MAGA Republican Pledges “End of Democracy” to Rabid Cheers at CPAC | Republicans at CPAC 2024 are openly vowing to take down democracy.
newrepublic.com
Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today web.archive.org
About the only way we're going to actually have a democracy is if they consistently lose elections. That's going to mean volunteering, donating, and actually turning out to vote
I guess I got to be the first year to say it: this is fucking horrible, and we have to do everything we can in our power to stop this.
The comment directly below this one reads like propaganda straight from Moscow. I'm very glad to see it down-voted. Blaming blatant authoritarianism and extremely dangerous rhetoric on "old people" seems like a pretty obvious diversion from the actual culprits: the entire Republican party who is sleepwalking into a legit second coup attempt. They're losing political power and have abandoned the idea of democracy. The fact that they're unable or unwilling to drown this Nazi rhetoric in the bathtub speaks volumes. They are openly supporting authoritarianism. Not "old people". Republicans.
I just wish that included candidates that weren't geriatric. Their age and old values are from a dead world.
And yet Bernie still wasn't popular enough to even beat Hildawg.
That had nothing to do with his popularity.
... It had literally everything to do with his popularity. Are people able to vote for who they want or not? Did not Bernie give Hilary a run for her money.
Did almost every average Democrat still vote for Hilary instead of Bernie? Did young people still not vote for him?
All of it yes. Blame Hildawg having so much political influence, more experience at the presidential level, and money particularly with the democratic establishment as much as you want, it's literally part of political capital and knowing when to use it.
Bernie didn't run against Biden after. Bernie didn't try to get on VP ticket for either. I voted for him every chance I got, which was exactly once. He even won nearly everywhere that wasn't populous.
He “lost” the primary because Hillary controlled the superdelegates. They are beholden to the party, not the choice of the people.
Bernie was ultimately defeated by superdelegates, not by people voting in the primaries.
Ohhh bernie... I'd let him rule it all just to see us all picking up trash like he did day one of his service!
They’re not sending their brightest, folks. Many such examples.
Seriously though, I didn’t have a pizzagate guy openly advocating fascism at CPAC on my doomsday bingo card, yet here we are.
There's a non-zero chance that they actually are sending their brightest.
And they can hire the most intelligent sociopaths money can buy
And that their brightest are as retarded as these retards.
Hey big dog, we don't use the R word anymore. It was hard for me, man. Seriously. I slipped just a cpl wks ago. Personally, now I just use expletives to send the message home, e. g., fucking morons, total fucking idiots, shit for brains dumbass fuckface, etc. If you're worried about soap in your mouth, perhaps, jabronis, jackass, schmuck face, imbecile.
I think we can all realize that this man is stating that these people are slowing the progress of society and attempting to retard it's progress not disparaging the less capable en mass. I really think you should look into the etymology of some of your other suggestions.
This is the "and swastikas are used in Hinduism" argument. Anyone who works with people whose actual medical diagnosis is "mental retardation" will tell you that using that word to insult others is more an insult to the disabled, and should be discarded.
"These retards" doesn't mean "these slowing the progress of society persons." You know that. This is a reactionary excuse for a negative behavior easily altered with minor effort.
Moron: in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement
Idiot: in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself against common physical dangers.
Imbecile: in psychiatrist contexts is used to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability.
Are you really taking the high road here by using outdated terminology that's more demeaning that the more modern replacement.
We have, right now, in our care, men and women in their 40s, 50s, 60s and above whose real honest-to-God documentation states that their disability is "severe mental retardation." Is the language outdated by our current standard? Yes, but our system will not be taking them in for reevaluation when there isn't any benefit to be had to either those people or their caregivers.
We will not have alternative terminology for people who will never be reevaluated. Mental retardation is their diagnosis, and you're the mean little prick trying to justify using a diagnosis as an insult when it costs you literally nothing to pick a different invective. You're trying to seem so intelligent- use better, more creative language instead. Or don't. I'm not your mother.
But you'll likely continue to face pushback for this until either our older population (the real people with this real diagnosis) all die, and the word does become completely outdated, or until you lobby for legislation to have each and every person with this diagnosis reclassified based on current medical knowledge, regardless of it's benefit, just so you can use their disability as a swear.
Isn't it the way to get some alphabet agency on your ass? Dude doesn't only speak Jan 6 was a coup, he encourage people to do it again.
