• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.”

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

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

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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 Easter 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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).

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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 (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.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

    • Vyvanse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

    • Veraxus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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 (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 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.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.”

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            It doesn’t work like that, Personal opportunities are far more numerous in the states than Canada, if you’re willing to try,

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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!

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

  • cum@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

  • Spitzspot@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The same thing that already happens to most of them now, I suppose: their basic rights are protected by the Constitution but if they want to live in a community that welcomes them then they might need to move. In the specific situation this article is about, the queer people in eastern Oregon would have to deal with the same issues that the queer people in Idaho already deal with.

        In general, I sympathize with the desire to rescue people from the customs of their community, but I don’t think that doing so by imposing our customs on their community is a good idea except in the most extreme cases. It violates the golden rule: I wouldn’t want outsiders imposing their customs on me, even if someone in my community was being mistreated according to the customs of those outsiders. It also doesn’t seem to work very well in practice. It has failed in extreme cases like the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and I fear that it is currently failing in the USA.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Do you realize that you are comparing the crappier parts of the US to Afghanistan? It’s like you’re shitting on yourself. You can move to Afghanistan if you like that culture. We’re not going to give away human rights to protect your feefees.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          There are already solid-red states with no blue urban areas. I suppose it’s technically true that people die in these states (all humans are mortal) but the implication that everyone there except rich landowners is likely to die prematurely is ridiculous.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Do you not know that life expectancy is lower in the crappy states? They’re at the level of third world countries.