• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    245
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This “not a democracy, a republic” crap is becoming more and more popular on the right. They’re not even trying to hide the authoritarianism and fascism any more. They’re now openly saying they don’t support democracy.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      129
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s literally “democracy = Democrats” and “a republic = republican” to them, simple as.

      The Democrats should rename themselves the “Freedom Liberty” party just to fuck with em. Take back some of their words.

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is great, call it the Patriot Party or something and talk about how government waste has turned “Citizens On Patrol” into a bunch of lazy, freedom-suppressing, union members.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        We already have the Libertarian party, which is the actual Freedom Liberty party.

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Libertarians are more interested in simping for our corporate overlords and removing the age of consent.

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope that’s just the common Redditor’s prejudice against the party based on what they read on Reddit.

            I encourage you to read the actual party platform, which has none of what you described in it.

            • norbert@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some of us have had actual conversations with “Libertarians” and found them to be pretty much in-line with the comment. Not all of us spent our lives on a website.

              It’s always deregulate-fuck-you-i-got-mine sociopaths. Libertarians are about as realistic and level-headed as Anarchists. It’s great on paper or for a small group but once millions of people are involved the bad actors show up and ruin it for everyone.

              • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again, I refer you to the party platform. That is the only definitive thing that Libertarians as a party stand for.

                Your hearsay is irrelevant to that fact.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A republic is a type of democracy. This guy is an idiot. 

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, republic just means that the role of head of state isn’t hereditary. Lots of dictatorships are republics, some democracies are as well. The actual political system of the USA is representative democracy (in theory at least).

        The fact that these terms are so muddled in the minds of the average American is completely deliberate, because it makes it so much easier for them to subvert US democracy when people have been told that the US is not one.

        • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a couple definitions. One I’ve heard most is a republic has a citizen as head of state, which disqualifies both monarchies and military dictatorships. Another is that the head of state is elected or nominated, which disqualifies non-representative systems entirely.

        • Ludwig van Beethoven@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          republic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ noun a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

          from one of those Oxford ones

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That is why it is technically a republic, but not in practice. The constitution says it is a republic, and they actually have an election for the role of head of state, well “election”, but of course in practice that is not how it works at all.

            The US is also technically a representative democracy, but in practice, well…

        • Z3k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not just a Republic its a people’s Republic.

          So you know like way better. That’s why they don’t need elections it already says it belongs to the people

      • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think what they’re getting at is that majority does not neccesarily rule in the US. You can have an election where a majority of voters go one way but the electoral college (your representation) goes another.

        Idk why they want to harp on that right now but whatever.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the American electorate was slightly less stupid, I’d be ecstatic, because he made himself effectively kryptonite to reasonable, intelligent people with that statement.

    Unfortunately, the American electorate is, on average, that stupid.

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s worse is that the average is weighted further toward stupid by gerrymandering. They’re right that the game is rigged, it’s just not rigged against them.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He said it in 2016 though and has still been re-elected and elected speaker of the house regardless. Hopefully this has an effect on the republican party at large though now. It might fly where he’s from, but it won’t in the US at large. We just need to make sure people know what they’re voting for.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      On average? 35% of people believing lies makes us all “on average” as stupid as they are? By your own logic, you just be American

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They treat the Constitution like they do their bible.

    They don’t read it.

    If they do read it, they just read the bits they agree with.

    If they read the parts that don’t fit their desired narrative, they engage in mental gymnastics to reinterpret what was written to fit their desires.

    Edit:

    Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

    Which led to the Establishment Clause…

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

    And also The point of Article 6 wherein no religious test is to be given to hold office.

    Better?

    • AUniqueGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      From article VI (3rd paragraph)

      "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executige and judicial officers, both of the united states and of the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

      • Tyfud@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        It literally couldn’t be any clearer. I guess he’s the shittiest constitutional lawyer ever. But nobody will care. They eat up his arguing from authority fallacy bullshit

        • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s an easy game to play actually. Strict contructionists will only recognize discourse that can be understood in 1790, or whichever relevant time. They use dictionaries from that time and the writings of the amerikan founders to make their points. You won’t easily find anything from that era that implies “religion” is anything other than Christianity and it’s various sects. To assert otherwise would be to legislate without congress. So they can argue that excluding non-Christians and non-Protestants is in line with the intentions of the authors regardless of article 6.

