narwhalJohnson: We're Not A Democracy, We're A "Biblical" Republic And Separation Of Church And State Isn't Real
GhostalmediaThis “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.
Yeah, they really should pop open one of those dictionaries – if they know what those are – and look at the definition of republic.
gregorumA republic is a type of democracy. This guy is an idiot. 
I just looked it up and did not find a concise definition. According to the German bpb even dictatorships can be republics.
JoseNot 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.
Sigh
Sorry you prefer to choose between two bad candidates over selecting your candidate in a meeting by consensus and then voting to confirm the candidate in an election
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
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.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So tell me are you still certain IDF did the bombing? How much more evidence before you have your schizophrenic breakdown?
One of your last posts is about looking for a wife in a mental health ward, which is incredibly creepy.
Don’t flatter yourself lol. Cope harder please tankie.
Yes, it would be super flattering for some asshole harassing me to keep calling me seriously mentally ill while posting about how they want to prey on women having mental health crisises to the point that they’re committed.
Consider showing the women in your life that linked post and seeing what their reaction would be, you misogynistic creep.
Yup you definitely sound like a very stable person. Especially when you freak out about a 196 post lmao.
Oh and that post? I have sent that meme to friends already including some who are women. You really are exposing yourself quite a bit here. Tell ya what, I’ll send that post again to my gal friends if you make friends lol.
www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-771238
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TrickDacyFucking tankie scum
A normal way to react to learning something about a country that is a state enemy
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 The dust bowl The Vietnam war The slave trade
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.
Who was the third head of state again?
Now I see what they got defederilized from Lemmy, so much blatant malinformation.
They literally are federated with the main lemmy instance.
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, 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.
Red Wizard 🪄You both are saying the same thing. Wake up.
You are not reading what anyone is writing. You are not disagreeing with anyone here, you are just not reading any of it.
It’s not “technically” a republic because it has a hereditary ruling line. Period.
You weirdly angry goon.
It’s “technically” a republic because they celebrate elections, yes really, but the vote is not secret and there’s just one candidate. Unsurprisingly, 100% of the votes in favor of Kim Jon Un, with zero absence and zero null votes. It’s “technically” the will of the people, legally speaking.
The hand job place near me is also technically a foot job place.
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.
I’ve always heard that a Republic is one where power rests in the people and is exercised through their representatives. So more the latter than the former.
And it’s convoluted because governments are weird. For example, the UK is not a Republic, it’s a monarchy, though it’s effectively a Republic because the monarch has only symbolic power. To change the UK to a Republic would only require changing the position of head of state to an elected or appointed position subject to Parliament or the people (either one), which is largely a name change. On the flipside, Iran is a Republic, and it’s certainly less representative of the will of the people than the UK.
So using terms like “Republic” or “Democracy” by themselves isn’t interesting, what’s interesting is what level of control the people have over their own government.
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.
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.
norbertThis 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 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.
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.
【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】Nah nah bud that’s the dumb toddler daydream party.
Well voting for people who hold the actual power but are under no obligations to help or even respect their constituents in any way… certainly doesn’t sound like a democracy to me.
“Democracy” is what politicians say when they want people to feel like they are empowered or live in a better condition than they do. Both the left and right use it this way.
I think of democracy like this. All citizens vote on an issue, and if over 50% approve, then we have a new policy. Only in very few and limited cases is this possible. With good reason.
What the founders mostly feared is that “the masses” are subject to temporary strong passions and can be manipulated, leading to sudden drastic policy shifts, maybe not particularly well thought out. At the same time, with majority rule, it’s very possible to restrict and eliminate the rights of minority groups – they essentially have no voice.
They thought they found a good solution, the problem is it requires all parties to make good faith efforts to support and uphold the purpose and structure of the republic, and to keep in mind who the citizens are, to advocate for the minority as well as the majority, as both groups have “inalienable rights” which must be considered in all matters.
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.
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.