Oh. Trump also gave multi-hundred thousand dollar speeches to big campaign contributors, and is also refusing to release transcripts? To whom?
5 Likes
It very much isnât. Here are some definitions of democracy:
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation
a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves
One of those sampling mentions majority, and only as a common use of the term, not as a necessary feature of it. I think 50%+1 = democracy is a perversion of the idea of âof the people, by the people, for the peopleâ that is used to justify not being of, by or for the people.
I think drone killings are a very good example of democracy gone awry. If whether or not you are killed is a matter in which you have no more say than the next person, then there is no democracy, there is tyranny imposed through fear. What if the vote shows that 50%+1 people are fine with how the vote was rigged? There has to be a some kind of principle that is not up for voting, and some kind of limit to how the desires of the many can be imposed on the few.
Clinton winning is hardly evidence that the system is broken. Hard proof that the party who was running the elections had their thumb on the scale, followed by a collective, âWell sure, but we canât do anything about that now!â is definitely evidence that the system is broken (even if it isnât evidence that Sanders should have won).
6 Likes
John Scalzi wrote a piece on July 28th that I think explains very well why one would choose to vote for Hillary Clinton, full stop, no matter whom she happens to be running against: Hillary Clinton, Considered In Herself.
5 Likes
As always, I find Scalzi excellent at writing memorable prose.
(And make no mistake â should Clinton win the presidency, the fury isnât going away. The GOP is all in this year with sexism and bigotry and hate, and at this point it has no other gear; it literally cannot do otherwise without entirely losing its primary voter base. This is what the Gingrich playbook has gotten the GOP. Itâs made them fury addicts, and the withdrawal symptoms are as likely to kill them as not.)
5 Likes
I agree with Scalzi with some caveats. Clinton believes in serving others, as Scalzi says, but she gives a sense of that paternalistic out-of-date way of helping others where you help the poor by talking to the rich instead of by listening to the poor. Still, this is a much better quality for a president than not giving a shit about anyone is.
I also agree that Clinton believes in pragmatism. There is a good side to that - look at the current platform which she seems to be intent on supporting even though it looks as much like Sandersâ platform as it does her own. But I often see âPragmatismâ is a word that means, âWe have to support the status quo and anyone who thinks thatâs wrong is a baby.â
Samantha Beeâs bit on hardcore Sanders supporters featured one person who was willing to criticize Clinton for adopting much of Sandersâ platform because it just showed that she was willing to do anything to win. Apparently the fact that it was what he wanted to be done didnât matter. That kind of idealism (âidealismâ = âcult of personalityâ) is the kind of thing that Scalzi is railing against when he talks about pragmatism, I assume. I think the contrast between that guy and Clinton shows the good side of her pragmatism. I think her vote for the Iraq war shows the bad side of her Pragmatismâ˘.
I would vote for Clinton if I had a vote, but I wouldnât be quite as happy about it as Scalzi is.
6 Likes
The nomination wasnât an election, it was a nomination. Having the primaries at all is a nod to democracy. The party has every right to be the scale, let alone have its thumb there (and - to be honest - there isnât much evidence that the candidates we get today are much better than those from smoke-filled rooms days). As a point of comparison, in parliamentary systems the party leader is chosen entirely by superdelegates.
The DNC was not appointed by God; its leadership mainly consists of state party leaders, who are chosen at state party conventions. We changed ours to a Sanders supporter in a matter of week. In other states the process can take longer, but it is not difficult if you can persuade enough people in your party to support your positions.
Now youâre just being silly. Obama is not using drones to coerce the American public to do his bidding. Do you think heâs going to suspend the next election using the threat of drones?
1 Like
Cleveland, Ohio is a part of Cuyahoga County which is a part of Northeast Ohio. This region of Ohio is key to winning the state of Ohio in a presidential general election. This was Obama territory in 2008 and 2012. This will be Hillary Clinton territory in 2016.
The Cleveland Cavaliers are the reigning NBA Champions, the first major professional sports championship in 52 years. Northeast Ohio celebrated the Cavaliers championship, with a victory parade that drew an estimated 1.3 million fans.
