• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    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
      95
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        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
          3
          ·
          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
          1
          ·
          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

      • 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
    119
    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
      35
      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.

    • 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
    80
    ·
    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
      30
      ·
      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."

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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
        12
        ·
        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
    30
    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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

  • HowMany@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yo. Shit for brains. Here’s the deal.

    Get your god on the ballot. We’ll vote for it. If it wins then maybe we’ll give a listen to what it’s got to say.

    Otherwise keep that fucker OUT of our government.

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t that effectively what he’s doing? A vote for him is a vote for his opinions, including that of God.

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

        No, that is not what he’s doing. He’s pretending to be the will of some magical sky fairy, and he is anything but that. He claims to “hear” this imaginary person “telling him what to do”. That is not the same thing as a god - that is a charlatan using the snake oil of an imaginary sky fairy to con the poorly educated.

        What I want is god, I don’t care which one (they’re all imaginary) put on the ballot and voted for. This would be decisive two ways… First, how does one get on a ballot? (they have to prove they are a real live human being, among other tests). And the second doesn’t matter, because an imaginary thing can’t be on a ballot.

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    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.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, in essence, he’s not wrong.

    Nearly every federal legislator is Christian and votes that way. Some states still (symbolically, since they’re unenforceable) ban atheists from holding public office too, not that you’d even have a chance of winning public office being openly atheist.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      In what way do legislators “vote Christian”? Most of them have never read a bible, and even if they did, the bible is wildly contradictory with itself and is full of cruelty.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean that used to be true, but I imagine today, when popular culture seems pretty much against the idea of religion

  • elrik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see this nutjob has no idea what he’s talking about and cannot fulfill the duties of his oath of office, so he should simply be removed from office, right? Right guys?

    • psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      His job isn’t to last, it’s tonflog whatever the Russians are paying him to do. Which will almost certainly be to jam up the government so it can’t function, and to kill any Ukraine spending bills. If he can cause a civil war or constitutional crisis all the better.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        and to kill any Ukraine spending bills.

        I love how so many are pretending that our biggest problem is not throwing another 100 billion we don’t actually have at another country’s war.