2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI WANT OUR DEMOCRACY BACK!
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who addresses this issue
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)the first time....
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)with the republican wing of the democratic party in control
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If he has any integrity he'll drop out by June 15.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You actually ask who has taken democracy? On a website founded on stolen democracy?
Response to Databuser (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Welcome to DU!
Response to bigwillq (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Sooner or later you just have to accept the fact that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Bernie.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)Clinton has been shown to be a liar. She lied for over a year. Straight in peoples faces. She is not trustworthy. The Clinton Foundation took blood money. She instigated regime change and bloody wars, for profit.
The vote counting looks suspicious in almost every state and we already know how easily the electronic voting machines can be hacked. We saw it with Shrub. Twice.
This is not Democracy. And it isn't whining or a temper tantrum or any other ridiculous statement you can spout to try to denigrate a real feeling a majority of Americans have (although some have been convinced it's mostly from Brown people rather than the donor class).
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Just tossing out a lot of nasty-sounding words, sprinkle in some innuendo and a dash of faux outrage.
The majority of voters do not see Clinton in the way that you do. This is why we hold elections, to let the people decide who is the best candidate to represent them.
The voters rejected Sanders. It is time to come to grips with that.
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)and don't agree with you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Henhouse
(646 posts)This is how democracy works.....Someone wins an someone loses
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)to substitute his opinion for the millions who have voted based on a few polls...what is Democratic about such a thing?
qdouble
(891 posts)Sanders and his supporters want to win the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates. That's as anti-democratic as possible.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)As for who have wielded it:
Evidence of an American Plutocracy: The Larry Summers Story
By Matthew Skomarovsky
LilSis.org
Jan 10, 2011 at 19:31 EST
EXCERPT...
Another new business model Rubin and Summers made possible was Enron. Rubin had known Enron well through Goldman Sachss financing of the company, and recused himself from matters relating to Enron in his first year on the Clinton team. He and Summers went on to craft policies at Treasury that were essential to Enrons lucrative energy trading business, and they were in touch with Enron executives and lobbyists all the while. Enron meanwhile won $2.4 billion in foreign development deals from Clintons Export-Import Bank, then run by Kenneth Brody, a former protege of Rubins at Goldman Sachs.
Soon after Rubin joined Citigroup, its investment banking division picked up Enron as a client, and Citigroup went on to become Enrons largest creditor, loaning almost $1 billion to the company. As revelations of massive accounting fraud and market manipulation emerged over the next years and threatened to bring down the energy company, Rubin and Summers intervened. While Enrons rigged electricity prices in California were causing unprecedented blackouts, Summers urged Governor Gray Davis to avoid criticizing Enron and recommended further deregulatory measures. Rubin was an official advisor to Gov. Davis on energy market issues at the time, while Citigroup was heavily invested in Enrons fraudulent California business, and he too likely put pressure on the Governor to lay off Enron. Rubin also pulled strings at Bushs Treasury Department in late 2001, calling a former employee to see if Treasury could ask the major rating agencies not to downgrade Enron, and Rubin also lobbied the rating agencies directly. (In all likelihood he made similar attempts in behalf of Citigroup during the recent financial crisis.) Their efforts ultimately failed, Enron went bust, thousands of jobs and pensions were destroyed, and its top executives went to jail. Its hard to believe, but there was some white-collar justice back then.
SNIP...
Summers also starting showing up around the Hamilton Project, which Rubin had just founded with hedge fund manager Roger Altman. Altman was another Clinton official who had come from Wall Street, following billionaire Peter Peterson from Lehman Brothers to Blackstone Group, and he left Washington to found a major hedge fund in 1996. The Hamilton Project is housed in the Brookings Institution, a prestigious corporate-funded policy discussion center that serves as a sort of staging ground for Democratic elites in transition between government, academic, and business positions. The Hamilton Project would go on to host, more specifically, past and future Democratic Party officials friendly to the financial industry, and to produce a stream of similarly minded policy papers. Then-Senator Obama was the featured political speaker at Hamiltons inaugural event in April 2006.
Summers joined major banking and political elites on Hamiltons Advisory Council and appeared at many Hamilton events. During a discussion of the financial crisis in 2008, Summers was asked about his role in repealing Glass-Stegall, the law that forbade commercial and investment banking mergers like Citigroup. I think it was the right thing to do, he responded, noting that the repeal of Glass-Stegall made possible a wave of similar mergers during the recent financial crisis, such as Bank of Americas takeover of Merrill Lynch. He was arguing, in effect, that financial deregulation did not cause the financial crisis, it actually solved it. We need a regulatory system as modern as the markets, said Summers quoting Rubin, who was in the room. We need a hen house as modern as the food chain, said the fox.
CONTINUED...
http://blog.littlesis.org/2011/01/10/evidence-of-an-ame... /
What's more undemocratic than having some people worth more than others based solely on their net worth?