146
submitted 5 months ago by 31337@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 119 points 5 months ago

“We have a constitution that lays down the laws for us. As a republic, the individual is protected. So the minority can be protected. It’s not just majority rules.”

"We don't like that the majority that we don't agree with rules. We want a christofascist theocratic dictatorship where the minority we agree with rules.

They don't like democracy because they don't win.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago

That's the thing I've never understood about the "tyranny of the majority" folks, they're just arguing that we should do what fewer people think is the right thing to do and that seems objectively worse. If a majority of people disagree with you then you either work to change their minds or be introspective and see if you need to change yours. Sometimes you'll have to suck it up and deal with the fact that neither of those options will work but that's just the way it is. There is no alternative that works in the long term.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 34 points 5 months ago

The problem is the supremacy of the individual ideology. They don't see themselves as members of a society who have to compromise to get along.

[-] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

I believe in the rights of the individual, which is why I support free health care, education, and housing for all, so that every individual has a chance to succeed, no matter where they come from.

"No, not like that."

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Right, but the tyranny they're taking about is other people having rights, and other people getting education, and other people getting healthcare, and other people having opportunities, and other people getting to vote. It isn't that they are losing anything. They just don't want people they think are inferior to be equal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

There is such a thing as a tyranny of the majority but it’s just why we need ironclad rights

[-] John_McMurray@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

noooo.....we're busy aggressively misunderstanding the concept.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

This is America it’s your right and national duty to do so sometimes. Gods know I do it myself. Carry on

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 23 points 5 months ago

They are also gonna hate when they move to Idaho and find it is one of the least pot friendly states in the country with dog shit schools.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

The bad schools are by design. They want bad schools.

[-] bquintb@midwest.social 6 points 5 months ago

They love the poorly educated

[-] Veraxus@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

“Tyranny of the majority” was an ur-fascist Republican mantra even when I was a kid. These people were always anti-democratic.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yes. I love the, "The US isn't a democracy, it's a Republic!" crowd. A Republic is a form of representatives democracy. The majority elects representatives who then vote on behalf of their constituents. They speak with such confidence but are completely wrong.

EDIT: The definition of a republic is, "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." Ancient republics may have been different but we don't live in the ancient world. Not every country that calls itself a Republic is a Republic. The DPRK and Republic of Iran, for example, are a dictatorship and a theocratic autocracy. They are not republics.

The People are the citizens of the state not the white people, or the Christian people, or the Republican people, or the people you agree with. The People are all of the people. It is only a Republic if every single citizen has the right to vote and equal access to the ballot box. If you are trying to disenfranchise people who don't vote the way you want them to you're not a Republican, you're a RINO.

The People may only exercise supreme power if they freely and fairly elect their representatives. If you're trying to limit the number of polling stations in areas where people don't vote the way you want them to, or to stop counting of ballots before every ballot is counted, or to make it difficult to vote by mail, or early, or on Sunday you are not a Republican, you're a RINO.

In a Republic, every citizen has the right to vote, their votes all carry the same weight, and they have equal access to the ballot box. If you don't have those things not only are you not a democracy but you're not a republic either.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I always wonder what type of Republic they are aiming for. The PRC? Or the Islamic Republic of Iran? The French or German Republic? I guess given their religious leanings they would prefer the Theocratic/Iranian style of Republic.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

Just a technicality: Not all republics are democracies. A republic could be an oligarchy or a theocracy. The main division is between monarchy and republic.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

The definition of a Republic is, "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."

If the people don't elect their representatives and president then it's not a Republic. The DPRK, for example, is not democratic and is therefore not a Republic. Autocracies are republics in name only.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

I suppose it does depend on which definition one is using. The more academic definition puts them as contrasting with monarchies. With that, the DPRK and other autocracies world not be a republic, not due to a lack of democracy but due to a lack of representative-based government. "Representative" here meaning multiple individually who are ostensibly representing the public interest (frequently, this is someone that they fail to do).