It's unbelievable that someone says this AND it is found to far exceed the speech and debate clause AND is held to account.
But then, most authoritarian leaders are initially I stalled under cheers of their own population. And mostly people know what they are voting for. The MAGA crowd seems to just be more open about it.
Just recently Indonesia voted for a guy who literally murdered his fellow countrymen as head of a special forces unit. But the youth think his TikTok dance is Soo cute, so they vote for the sweet grandpa with the cute dance. I hope they will be alright.
Excuse me, wtf, how it's even real: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dRF4nUIRAAA
Prabowo is a fucking monster, and much like other worldwide monsters, he was trained at Fort Bragg by US special forces.
Then even The US said "This guy is too war crimey even for us. We're going to deport you, but do keep in touch. Especially about those East Timor rebels. They look suspiciously anti-capitalist".
Bizarre right?
Bizarre, and at the same time devilishly clever. It looks like a modern adaptation of nazi's sieg heil or some other cultish gestures if you think of it. He's associated with more than an image or a voice, but with a dance one sees and repeats. And it's a very visual, albeit looking innocent, sign of support that can easily turn in more people. And mass dance can be triggered, just like a wave on a stadium, by a dozen of provocators who'd start it...
I hope his PR team would be the first to enjoy what they created.
The speech and debate clause only covers members of Congress and Senators, and only for their debates in those respective houses. It dates back to when traveling to Washington might take several days, through several states, and they didn't want members to be subject to arrest if some random Mayor or Sheriff didn't like what they said.
This guy is not a member of Congress and can't use that as a shield.
Cool, did not know the origin of it.
The FrEeDoM oF SpEaCh argument then.
Some of those who work forces...
... Are actually miniature horses? (I heard miniature horses are pretty racist)
Sir this is a conservative oligarchy not a Wendy's. Rules are only for anyone we declare to be too far left.
FBI would be the ones with jurisdiction, and they are mostly right wing. There's never been a director of the FBI that wasn't registered Republican. That should tell you just how likely they are to take this threat seriously.
FBI are cheering along at home, let's be real. That organization has some some heinous shit in the service of white supremacy.
Well, if he was, say, a Black progressive saying such things, it would be something to get an alphabet agency looking into it, maybe even a visit from an agency, and actually cancelled nearly everywhere.
But, IOKIYAR.
Republicans are criminals, cheaters, liars and traitors.
And I have proof, just watch and listen to everything they do.
They HATE America and want to rule it with a sick 2000 year old genocidal religion.
Always vote for the candidate to does things to help Americans, and chooses human rights over fascist control laws.
I mean, Christianity is still less genocidal than Islam. Not that this is a huge achievement.
And they don't seem very knowledgeable about it.
EDIT: Somebody disagrees that Christianity is less genocidal than Islam? Something-something demonstratively not racist, so uncritically supportive of the biggest group of "brown people" you've heard of? Though I'd add that historically it has been similarly genocidal, what I said is fact only in our time.
I wouldn't say it's a either or thing. I'd say they're equally genocidal.
Today's Islam is by far more that. Some people say that's because it's a younger religion, but I think that's because of their "gates of ijtihad" concept.
"Some people say" that support for the Palestinian genocide in America is largely due to christo-fascism.
Well, they are wrong, it's just that white people with modern weapons always feel more like "ours".
Um, ever hear of Abraham? Ethnic Jews are exactly as "white" as ethnic Palestinians.
That's obviously wrong, ethnic Jews obviously have had a lot of Central European, Eastern European, Iberian etc input.
Now I'm not exactly well familiar with these American dynamics of who is "white" and who is not, it's not important anywhere else.
It's absolutely not. This is your post 9/11 bias showing. Islam, historically has been less genocidal than Christianity.
Much of the colonization of Africa, the Americas, and other regions was done in the name of Christianity, through that there were many genocides of indigenous peoples. Many wars were fought over the flavor of Christianity after the reformation.
Religion, in general, causes people to do vile things. But Christianity has more blood on its hands than Islam.
Being Armenian I say you can go eat shit.
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr my anecdotal experience outweighs objective historyyyyy
(Just clarifying I am not denying the Armenian genocide but seriously this person is so off base it's just incredible they can still breathe, Christianity is basically the driving force behind an unbelievably high amount of deaths and the death toll has never stopped going up)
Your opinion is not objective history, also not worth attention.
They are obviously referencing objective history.
They don't own objective history any more than I do.
Doesn't change the facts dipshit, they never once said Islam was innocent and did nothing wrong
I'm saying that Islam now is a more aggressive and genocidal religion. You can go suck horse dicks
I am not saying Islam did not result in genocide. I am not denying the armenian genocide. All I am saying is, you can't say Islam has caused more genocide than Christianity. Islam has a lot of blood on its hands too, religion in general does.
Usually when speaking in present time we mean present time, ergo not body count, but current activities. Islam is genocidal right now. Christianity right now isn't.
There are many different flavors of Christianity just like there are many different flavors of Islam. Each flavor has its own set of doctrines that they apply to themselves. None of those different flavors can claim to be the true flavor. Defining a religion by just one of its flavors is misguided and wrong.
The difference is that the dominant branches of Islam are Shia and Sunni, and not, say, Nizari Ismaili which would be sufficiently modern and humane.
Saying this categorically without clarifying specific goal is misguided and wrong.
Judging a group of people by one of its members is wrong, it's the same form of prejudice.
Nothing is wrong in abstract.
While in this specific case if a religion can be genocidal at all, then Islam is more genocidal than Christianity.
Also rather all but one.
In order to prove this you would need a huge sample poll from each religion and it would need to be representative of the size of each flavor. Then and only then could you begin to make that kind of generalized statement.
If I'd want to prove it to you, yes, too bad I don't.
Then why make the claim as if it were fact?
Because I want that. You seem to be under impression that we must prove something to be right, or in general that we must do things in conversations. No.
You've been spending too much time around conservatives.
Quite the opposite, especially regarding the point that I don't need to prove anything to everybody capable of typing, that was impressed on me by definitely not a conservative.
Just to jump back in and be more unpopular... ALL Abrahamic religions are evolved from each other. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the holy trinity.
Parts of the Torah are in the Old Testament and the Koran.
People will be shocked that the stories are slightly edited versions of the same line of mythology.
None of them are "better". They all promote control and hatred.
None of these religions are helping people or society. They are only helping themselves to money, power, control and a larger cult following.
No one needs religion. Humanity only needs water, food, shelter.
Not worth answering due to being orthogonal to the subject of contention.
"Religion A is less genocidal than Religion B". This is a supremely futile argument to make.
Yeah, we all know that atheists have killed more people that all religions combined.
Less so than the one I was answering, and anyway that's my concern.
I remember someone studying Koran vs. "the" bible and showing that even the text is more genocidal than the Koran. This was on NPR some number of years ago; pretty easy to find. Of course, apologists for xtianity and/or "Judeo-Xtian values" (lol), will not want to hear this.
Of course, all three Abrahamic religions are tied to "the" bible, so I'm not sure it's all that relevant, but....definitely a lot of xtians need to know.
That'd be impossible, I've read the Bible in my childhood quite a lot and I'm usually familiar with bad places people bring up.
With Quran it's like the pool is much bigger, many such quotes from it I occasionally hear\read are new to me, and I've also been consulted by a few people who are (but mostly were), well, Muslim.
And while it's not a good thing religiously for Muslims to translate it, plenty of translations exist.
So I think you should stop lying.
You are talking out of your ass.
https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran
Not everything published is a source.
Well, I'd appreciate it if you retract such statements like I'm lying, talking out of my ass, etc. What I was talking about is completely a thing, as you can see from the link.
I won't, because you are lying and talking out of your ass, and from your link I can only see that someone wrote an article supporting in tone some position.
There are a few specific obviously false statements there, of the "religion of peace" and "clean Wehrmacht" kind, which Muslims and Nazis tell to justify their ideology, about Jihad specifically. Like telling "it's a widespread myth" about something which is not a myth. Nobody argues that Jihad as a concept is wider than "holy war against infidels", but that is by far the most common meaning among Muslims.
I've seen plenty of articles supporting one or another position on many subjects, sometimes opposite to each other on the same thing. I've also written plenty of school essays rotating my positions on subjects depending on how bored I was, I'm sure you have done that too.
Quran is simply much bigger than Bible, and based on it, so almost every cannibalistic place in the latter has a parallel just as bad in the former, but not the other way around.
Isn't this what the second amendment is actually for?
it’s what the whole fucking constitution is for
... Ignore the shit parts though. Ideally we'd amend them.
Honestly we've learned with Trump just how shit the constitution actually is legally. There really needs to be a constitutional reformation.