Seems that one of Donald Trumpâs supporters tried to use the Cavaliers victory parade to enhance a Donald Trump campaign event. Many Hillary Clinton supporters and Cleveland Cavalier fans in Cleveland, Ohio, including myself, are amused over the following political revelation which was featured on loony right-wing Briebart.com
The imageâs emergence on Wednesday night appears to originate with Tatiana Wright, a Donald Trump supporter from Virginia, who posted the picture on her Twitter account.
But the whole reason I was talking about Clinton was because you were using Clinton as an example of how the will of the majority is democratic:
You say it was democratic, I say it wasnât because the people running the vote were interfering with the vote, so you retreat to, âWell, it didnât have to be democratic anyway.â I donât care if it had to be democratic. I am saying that if the people running the voting are interfering with the voting, the outcome isnât democratic.
Also, I think this whole, âparty had a right to do what they wantedâ thing doesnât sound right anyway. Isnât the Democratic party governed by written rules with a set of rules for how to change those rules? Is it really a dictatorship where some bigwigs can change the nomination process midstream without consulting anyone.
The point of enshrining rights in constitutions is that you donât have to trust your government not to violate them, they are not allowed to violate them. The American citizen who was killed by a drone strike might have felt a little differently than you do about whether or not the American government was infringing on his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, according to your theory of democracy, his opinion of being murdered doesnât matter because 50% of people are okay with it.
5 Likes
Iâm not retreating at all, I think the Clintonâs nomination is an example of democracy within the Party (which is a democratic organization regardless of whether it has primaries), and her election will be an example of democracy within the overall system.
I agree with this, what I donât agree with your idea that the drone strikes represent âtyranny imposed through fear.â The drone program is a military program adopted by the Commander-in-Chief on recommendation from advisers deemed to be experts on military matters, and widely supported by the American people. It kills civilians, which I personally find deplorable, and the principal targets are non-Americans, who donât have any say in the program, but their lack of voice in this program is irrelevant to the question
of whether this represents âa very good example of democracy gone awry.â
[quote=âanon50609448, post:1124, topic:72574â]
Also, I think this whole, âparty had a right to do what they wantedâ thing doesnât sound right anyway. Isnât the Democratic party governed by written rules with a set of rules for how to change those rules?[/quote]
Yes, and the leadership was chosen and decisions were made consistent with those rules. Clinton supporters dominate the DNC because she spent the last 8-20 years getting them elected into the state party leadership positions.
Is it really a dictatorship where some bigwigs can change the nomination process midstream without consulting anyone.
That isnât what happened. There was no imposed change in the nomination process, either midstream or at any other time. Honesty, the only thing the DNC did that might arguably have had an impact on the nomination process was limiting the number of debates
5 Likes
Thereâs a Politico post that suggests the Clinton camp may be courting an endorsement from Henry âWarcrimesâ Kissinger. Itâs thinly sourced enough that Iâm withholding judgement, but itâs upsetting if true
1 Like
More republicans by the day for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton 
Clinton-Kaine 
2016
âŚâOur nation faces a unique set of challenges that require steady and experienced leadership. That is why today I am personally supporting Hillary Clinton,â Lezlee Westine said in a statement to The Washington Post.
Westine, who served as the White Houseâs director of public liaison and deputy assistant to the president in the Bush administration, is part of the latest contingent of Republicans to cross party lines to back Clinton.
âShe has the expertise and commitment to American values to grow the economy, create jobs and protect America at home and abroad,â Westine added.
Westine is joined by former Michigan Gov. William Milliken, who suggested a vote for Trump would be a choice to âembark on a path that has doomed other governments and nations throughout history."âŚ
@khepra, can you explain (in your own words!) why being endorsed by a Republican makes HRC attractive to someone who embraces no Republican ideas? If David Duke endorsed her, would you view that as a net positive or negative?
5 Likes
I do not want to speak for that poster, but my immediate reaction when I read the part about Kissinger was that sheâs trying to convince people who still consider themselves Republicans/conservatives that she isnât the raving socialist theyâve been lead to believe.
