• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    227
    ·
    11 months 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
      121
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months 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
        31
        ·
        11 months 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
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months 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
            18
            ·
            11 months 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
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months 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
                8
                ·
                11 months 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
      43
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
      40
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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

  • DahGangalang
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months 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

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

  • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 months 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
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months 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.

  • Teon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months 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
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        Seems pretty clear to me.

  • stormtrooper@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    When he won the spot he said “good to see our democracy working” or something like that. Fucking shameless lunatic

  • Thteven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well the good news is that just because this fuckbrain said it doesn’t make it true.

  • Jeredin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months 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.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months 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.