Yeah it's painfully obvious that it far too often neglects to even consider that an official (or party of officials) could use their power in bad faith, and that each malevolent action by them often has no check but is simultaneously not punishable.
The second amendment tells you what it's for - militias. But what are militias for? The constitution tells us that too.
So, no, the second amendment is about a system to suppress insurrections, not commit them. You've been lied to.
We have revolutions every 2-4 years. Insurrections are not about the will of the people, they are about subverting the will of the people.
I didn't think the commenter above was referring to arming the insurrectionists....
Not even close, but It's my fault. I'm really bad at articulating my thoughts sometimes, and usually end up deleting my comments before someone calls me out on it. Sorry!
Hahaha you're self aware and acknowledge you're fallible, no need to apologize to anyone
That also infers your militia has to be one that can be called up and thus that Congress can declare who is and is not a member of a militia.Edit - nvm that requires like three leaps of logic not accounted for. Don't post before coffee kids!
It's so nice to see someone correct themselves. I try to show my kid accepting when you're wrong and acknowledging it. With friends I've been espousing the last Marc Maron where he's like "what happened to regular stupid?.. 'oh my bad, I'm an idiot, that's totally wrong, sorry about that'" .. ffs you can't learn anything new if you don't listen to other ideas and get defensive.
And the way the winds blowing is why the #1 demographic for first time firearm purchasers throughout covid has been liberals.
I used to get scared to talk about weed on the phone. You don't disparage a public figure with a hint of violence for fear...
How TF is this not enough to lock these motherfuckers up? This is the God damn United States of America and these treasonists are threatening our government. Fuck "soft Democrats" - this isn't about policy. These criminals are promising a coup against our democracy. Why aren't they in jail? I'm seriously asking. Where the fuck is law enforcement????
There are a bunch of Supreme Court rulings which basically said the KKK can advocate for violence in general so long as they don't lay out specifics. That's what these folks hide behind
Well, as long as they're abiding by the rigorous standards of the KKK then. Clearly an upstanding group of people to emulate.
Holy shit. When was that??
The biggie is Brandenburg vs Ohio, from 1969
Where that really falls down is when you have social media algorithms selectively showing inflammatory speech to the audience most likely to act on it. This means that inflammatory speech which wouldn't have caused violence in the 1960s is incredibly likely to do so now.
Right. Law enforcement, defenders of democracy.
Of their own livelihood 🤷
Can't even count on the evil conventions of days past anymore dag nabbit
Jail is just right-winger free parking until the next putsch, law enforcement is mostly on their side.
Ugh I hate how right you are. I just assumed federal agencies were above it bc of their black/white sociopathic by design ways.
"But what about mah FREEZED PEACH?" -Nazis, all the time
Whoosh eli5 please
what laws have you seen being enforced lately? literally none that matter.
I don't fucking understand this. The old right wingers in govt like the world order in the "new American century" so why aren't they doing anything?
Republicans, the party of treason.
"That probably sounded better in the original German." -- Molly Ivins.
Wonder what they’d do if we started proclaiming and raucously celebrating “The End of the Republic”.
Lmao I can imagine some of them are thinking democracy = democrats.
These idiots probably only associate democracy with democrats so they cheer
No, they know exactly what they're cheering for.
they certainly think they do. they will be horrified, but it'll be too late.
Not really. It’s not like we’re going to get a left wing dictatorship. It’ll be a civil war or a white terror. These people, the ones who attend cpac, benefit from a white terror and would like for it to happen.
They want to take power and do whatever they want with no consequences or input from the other half of the country, and they don't care if it will only last a year or two before they realize that now that they gave all that power to corrupt overlords they have no ability to revoke it as soon as leadership starts doing things they don't like.
I'll take him at his word. I don't doubt he'd follow through with what he's saying.
But also the headline sucks. He has a heavy sarcasm to his voice like he's mocking liberal's and the media's portrayal of him and "rabid cheers" isn't how I would describe the sound of the reaction in the video.
Yeah this is the same kind of thing they did at another one of these events in the past with the whole "Ladies and gentlemen, we are all domestic terrorists." thing. It was meant as a joke to make fun of what the liberals were saying but at the same time it wasn't entirely inaccurate.
Does anyone have a link to this actual speech, whenever I hear something this damning, I assume something is wildly out of context.
Here you go.