What makes a republic democratic or not is HOW the representatives are appointed. In a theocratic republic, they could be appointed by the state church, for example.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

The key factor is the supreme power the people exercise. No democracy, no supreme power of the people, no Republic.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

No. That's the defining factor of democracy which is derived from the Greek words "demos", meaning "the people", and "kratos", meaning "rule". That is "the people rule" or "rule of the people".

Republic is derived from the Latin phrase "res publica", meaning public affair. A republic does not, by definition, need to be democratic, just a form of government where representatives hold the political power to conduct affairs for the people, rather than being explicitly granted it by heredity or "divine mandate".

That is not to say that non-democratic republics are a good, desirable, or have any sort of track record suggesting that they are good for their citizens. Just that the semantic meaning of words is important.

Could the US, and conservatives have been bleating for decades be a republic and not a democracy? No. The US Constitution clearly lays out that the system is intended to be a government of the people, for the people, making democracy a required component under the US Constitution.

[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

I thought they were the "silent majority"

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

These fucksticks are anything but silent.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago

We don’t have a democracy, we are a constitutional republic

This is the new battle cry of American fascism.

The opening of the American Declaration of Independence literally states that the country is going to establish a government that derives “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

I asked him what he meant by that distinction.

“We have a constitution that lays down the laws for us. As a republic, the individual is protected. So the minority can be protected. It’s not just majority rules.”

Agreed, so we let homosexual couples get married, pregnant women make their own health care decisions, treat transgendered people with respect, and take measures to prevent at-risk individuals from getting a deadly virus.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The opening of the American Declaration of Independence literally states that the country is going to establish a government that derives “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

To play devil's advocate, you could argue that's why the Eastern Oregonian fascists should be allowed to join Idaho- because they don't consent to be governed by the state legislature.

(Of course, the real problem is that these assholes are increasingly rejecting the concept of government altogether.)

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I don’t understand this argument. The Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution so it’s not part of a valid legal argument. as I understand it the Constitution does not give individual citizens the right to elect the State that governs them ( beyond by moving obviously).

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You're right, which is why the argument made is a moral one, not a legal one. If you want a more clear-cut example, think about the American South during the US Civil War. They no longer consented to being governed by Washington, so an argument could be made that the North was morally wrong to force the South to remain in the Union. However, as established in Texas v. White in 1869 there was no (and still isn't) a legal mechanism for a state to leave the Union, therefore the South couldn't legally secede.

The same legal precedent applies in this case as well. There isn't any way (currently, anyhow) for states to redraw their boundaries, so even if allowing the eastern Oregon fascists to join Idaho is the morally-correct action (which is not a position I endorse, just presenting the reasoning) they don't have a legal method of doing so.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

The US is both a constitutional Republic and a democracy . In fact, the democratic part is included in the constitution.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

These people support the electoral college because it benefits them almost exclusively. They don't care about democracy.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 47 points 5 months ago

The folks in Jackson and Josephine county, who want to join Idaho, are so anti-tax, they had to reduce police and fire services because they wouldn't vote for local funding bonds.

These folks are going to be DRAMATICALLY surprised to learn, as Idahoans, they now have a 6% sales tax.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 19 points 5 months ago

These are people who can't follow simple health recommendations. Critical thinking isn't going on upstairs.

[-] Vyvanse@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

I wouldn’t say Jackson or Josephine county “want” to join Idaho. There has not really been political talk or any votes for such a thing. The counties that want to join Idaho are east of Jackson county and have much smaller population. Anecdotally, everyone I know in both counties are proud Oregonians and would never vote for such a thing, even if they do hate Portland. The anti-tax sentiment is a separate issue all together.

