Has someone explained to them that “No Kings” isn’t an anti-monarchy movement?
do you mean like it’s about preventing dictators from gaining power?
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.
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.
He has no real power
He has very little formal power, just wealth, status, connections, titles, fame, ceremonial power, large property holdings and public funding.
His brother is one of the world’s most famous child rapists, a key player in the trump-epstein trafficking ring and his dad was an outspoken racist.
The optics of dems giving a standing ovation to an unelected monarch while we suffer under authoritarian rule are not good.
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.
Ah, well, y’see technically he’s got a fuckton of power, but the deal is he doesn’t use it or the monarchy is fucked. He is also quite specifically above the law.
No, he is very very VERY specifically not above the law. The trial and execution of Charles I is a pretty major point in British history. Establishing the king is not above the law and parliament is sovereign.
From the wiki page on sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity
As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the British government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions.[45]
I’ve tried to find something that contradicts this but I can’t.
he doesn’t use it or the monarchy is fucked
That is the same as not having power.
I fundamentally disagree, but also I’m not willing to argue about it.
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.
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.
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
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.
UK: The monarchy is ceremonial US: The democracy is ceremonial
The “people” in /r/conservative are either bots or raised on leaded water.
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.
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.
Fuck him too, for what it’s worth.
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).
fuck the king
U got a license for that opinion m8
“Fuck the kingsguard. Fuck the city. Fuck the king.” - Sandor Clegane
Well, for America, and our siblings across the pond…
woefully unzips
My favorite part was when a huge part of the internet went down and suddenly, the amount of conservative posts/twitter users went silent.
It’s not stupidity, it’s malevolence.