LIVE REPLAY: CPAC Day Two 4:48:38
edit: never mind, that is his CPAC speech where he promises to destroy to democracy
edit: People only seem to be reporting on the clip linked in the article that was of the panel in that conference room. There doesn't seem to be a recording of the entire panel online currently.
Ok he did say it verbatim but it sounds like he's being sarcastic.
Edit: y'all I never said that this was a responsible example of a politician communicating with the public.
He's not being sarcastic. He's artificially injecting sarcasm into his voice so he can say what he really believes. He wants to jail Democrats and pardon the insurrectionists. He defines everything that is beneficial about our society as evil. He's talks like he lives in alternate reality. He wants to tear down our liberal democracy and replace it with a christofascist dictatorship. It's not a joke.
It's time to stop giving these guys a free pass when they say they're just joking or speak in a sarcastic way. These people are unironically telling you what they want to do. Believe them when they say they want to destroy our democracy.
Say what? Did you watch your own video? Because I followed your link, watched it for ~3min, and he is clearly 100% being sarcastic. Not just in tone of voice, it's clear from the content. No doubt about it. When laying out his "plan to destroy democracy" it's a laundry list of points from the stop-the-steal bullshit. Among that:
All things the Republicans accused the Democrats of doing during the 2020 election. Then he ends with saying:
I mean the guy went off the deep end and is obviously insane, but there is simply no doubt that he was being sarcastic here and that the measures he cites are not his actual plan. A Republican letting millions of people into the country voluntarily should have given it away to even the densest of viewers.
It is absolutey insane how hard it is to find one reasonable comment on Lemmy these days. 'Naturally gifted' density or willful ignorance, either way, there's an impressive amount of people that believe he was speaking from the heart because it confirms their own beliefs.
I understand the start of his speech where he says "this is my plan" is his idea of a joke. He's not saying he's going to do those things, he's saying the Democrats have already done those things. But he really believes that the Democrats have done those things or that the beneficial things the Democrats have done are evil. Sorry I didn't think I needed to be this explicit.
He does want to destroy our democracy though. He wants a christofascist dictatorship. He talks about making a "new American Republic" out of the ashes and retribution. He wants to pardon the Jan 6 rioters. He wants to lock up political opponents in the Democratic Party. They want to replace everyone in the white house with partisan yes men, a plan called Project 2025.
Sorry, I didn't do a good job explaining this the first time around.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. My bad. All the things he lists are the alternate reality he lives in. He really believes the Democrats have done those things and thinks the beneficial things the Democrats have done are evil. Like he thinks Democrats have poisoned the blood of our country by letting in immigrants, even though we're a nation of immigrants, and even though Republicans killed the border bill. He thinks mail in voting is bad, because he wants to suppress voter turn out. That list was him thinking he's being clever, to paraphrase, "The Democrats have already destroyed our democracy." He even accuses the Democratic party of being an authoritarian regime, when we know that is what Republicans want on day 1.
When he says he wants to restore our constitutional republic he means he wants to destroy our democracy. Constitutional republic is conservatives code for "we are not a democracy, we have minority rule". He then accuses us, anyone left of him, all of hating white, straight, "successful people", when it's the same group of white straight screw ups that hate all of us. He says we hate our founders, our history, and self made people when, all conservatives do is lie about the founders and history. Most of the founders were Deists, but conservatives insist we are a christian nation. Conservatives say they don't want activist judges, but then use British law in their opinions to overturn Roe v Wade. The say billionaires are self made success stories, but Elon Musk and billionaires they hate like Bill Gates just inherited a bunch of money.
Do I need to do a full translation of his speech or have I a clarified enough? He wants to destroy democracy. I thought his "joke" was self explanatory too. The commenter I was replying to seem to suggest Republicans don't want to form a christofascist dictatorship because they're saying it with a sarcastic tone of voice. Which is nonsense and so 2016, "He's just trolling". Does anyone else remember that? Self proclaimed internet trolls got interviewed and proudly explained how they had got Trump elected and were in on the joke. I'm never going to let that kind of rhetoric slide again. edit: typo
Fair enough, but none of that means he wasn't being sarcastic. Merriam-Webster defines that as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain", which this clearly was. That is of course not a get-out-of-jail-card for being a dumbass, but he doesn't intend to abolish (his twisted idea of) democracy.
I mean suppose for a second, just for arguments sake, that the Democratic party did indeed steal the 2020 election and you would have to re-evaluate things like January 6th being an insurrection, because violent resistance against somebody undermining a country's constitution is legitimate. Which is a stance you might have to take yourself sooner rather than later, especially if Trump wins again.
On a side-note, as a German growing up on copious amounts of Nazi history in school and some TV channels running 24/7 documentaries about them it seems rather clear to me where these MAGA people are headed. Already was in 2016. It's fascism. But it is important to remember that such movements aren't as monolithic as they might seem from the outside. There are many people in them who are just high on their own supply of bullshit, and you don't do yourself any favours by misinterpreting them and fielding arguments which are then easily refuted, doubly so if you are fighting against their confirmation bias.
To be fair though, the article in the OP seems to make that very same mistake.
it's a big part of why bottomfeeder conservatives don't pick up on sarcasm or any form of linguistic subtlety - they have their own stories they tell themselves about what Don Jesus said after the fact, and don't need to worry about whether he was being sarcastic to own the libs. The angels don't use sarcasm, so neither do they, and they certainly don't expect it from a cheesy poof.
Republicans already tried to end democracy when they tried to stop the transfer of power through violence in the last election.
Now they're just coming out and saying it "we're terrorists" and "we'll end democracy"
This guy: "they're being sarcastic".
Bush V. Gore
Poll taxes.
Well he clearly is being sarcastic though. Frankly this whole thread is an affront towards the concept of language comprehension.
The facts don't matter, only the narrative.
“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
Pretending it's a joke is literally their tactic.
Read the wider context.
They need to dress what they're very serious about as sarcasm because saying it seriously is a crime.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn't necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn't support it.
There's nothing funny about calling insurrectionists "martyrs", having a written plan about how they'll gut the government, seeing how they behave in states where they have complete control where they have actually gutted the possibility of anyone else coming to power.
None of that supports this as a joke.
GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
That is not what I mean when I say he wasn't being sarcastic. I understand that the joke is he said "this is my plan", then listed a bunch of things the Democrats did, including when he listed immigration, and then the punchline is the Democrats did those things and have already destroyed democracy. What I mean is that he and MAGA supporters really believe that immigration is the Democrats fault. And that he thinks immigration poisons the blood of our country even though the US is a nation of immigrants and in fact immigration is a net benefit.
When he says, to paraphrase, "I want to destroy democracy" but says it in a sarcastic way, I mean he's not being sarcastic. He really wants to destroy democracy. He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
That is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant.
There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
ironicsatirical? Yes he does, he is throwing a statement made about him back at the Democrats.It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
Edit: a word.
I recommend a descriptive approach for definitions rather than a prescriptive approach. Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it's relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive. I agree his definition of democracy is twisted. But when he gives that definition for the word democracy, he means democracy and more specifically US democracy.
I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument's logic seems to be he isn't using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn't possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing. As long as the definition of a word is understood by other people, then a speaker can assign a word whatever definition they want.
When people say he's just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn't really mean what he says. He really wants to destroy democracy. So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic. edit: typos
Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.
Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
Edit: typo
If you mean people can use words as defined in dictionaries and those dictionaries are still descriptive then I agree.
A dictionary that uses a descriptive approach very well might. It doesn't matter if the dictionaries haven't. As long as people understand each other when they speak it's fine. People can understand meanings of words even if they aren't all enumerated in the dictionary. This is self evident from observing any number of conversations on or off line. The one example that comes to mind is the use of the word literally. People used it incorrectly, for when they meant figuratively. The response people gave was not, I do not understand what you said. They said you didn't mean literally you meant figuratively.
And on Merriam-Webster's website, they did add a new definition to the literally based on its new usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
The comment I replied to originally was using the word sarcasm to mean he doesn't mean what he says. So that's the definition I used in my reply. I understood what the writer of the commenter said without needing to refer to the dictionary first. As I said, his tone of voice certainly sounds sarcastic and seems to meet the definitions you listed. This isn't particular relevant though. Fascists use the cloak of
possiblyplausible deniability to mask what they say. A sarcastic tone of voice is one such tool.I would say his characterization of US democracy, all the things he said the Democrats are doing in his joke, is his way of explaining why he doesn't value US democracy and therefore is why he is ok with destroying it. Based on the fact he doesn't like immigration or mail in voting, what he doesn't like about US democracy is that his minority doesn't fully control it. In his mind, both of those things deplete his minority's power. His speech does not indicate he values some other definition of democracy. When he says new American republic he means christofascist dictatorship. He knowingly wants to replace US democracy with a christofascist dictatorship, because then his minority will have total control over American life.