[-] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 46 points 5 months ago

Idaho residents will see an increase in taxes due to supporting all the new public schools, services and infrastructure. The newly acquired Oregon county residents will now have to pay income taxes. They will also bring a portion of the Oregon state debt that Idaho will now have to pay because Idaho's constitution won't allow state debt. Meanwhile the new smaller Oregon won't have near as many welfare counties to support and will be able to lower the remaining residents taxes.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

How many electoral college votes shift to Idaho along with the meth and Jesus counties? Because that's always the reason these movements are really funded.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

One. It's basically all of the counties in Oregon's second district.

[-] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Seems like a worthy trade, let’s do it.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago

They yearn for the "good 'ol days" of when Oregon Territory was a whites-only ethnostate.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago

This again? Hate to tell these rednecks but plenty of States have the urban/rural dichotomy. They ain't special.

[-] moon@lemmy.cafe 18 points 5 months ago

The greater Idaho movement is a meme and is just conservatives trying to cheat democracy further. There's no real depth or nuance to it.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Idaho?

Prediction: Literally everything they are complaining about, will be an instance where they're unhappy about the will of the majority of Oregonians

Brb

Edit: Yeah pretty much

Crook county voted for Donald Trump, a Republican governor, against decriminalising drugs and against restrictions on gun ownership. The state went the other way every time.

Fuckin' democracy

They want to get rid of agriculture

you need to drive an electric car

Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that my government would say, ‘You can’t go to church.’”

IDK, man. I do kind of get it; I think the underlying complaint is probably more just that no one likes feeling like everyone in their community looks at it one way, and there's a force from outside preventing them from doing it that way when they mostly want to (like drug legalization, or having to wear masks or closing churches during Covid). That part honestly does make some sense to me.

I'd be curious how much is some real agriculture or legislative issue where they actually were being overridden, and how much is culture-war bullshit that doesn't impact their daily lives in any way except when they see it on the propaganda-news that's trying to get them all riled up. But I had more sympathy reading about it than I thought I would.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 7 points 5 months ago

Crook County

Nominative determinism strikes again.

All of these come down to, "we want the right to keep fucking everyone else with externalities while enjoying the benefits of outsourcing those costs," which, no sympathy. Grow up, people.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 14 points 5 months ago

Boy would they be shocked with the tollroad that would be built on the Cascades charging a toll on all their farm trucks to get to port.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Democracy works well when people have similar general goals and just disagree about how to accomplish them. It doesn't work well when people have opposing goals. Thus I have a lot of sympathy for these people even though I disagree with their politics. Why should they have to follow the rules set by culturally dissimilar coastal cities far away rather than the rules set by much more similar and much closer Idaho?

If I could remake the US government from scratch, I think I might create something like the self-governing cities of medieval Europe. The Democratic/Republican divide is largely an urban/rural one, and this way both the urban and the rural areas would have the local governments and the representatives that the majority wanted. Real-world state lines do a poor job of demarcating regions where most of the people have similar values. A better system is possible, but in practice there's too much inertia to make such large changes.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 12 points 5 months ago

What happens to queer people who happen to be born in rural areas, in your model?

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago

They die, of course.

So do the poor and anyone who has the misfortune of not being born a rich landowner.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Under a large tent at the Crook county fairgrounds in Prineville, Oregon, six people stand in a neat line, each clutching the gun in their holster.

The presidency of Donald Trump and the Covid pandemic have heightened divisions – with different groups starkly diverging on how they think the state should move forward.

Moving the state lines is a tall order, given that both Oregon and Idaho legislatures would have to agree, along with the respective governors, and then for Congress to approve the matter.

He and his wife lived in Portland, Oregon’s largest city, for 20 years before moving east because on “almost every issue”, abortion, LGBTQ+, guns, drugs, McCaw was opposed to the progressive measures enacted by state legislators.

Outside the courthouse one Sunday, I chatted with Priscilla Smith, chair of the county’s Democrats, who was leading a small rally against the Greater Idaho movement.

Mike McCarter, the president of the Greater Idaho movement, was leading a prayer at the start of a question-and-answer session hosted by McCaw at the Crook county library in Prineville.


The original article contains 1,669 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
146 points (92.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1480 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS