vs Have Nots

[–] thoro@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

There's a difference between voters and the party establishment

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Given how NYC elections and sentiment around Trump even before he ran for president, it seems an interesting strategy to think affinity with Trump would be an asset with that crowd.

Even in many areas where Trump is actually popular, candidates that received an explicit endorsement from Trump still failed. It's not even much of an asset there. In NYC one would think it's pretty much poison to a campaign.

[–] Sidhean@piefed.social 4 points 10 hours ago

The guy with a HATE BONER for the dude who likes HELPING people (eww helping) is GOOD FRIENDS with the NAZIS? He's sucking cheeto too? WOW! SAD!, even!

[–] ALLHAILHYPNOTOAD@lemmy.ml 29 points 16 hours ago

Establishment democrats have way more in common with the current administration than leftists and they know it.

load more comments
view more: next ›