So nowhere in his line of thinking is he being sarcastic, as in he doesn't really mean it, because he doesn't value majority rule. He wants minority rule. He does not believe democracy means or is minority rule. Instead he believes democracy means and is majority rule and believes that is a bad thing. When the only real difference between our definitions is that we believe majority rule is good and he believes it's bad, we're all not only talking about the same thing, but we also all know the thing he wants to destroy is US democracy. edit: typo
A leader, like a grifter, should always know how his audience is likely to respond to certain words, regardless of the spin he puts on them. Donald Trump, television personality and renowned wage-withholding, mouth-flapping scumbag, certainly has the experience to know this. To pretend that his delivery is not as much a part of the ruse as the code words themselves - that is, the part that's for your benefit, rather than theirs - is to ignore what you already know about the man - the lies he's told, the things he's done, the way he acts, all of which obviously screams "smarmy creep". You can predict every argument he makes in court based on what a bone-stupid lying simpleton he is as well, blurting out whatever comes into his head just so there's a ball in the air he can try to distract you with. He'd be a good stage magician, if stage magic weren't hard, but it is hard, so you can be assured he's never tried it. He spent his whole first presidency watching tv.
Ok, well then. He was being sarcastic. I guess the rest of the overall trend of the cons and the Republican Party going ever more extreme, ever more fascist is just cosplay.
Shh, we're on a roll here.
How the fuck is this a thing
They want a crowd and they cheer the thrill of battle. Because they believe they are on the right side.
I still can't understand how the political left could accept that their opponents dub themselves "right". Do they not understand that "right" also means "correct"? It's a marketing failure from the get go, regardless of etymology. We should start calling the political right something different, like "wrong". Or "party of assholes". Change my view.
It's always left to right, like reading. So we could be like Liberals are 1 and the right is a stinky number 2 that's clogged up the democracy.
All that's left ... crumbs.
Well they're certainly not on the left
Great. Lock em up.
A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.
I first remember that guy for his absolute brutal takedown of the OT god in his Story of Civilization.
200 years ago, there would be a rope shortage right about now.
Basically MAGA Republicans showing their true faces. They know that they don't have much of a future without cheating or dropping democracy altogether.
They are taking themselves down.
This should disqualify any of these people running. These are treasonous bastards who should not be allowed to participate in democratic elections.
If American Republicans can't win using democracy, then they'll just show their true colours and go full on fascist. Nothing new here. We saw it with the 2020 Capital Hill riot and we'll definitely see it if Trump is elected again, except it could become temporarily permanent.
This is more of an "if we win, we will toss you in jail or kill you" kind of promise
FIFTH. COLUMN.
The Republican Party and the con movement is nothing more than a fifth column in this country, if not just outright terrorists. And every serious journalist should state that fact as often as possible.
WOLLT IHR DIE TOTALE REPUBLIK?
For something to end it needs to start.
Doesn't democracy allow any useless corrupt politician to come to power as long as they are popular? Like, it's the power of the people, by the people, for the people, but the people are retared? /S
Man if only someone at the DNC would see this...
They do. They love how far to the right they can now go while still being second worst.
You're still at it jfc
He's not wrong. It pays much more to be on the political right because it affords more of soieties' resources to large corporations and/or their CEOs, which is of course who pays lobbyists. Being more left means trying to get more money distributed to the poorest echelons of society, which is of course not very lucrative for everyone else.
They spend all day espousing this shit trying to dissuade Biden voters. Everywhere. Any context.
"Rabid applause" lol what fucking BS. Anyone who watches that video can see what an absolute blatant lie that is.
FFS, it was a bad joke that mostly fell flat. Republicans pose real threats to our democracy and way of life, no reason to trump up some BS like this. All that does is open the door to for something Republicans can latch on to in order to dismiss actual valid concerns.
Keep in mind that this guy constantly downplays Jan 6th, and claims it was actually the feds. He believes it is a false flag, which is why this is obviously a joke.
I think I've figured out why Republicans are so dogshit at comedy. They think a "joke" is what you retroactively call something you meant in earnest as soon as you get pushback.
Are you saying the comedic stylings of Mein Kampf aren't hilarious?
