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.
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
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.
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.
Missing the class through the individuals, I see.
fuck the king
"Fuck the kingsguard. Fuck the city. Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane
Well, for America, and our siblings across the pond…
woefully unzips
U got a license for that opinion m8
Damn, r/conservative accidentally making a valid point is a trippy thing.
It's kind of like if the neighbor's tragically inbred showdog suddenly barked every note of the musical Cats without a single error.
Fuck him too, for what it's worth.
My favorite part was when a huge part of the internet went down and suddenly, the amount of conservative posts/twitter users went silent.
The “people” in /r/conservative are either bots or raised on leaded water.
Ro Khanna is looking like, “what’s the big deal here?”
Ro's like "you can give back koh-i-noor any time you Imperial prick"
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.
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).
It's No KingS. We're allowed one
It’s not stupidity, it’s malevolence.
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.
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.
And Republicans were the guys assassinating kings
Initially they said "US is not UK, it has no kings". It implies "UK is not US, it has kings".
British Republic.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