Just getting 50.1% of the vote wonât be enough after all the hate thrown her way for decades. She needs a complete rout. Which means, she needs as much of the red states as possible.
5 Likes
Republicans vote! 
In order to win a presidential electionâa candidate needs votes.
Being endorsed and supported by prominent republicans, is a plus, and has the potential to be attractive to like minded republicansâand sway them to vote Clinton-Kaine in 2016.
Finding common ground, reaching across the aisle or effective governing by reaching compromiseâare all intellectual characteristics and attributes of Hillary Clintonâand yet another reason: Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton.
There is nothing about the diverse, inclusive, liberal and progressive presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (or the Democratic Party), that would illicit an endorsement from David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or any white supremacist group.
Viewing an endorsement from David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan or any white supremacist group as a ânet positive or negativeâ is the wrong veiled proposition. Why? 
because Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, myself and surely you, would reject any such endorsement.
In America people have the protected and guaranteed constitutional right to vote. Americans can vote for whoever they please.
The Clinton campaign is not assuming victory or taking anything for grantedâregardless of what the polls say positive or negative. This will be a close election and the Clinton campaign will continue to campaign like they are behind in the polls.
The U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit and District Courts will decide the fate of Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, voter suppression and repression, republican gerrymandering, same-sex marriage and LGBTQ civil rights, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, environmental protection, Affirmative Action, immigration reform, immigrant rights, equality for women in the workplace, equal pay for women in the workplace, equality in housing and education etc. etc. etcâŚ
The soul and direction of America is at stake in this election. The choice is simple and straightforwardâa 5-4, 6-3 or 7-2 republican leaning (Donald Trump appointed) U.S. Supreme Court, as well as republican leaning and packed U.S.Circuit and District Courtsâwill socially, culturally and politically âSet America Backâ 100 plus years.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts
Any republican vote for Clinton-Kaine in 2016âthat helps defeat Donald Trump is welcomed.
But if your goal is simply to get Clinton in, without any care as to whether her policies attract people who are attracted by regressive policies, then you are treating the election like a high school senior class election, a popularity context.
If she gets endorsed by Kissinger that is not much worse. Some might even say it is actually worse. Kissinger doesnât wear a white robe, but he openly advocated policies that treated people of color like animals.
Iâm all for defeating Trump, and like the Democrats as a âbig tentâ party, but do not believe it requires a tent large enough to hold vicious dinosaurs.
2 Likes
Entirely unsurprising:
My currrent prediction: Trump loses, but the GOP holds the House. Disappointed Trumpkins engage in bloody and persistent but ineffective violence. US governance sees another four to eight years of legislative inaction, nonsense impeachment and spiralling chaos in the eastern med.
No action is taken on climate change apart from accelerating extraction of increasingly dirty carbon fuels. Planet eventually collapses in an endless series of interconnected wars driven by food, water and population shifts.
5 Likes
This is why Iâve been relentless about pointing out to anyone IRL who mentions the election and isnât an obvious Trump supporter that they need to vote the ENTIRE ticket, not just check off one name at the top.
7 Likes
I agree with your comment on Kissinger.
âKissinger doesnât wear a white robe, but he openly advocated policies that treated people of color like animals.â
What is the difference in Kissingerâs policies and the historical (in some cases continued) foreign and domestic policy actions of the United States and many of itâs closest allies: England, Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Denmark-Norway, Australia, Israel, New Zealand, Nigeria, Kenya, Saudi Arabia etc.?
Thatâs not the concern at hand here, the concern is he indication that Hillary mgiht be up for trying similarly harsh politics abroad.
1 Like
What indication and harsh politics abroad?
What I see is a concern without basis, grounded in judgmental projection; and assumed speculation.
What I see is a concern where there is no equivalent indicationâwith subdued and underestimated concern for the multiple social and political issues, that are at risk and at stake in this 2016 presidential election.
Like which president (Clinton or Trump), will appoint the next two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as well as many U.S. Appellate and District Judges.