I was thinking more along the lines of Rob Schneider or Jeff Dunham. But yeah, I'm sure "I totally hate this Hitler guy or whatever, but you have no appreciation for what was obviously a joke" isn't much of a stretch for most aficionados of right wing retroactive comedy.
This guy has spent a ton of time claiming that Jan 6th was a false flag and it was all a set up by the feds. He's a fucking total douche and I hate defending him, but this was obviously meant as a joke, poking fun at the people claiming they are trying to destroy democracy, rather than "saying the quiet part out loud."
And this is the thing about comedy: it's likely a test to see if you share the same values. You don't share the same values as Republicans, which is why you don't find their humor funny. . .and vice versa.
So don't.
Yeah the problem is that I like defending truth and being honest more than I dislike defending him.
But apparently that's unpopular. Lol
Giving a fascist unearned benefit of the doubt is not a prerequisite for truth.
This is not about giving the benefit of the doubt, it's about accepting the facts even though I don't like the guy.
His "joke" lines up exactly with things Republicans are openly planning. I'm not buying that this is a joke at all.
Well, if they are openly planning it, then I suggest focusing on the people actually openly planning it. By trying to pretend that this obvious joke is not actually a joke, you call your objectivity and rationality into question.
lol it's just a joke bro! Can't you take a joooooooooke? God, you must be crazy to think it's anything other than a joke, bro!
Crazy? No. Just blinded by your own partisanship and with a fragile ego that is unwilling to admit you're wrong. It's okay, I was young and cocksure in my own ignorance too at one point, luckily I've matured out of it.
Keep gaslighting in defense of fascists.
No. They say the quiet part aloud and say this shit afterward every time. Stop. It's been a decade. They don't get an inch of grace or benefit of the doubt.
A few years ago, a gay choir put out a song We'll Convert Your Children.
Obviously it was tongue in a cheek, a joke poking fun at people who think gay people are trying to make straight children gay. But never-the-less, there was a bunch of conservative outrage saying that they were admitting to it ("saying the quiet part out loud").
Your criticism sounds equivalently intelligent, because it's effectively the same thing.
I understand your point. In fact there isn't a better parallel on my part, for which you could point this out. You're accurate and I don't disagree with you. Having said that, it's the track record. That choir trolled once. These Nazis troll 24/7 as their identity. So for me personally, that context is more important than the similarity of this one off anecdote. So they don't get chances. Nobody gets infinite chances at anything. Boy who cried wolf at a minimum.
It's maddening to see it to be honest... This is the exact same thing as "we're all domestic terrorists." They're "poking fun" at what everyone says about them. They are literally trolling us, these kinds of people sit back and rub their nipples in intense pleasure as they read the left freaking out about what they said. They live for that kind of shit. For those that play video games: these are griefers, they live to make your day worse and there's no easier way than to use cheap words to rustle your jimmies.
No matter how shitty our SCOUTS is right now, it's shitty on behalf of major corporations, they aren't going to just dismiss the constitution completely just because some morons say they want a theocracy so they can impose their will on others as if it's what God wanted... They're going to impose their will, but they can't just snap their fingers and make the constitution disappear.
You can root for the rebels all you want. But Palpatine lived a long life and controlled most of the galaxy with his empire. I am rooting for the empire.
You clearly missed the point of those stories.
No no I was making a joke. It was just in bad taste.
The taste was just fine… it’s just that the execution was a bit off…
I respect you for leaving it up.
According to Disney, the point is that fighting fascism is pointless because even if you succeed, whatever you build in its place is doomed to collapse within a few decades. Might as well just let the Empire win.
It would be nice if it was benevolent dictatorship. That has never happened and never will with our current iteration of our species.
Such an idea is impossible anyways, because to ensure a benevolent society you need to incorporate the wide range of viewpoints and experiences of the people within it, something a dictatorship, by definition, precludes.
I feel like some Roman emperors fit the bill. Or maybe Alexander the Great. At least for the people in their empire.
Both of your examples are rulers that did so at the edge of a bloody sword. Death begets death begets death.
You should suck up to China or Russia for Palpatine, what America has is Grima Wormtongue
That is interesting. Who do you suppose Theoden and Saruman are, in this context?
It's not Palpatine in Russia. Really.
His own second in command threw his evil bitch ass down an access shaft to his death while a united opposition got together and blew up his doomsday moon sized space collosus.
You can root for losers all you want.