Has someone explained to them that "No Kings" isn't an anti-monarchy movement?
post
I kinda think this is a valid point.
Firstly, "No Kings" was always a bit of a piss-weak euphemism. It clearly means No Dictators, but that's too strong language for dems and casts uncomfortably truthful light on the system they want to be in charge of.
Secondly, don't give a standing ovation to an unelected monarch. Just don't. He uttered the words "checks and balances". So what? We have literal concentration camps and no rule of law. A child rapist and a pack of drunk nazis openly loot the public purse. We're way past checks and balances.
This is yet another example of the dems failing to understand the political moment.
Pretty sure the folks behind it are Gen-X calling back to Schoolhouse Rock:
Pretty much everyone of a certain age grew up with this.
The general populace doesn't understand the political moment so idk why youre complaining about the minority party they didn't bother giving any power to.
lol. Imagine the democratic house just losing their shit, booing and hissing whenever a monarchy figure from another nation visits.
That would be, by definition, replublican af.
Ok that would be unwise foreign policy but based as fuck. Just yell "send us one of your elected officials". Hell, we could bar all nobility from entering our country without renouncing their title. Inconvenient as fuck, would piss off so many countries, but it would be incredibly cool
I would oppose King-What's-His-Name being 'King of the US' just as much as I oppose trump's bullshit.
just saying, we don't have kings here, and frankly the visiting one can go back to where he came from.
The other thing is that the king of England isn't really a real king. These days, it's basically a ceremonial position more than anything and doesn't have a whole lot of real power.
Make no mistake, these still aren't good people. The modern 'constitutional' monarchs have not changed from the days of their ancestors. They're quietly waiting on the sidelines, just waiting for the day that democracy stumbles. The minute there's any crisis of confidence, or both parties are hopelessly unpopular, or there's some massive outside threat? The monarch hopes to be there to swing in and reclaim full power.
The French had the right idea on how to deal with kings. Being a monarch is a crime against humanity.
Also the actual literal King of the UK has less power in the UK than Trump does in the US and is very specifically not above the law like Trump is.
This is so stupid. Like people trying to call Dems the BLM party
Voters =/= political parties. Voters created the no king protest, voters created black lives matter.
Dems are parasites who act like they're involved
Most of them look like they honestly don't give a shit. I see one guy who looks enthused.
Also, "No Kings" means "The United States of America has no kings." It bears no relevance to our diplomatic relations with monarchical states.
It shows that they even missed the major point that a monarch from the country we freed ourselves from came here to address our Congress on the importance of saving the environment and keeping checks and balances in place to maintain democracy.
He either brilliantly roasted Trump, or us if we never do anything to stop Nazis and rebuild and reform our country.
Also Charles is a King in title only. Hes a tourist attraction. He has no real power.
Unlike what Trump is trying to do/become.
fuck the king
They literally clapped while King Charles fucking dunked on them, the conservatives I mean.
These people just believe whatever the fuck they want. I could convince them that Jesus was actually a mass murderer and they'd be all for it as long as the victims were brown.
It also has a lot to with Great Britain not supporting America in this stupid war, and actually handing out consequences to their people in the Epstein Files.
England, of all nations, has become the good guy, and America has become the bad guy. Ironic.
England, of all nations, has become the good guy
Let's not get too crazy here. TERF Island can still sink into the fucking sea, as far as I'm concerned
England is still on the bleeding edge of pushing anti-free speech/Palestine support and anti-privacy laws. Credit where it is due in not supporting Trump's war and with holding Epstein clients to at least some account including the Andrew formerly known as Prince. But "the good guys" they are not, right now.
They are supporting America in this stupid War. This should be pointed out, because allowing America to use its air bases in a war is a form of support. I would argue an extreme form of support.
Also don't be too sure about them going after their Epstein file guys. Cuz old sausage fingers Chuck here is certainly involved. If not with Epstein directly, though I doubt he isn't, he was certainly heavily involved with Jimmy Savile.
The “people” in /r/conservative are either bots or raised on leaded water.
My favorite part was when a huge part of the internet went down and suddenly, the amount of conservative posts/twitter users went silent.
Ro Khanna is looking like, “what’s the big deal here?”
Y'all are letting the other side control the narrative, don't talk about King Charles - focus on Donald trying to be a Monarch/Dictator.
They want you to have their bad faith argument so you don't talk about the actions of Trump.
It is actually very relevant to talk about the performative actions liberals take to "challenge" authoritarianism while legitimizing their own claim to power. Liberals have mostly criticized Trump for the disgraceful or embarrassing presentation of his administration, not with critiques on the fundamental immorality of hierarchal and inequal systems of power.
To present someone respectful (classy, polite, civil, etc.) as legitimate is in fact an effective way to redirect systemic criticism into individual criticism. Democrats will not discard whatever authoritarian policies Trump's admin succeeds in implementing, as they didn't from Bush or even Trump's previous admin.
I'd love if the UK decided on abolishing the monarchy, but also, I'm not aiming to start a regime change in a foreign country over this. Instead I'm just gonna treat him as a foreign dignitary from a terrible but powerful family
Fun fact: in my Monarchical country the very little I've seen of the "no kings" movement was translated to "no tyrants" or something like this.
Unclear if it's official or if there's a body to decide what's official anyway.
Is this meant to argue that it isn't a sign of disingenuous values for "anti-authoritarians" to recognize and legitimise a literal monarchy (no matter how "ceremonial" it is)? Democrats are very much not against dictatorial rule, they've been complicit in its enforcement all over the world and have participated in its construction in the US (even if you want to think this is something new).
there where protests before his coronation, one dude was arrested for holding a sign as well. No one in a dck suit though from memory, apart from him of course ;)
anyway, fuck that guy as well.

top 50 comments