Johnson: We're Not A Democracy, We're A "Biblical" Republic And Separation Of Church And State Isn't Real
Johnson: We're Not A Democracy, We're A "Biblical" Republic And Separation Of Church And State Isn't Real
“You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. W...
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
We already have the Libertarian party, which is the actual Freedom Liberty party.
Libertarians are more interested in simping for our corporate overlords and removing the age of consent.
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.
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.
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.
Libertarians are just republicans who do drugs and are too embarrassed to call themselves republicans.
Can't confirm. I consider myself Libertarian, I don't do drugs, and I have been voting more Democrat than Republican in the last few elections because the Republicans consistently go against my libertarian values. I had to change my affiliation to Republican to get a primary ballot (I'm in a red state, so I wanted to vote to try to limit the damage my neighbors might cause), and ended up voting Democrat in the general. Many of my Democrat friends do the same because the Democratic primary here is a joke.
There are a lot of "libertarians" that are just edgy Republicans, but I doubt they even bother changing their party affiliation. An easy litmus test is if they support Trump, they're not libertarian. That's where I draw the line, and it has been pretty effective for me.
Nah nah bud that's the dumb toddler daydream party.
A republic is a type of democracy. This guy is an idiot. 
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.
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.
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
I just looked it up and did not find a concise definition. According to the German bpb even dictatorships can be republics.
https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/lexikon-in-einfacher-sprache/250057/republik/
Not necessarily, North Korea is technically a republic.
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
They literally hold elections following a concensus process.
Well cited effortpost on hexbear about the dprk: https://hexbear.net/post/196389
Sigh
Sorry you prefer to choose between bad and worse every election over reaching concensus in a constituent meeting and then voting to confirm the candidate in an election, but that doesn't make the dprk's system less democratic
That's a hell of a rant for an obvious joke comment
"Sigh" isnt a joke comment, it is a redditism
My initial coment was
Is the joke that westerners don't understand how dprk nominations and elections work?
Lol how old are you? That was a thing before reddit even existed. Just goes to show the tankies on here are literally kids larping
Yes, but it is also a thing I only see reddit refugees doing.
Just goes to show the tankies on here are literally kids larping
I've literally been politically engaged as part of a socialist org for a decade, maybe it is you larping?
You know, with the tankie thing. You're doing an excellent McCarthy impression, but I dont think you're actually on the un-American activities committee.
Fucking tankie scum
Racist "believe anything the US says about a state enemy they've previously committed genocide on" bootlicker
Two words: Tienanmen square. If you have anything that resembles a defense of that you're a POS. And you do.
The holocaust
The Bengal famine
The potato famine
WW1
WW2
The Vietnam war
The slave trade
Immigrant concentration camps
Apartheid/Segregation
If you have anything that resembles a defense of that you're a POS
Imagine thinking the June 4th incident -where around 300 people died, slightly less than half of those people being unarmed PLA soldiers- can be used to condemn a system as large as China while every capitalist country has done much, much worse.
Hell, say the cultural revolution, say the post-civil-war famine, the way the cpc handled them can reasonably be criticized, and they are, by the current cpc.
What a piece of fucking shit
Yeah you're right, we've got to destabilize a country of 1.4 billion people over 300 deaths more than thirty years ago
Thousands of extrajudicial killings by US police every year? What's that?
No, it's not. They have a hereditary head of state who enforces his rule with control of the military.
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...
I'm saying it's just a lying monarchy.
A pile of shit isn't a rose because you call it a rose. You're just lying.
Who was the third head of state again? (Hint, it isnt Kim Jung Un)
Well cited effortpost on hexbear about the dprk: https://hexbear.net/post/196389
Now I see what they got defederilized from Lemmy, so much blatant malinformation.
They literally are federated with the main lemmy instance.
The hand job place near me is also technically a foot job place.
Yeah, they really should pop open one of those dictionaries – if they know what those are – and look at the definition of republic.
Some grade 9 ass shit. A republic IS a democratic structure of government. It's representative democracy.
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.
Well, we're both. But if you had to pick just one, Republic is probably more informative than Democracy since citizens rarely actually vote for laws and usually just vote for representatives. The correct term is a combination of the two: democratic republic. Wikipedia uses the term "Federal presidential constitutional republic," which I think conveys it pretty well, though I'd prefer the term "democratic" somewhere in that word salad.
The main point is that GOP is starting to use this as justification to prevent people from electing their representatives.
Sure, the GOP absolutely twists definitions to suit their goals. You can see something similar with Democrats calling Republicans "fascists," so the problem is political theater.
That's a separate discussion from educating people on what the terms actually mean. We should be fighting misinformation on all fronts.
When most of a party is literally pushing to overthrow the popular vote and instate an unelected autocrat, it’s ok to call it fascist.
Maybe, but it's applied so liberally (ha!) that it starts to lose its meaning. I worry that a significant portion of the population doesn't actually know what fascism means, so it's starting to lose its impact.
What else would you call it?
This isn’t a teenager calling dad a fascist for grounding them, the GOP is literally taking pages out of the historical fascism playbook.
I'm saying the term "fascist" is used for pretty much any policy the left doesn't like, such as abortion restrictions, spending cuts, etc.
Refusing to honor the results of an election is fascist. Passing policies that the left doesn't like isn't fascist. However, labeling conservatives as "fascist" is politically convenient, in much the same way as labeling progressives as "socialists" is politically convenient. I worry that the public doesn't actually understand what those terms mean, so calling out actual fascism or socialism is an issue.
This take is stupidity.