That was because they were being taxed without representation. The problem here is that agencies of the government are undermining the representatives. It's almost the opposite action.
Treason against tyranny looks like it turns out for the better; but treason against democracy seems pretty sick to me.
One could argue that it's not really a democracy when the winning candidate is 2.8 million votes short, you know. Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really?
One could also remember that many famous tyrants came to power through a fair democratic process. Erdogan is one such example, Putin is another. And, of course, there was that whole thing in Weimar Germany. Which just goes to show that democracy can sometimes be oppressive, and fighting that oppression amounts to "treason against democracy".
> Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really?
It isn't a democracy, it's a republic.
If the rules were different things would be different. But "different" doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats would have the presidency, it might only mean the Republicans would have spent more time campaigning in Texas and New York because picking up more votes in those states would then have actually mattered.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't actually matter. There are plenty of republics that have done grave wrongs to their citizens, and such citizens are entitled to rebellion to restore their rights. The state, regardless of its political system, will always make pushing back against itself illegal, but it doesn't automatically make it illegitimate.
Oh yeah the spooks in CIA would have been on the front lines of opposition to Hitler... pull the other one.
Also it's only in the impoverished political climate of USA that one would ever worry about a "majority" for ruler. Most nations have more than 1.5 political parties, so they have lots of elections in which no one gets a majority. Sure some of them have runoffs, but with or without those it's possible for a set of electoral rules to handle the less-than-absolute-majority case perfectly well.
why does this bother you, but corporate campaign contributions dont ? I voted for Trump because he doesn't need the money, so he can't be bought and paid for. The fact that corporations can influence elections with money is a much greater problem than the electoral system.
Just because he doesn't need the money, doesn't mean that he doesn't want more money.
By all accounts, he's already cashing in on his role as a president big time. The payments to his properties from the government in order to arrange for his security as he travels around already number in the millions. And that's one of the most minor financial conflicts of interest that he is involved in.
And where did I say that it bothers me? I merely pointed out that it's not a democracy if the vote of the majority is disregarded.
I agree that the outsized influence of the rich and powerful completely distorts our democracy, but I honestly can't believe this is even being presented as a credible argument still.
Most rich people don't need the money, their own motivations drive them toward greater riches. I can hardly imagine someone claiming good moral character and ethics of someone with his questionable at best business and personal history.
You honestly believe big money didn't help him get elected? I supposed he just ended up with a cabinet of mega donors and billionaires?