          Is it a perfect line of thinking without contradictions? Of course not, but neither is the counter idea that America was designed to accommodate non-Christians.

  • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t want to be that guy, but in fairness, ol’ boy didn’t actually say “biblical republic” (He just wheeled out the old “constitutional Republic” bit).

    Doesn’t make this any better, but I want to be sure we criticize with facts.

  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is it that every time a dumbass steps down from being speaker, you guys manage to find an even bigger wanker? It’s kinda impressive, honestly.

  • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So this is the alternative history they want to write eh?

    Clown, it was called the “Enlightenment Age” for a reason, people started breaking the chains of organized religion. Yes they were Christians, but they knew enough to not trust religion as a form of government.

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the material world are some of the founding principles, not “death, misery and suffering but maybe get lucky choosing the right god and you’ll be rewarded with eternal paradise…”

    If they founded the country on the Bible, we’d live in a theocracy with no elections and no opposition parties.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s less optimism & more a concrete trend if you look at the elections that have happened since the GOP destroyed Roe v. Wade.

        • theangryseal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a risky strategy though.

          The Clinton team admitted to elevating Trump for an easy win.

          How did that go?

          • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Clinton team had Clinton on it. If they’d run against anyone other than Trump it would’ve been an even bigger slaughter.

    • Starlet [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This batshit motherfucker is going to drive so many voters to the Dems. Keep amplifying his insane bullshit.

      Surely boosting far-right candidates won’t backfire again clueless

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This batshit motherfucker is going to drive so many voters to the Dems.

      Did I miss a memo and there’s suddenly a dem worth voting for? Until we get a non-warmongering climate crusader as a dem candidate, my vote’s going to Afroman. (Obligatory >:( from the brainwormed; saw that coming lmao)

    • BoxedFenders [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      This batshit motherfucker is going to drive so many voters to the Dems.

      Rich Republicans will continue voting for whoever taxes them the least. Poor Republicans will continue voting to spite their perceived opponents (minorities, gays, “the woke mob”).

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I don’t think so Tim.

      If Trump didn’t drive all the moderate Republicans over to the Democrats, this guy isn’t gonna do it.

        • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, most of them won because most of them were in uncompetitive districts.

          Most of the candidates he endorsed in the few competitive districts that still exist did indeed lose, though.

    • GarfieldYaoi [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Normies actually believe what he says.

      Look at 4chan, there’s no shortage of idiots who want to believe that porky is our lord and savior and they’re actually the good guys when they go around ruining other people’s lives “for teh lulz”.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am begging you to stop whinging about “normies”, as well as pretending 4chan is a reasonable representation of the general population when it’s q freaks and reactionary societal outcasts.

  • Teon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Christians always try to re-history the world in their favor. They are the most dishonest hypocritical fascists.
    Then again, they stole most of what their religion allegedly stands for.

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Separation of church and state is both the first amendment and a clause in article six of the constitution:

    First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    article six

    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Thomas Jefferson’s use of the words “separation of church and state” was to explain the purpose of the first amendment specifically but the actual legal text of the constitution is worded broadly enough to cover not only separation of church and state but separation of mosque/synagogue/ect and state rather than singling out Christianity.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the actual legal text of the constitution is worded broadly enough

      Ahh, then you just engage in a narrow interpretation of it, hence allowing the combination of church and state.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. I think what these people mean usually is that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution, which is true. They heard that somewhere and repeat it. Maybe that West Wing episode where Charlie does a bit about it.

      • ashok36@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

        Seems pretty clear to me.

  • Jeredin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is literally frightening to read that any American politician would think this. I don’t see how any moderate R could support this train of thought.

    • Senuf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Moderate R are an endangered and disappearing species. And even if you find one, you’d be safe to assume they’re “moderate” rather than moderate.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of them think it. The more frightening aspect is the willingness to say it out loud.

      Remember when Cheetoh-Man said things out loud and they loved him for it. Eight years later, they feel emboldened to do all kinds of shit that wouldn’t have been on the radar back then. We’re in trouble.