According to the definition of what an Actual Democracy, an Actual Truth entails... as a peoples government decided upon by the majority of voters: Trump's presidency is illegitimate. While Hillary Clinton is the clear winner as decided on by receiving the majority of votes (and not because she nor he would be good enough to carry the country into a progressive direction); the system is rigged like a gambling casino that knows the odds are in its favor because the system is set up so that its particular gaming rules work on behalf of the government and not on behalf on the collective wishes of the public.
Democracy: literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek de-mokratia-, which was coined from de-mos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.
Source: "Democracy." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Unfortunately, the phrase "rule by the people" is interpreted by a few to mean that the majority must be ruled by a minority of select individuals who can game the system in their respective favor, be it for power or some other social currency. Typically, such people support the idea of a limited government... whereas in fact, an Actual Democracy is a HUGE government because it involves the entire citizenry. To reduce such a size means that one or another profile of citizenry are to be excluded one way or another, though it is better to let a dutiful, conscientious public embrace an illusion of having some measure of control over their own lives and call the whole enterprise a "Democracy"— complete with an attending wardrobe of warm and fuzzy inferences such as equality, fairness, freedom, patriotism, allegiance, etc., when no such enterprise is intended.
Indeed, the U.S. government was never set up as a Democracy at its inception, nor that the majority opinion would ever amount to much except to perpetuate the illusion of a Democracy. In fact, the Constitution was not discussed nor ratified by the majority of citizens, but by an early (unnamed) Electoral College practice in that no women, native Americans, Blacks or unpropertied males were allowed to cast votes. The collective opinion of the public did not matter then, just as it does not matter now, and neither the Congress nor the citizenry are making any substantial effort to improve the system, without giving into compromises amounting to different formulas of subduing Democracy into the value of worthlessness. The system was (and is) rigged so that only a select few, filled with a majority of business men, were (and are) able to say what was (is) or was (is) not appropriate to be included in the Constitution.
Hence, even the Constitution and Bill of Rights are illegitimate by the standards applied to the practice of an Actual Democracy. Needless to say, Congress does not want a governing system of fairness, unless "fairness" can be selectively defined to support the motivations of a few, like an elections system which is formulated on the need for a person to be wealthy in order to afford the costs of a campaign. It details a fact that the presumed "United" States (now known as the "Divided States"), is not a nation that practices an actual democracy... just the illusion of one. And because its model of a so-called Democracy is a fabrication, is a lie... every single person living in other countries must view every single action of the U.S. government as a deception. Indeed, no one should let the American Government dictate terms under the rubric of advancing some purported "Democratic Standard of Excellence", when no such value actually exists. The American government has no right to dictate terms based an ideal it neither embraces philosophically nor practices in any practical manner. America needs to clean up its own political and election messes before trying to tell others what is the presumed right and proper way to live... thus revealing its perspective is a sham, a three-card monte trick of manipulation to exploit and gain some advantage through deception.
The U.S. government can not be trusted by other nations or its own citizenry because it practices double-dealing, double standards... and sometimes triple standards, such as having a legal system that is divided into the laws which govern those in government, the laws which govern the wealthy, and the laws which the rest of us must abide by. Even the so-called Democratic process of a jury trial has its members supposedly randomly chosen from a given population, yet its members undergo a screening process meant to weed out biasness, but in actuality is a method by which competing sides in a litigation dispute might rig the jury in their favor.
The figure of justice portrayed by a woman draped in a sheet holding a sword while being blindfolded; though it exhibits yet another chauvinistic disparagement to women and conceals the fact it typically is men who wield a justice system's arbitrarily sharpened (or intentionally dulled) sword and is the figure of innocence that is biased to be obligingly servile to the illusion of a false Democracy... that illuminates the darkness on the back of a blindfold that is so convoluted by multiple foldings through which no light is permitted to pass into the inner recesses of consciousness in order to perceive by who, how much, when, where, why, and how often the scales of justice are tipped in favor of undermining both the spirit and letter of the law— as a pristine reflection of truth embodied in a practice called Democracy... like the usage of an Electoral College— that Congress refuses to address and fix the injustice thereof, unless it can contrive some other method to circumvent the process of Democracy from expressing itself fully... and let the evolution of sociological development precede unimpeded by a few at the expense of the Many.
To all of those who have believed in a system of government that they thought was fair because they thought it was based on the principles of a Democracy, the fact that the opinion of the majority of voters can be undermined by a convoluted election process; is a kick in the shins, punch in the stomach and slap in the face. No less, as an act of adding insult to injury, Trump's candidacy was affirmed even before all the votes were tallied! Clearly, this is not the values of a presumed Democracy we have pledged allegiance to, sung its national anthem and praised it with songs. When we acknowledge that the patriotism we have for so long honored a nation whose actual practice of government is below the standards of a greater Democratic ideal, it is time to seriously reassess our values and commitments.
It is a very deep embarrassment and shamefulness to stand before the peoples of other nations and make the claim of representing a quality that we do not actually possess. We can not expect them to embody principles of a democratic ideal when we ourselves do not exhibit them. And nor can we support a military who claims its actions are based on the ideals of a democracy which neither exist in America— and is itself a very large welfare program... and practices an organizational formula which exhibits qualities to be found in the ideas of a Communism and Socialism; even though its supporters use the same rhetoric once used in complimenting the practices of a Monarchy and Dictatorship.
However, by referencing the Military as an exercise in Socialism, Communism and culturally insulated welfare system, there is no attempt to disparage those who serve honorably... even if they are committed to living in a system created by a blueprint of illusory content. Nor is it a means to add another needless dimension of unwarranted dislike for Communism and Socialism just because former practices were attempted by the discontinuities of thought in misguided leaderships; since both Communism and Socialism, as well as other social doctrines, have their individualized merits. The intent in distinguishing the presence and practice of similarities and parallels between the Military, Communism, Socialism and Welfare is a methodological appraisal which appreciates the differences inherent in reference to strict definitions concerning what is meant by a government system, an economic system, and a system which practices identifiable characteristics without having to conform to a literal one-to-one comparison.
For example, one can be loving and yet not have to be in love. One person's sanctuary may be another person's cage, though each likes to breed hybrid plants in their respective parameters and engage in similar behaviors of selective cultivation. Or one may embrace the view that having a public education system, public library, social security, public roads, public sewage, public waste management, etc., is of desirous value and yet not like to call themselves a Socialist or that they would like to live in whatever negative conception they may hold about Socialism, or Communism, or Anarchy, or Libertarianism, or Social Democracy, etc... No, such comparisons are not meant to belittle, disparage nor suggest an over-looked venal depravity; but merely to establish a level of honest interpretation so that a realistic appraisal can help to promote the behavior of additional efforts to pursue an interest in producing improvements in the larger governing process. If one can not see the forest because they are blinded by the trees, or can not feel the wind because a soothing breeze predisposes them to a mindless state of wistful reverie; then they may be unable to distinguish between progressive change and historically repeating dead ends.
Let us provide some observations:
Yet, in noting that the Military does not provide a means to permit its leadership to be chosen by all members of a given service, does this mean that the process whereby leaders are chosen is superior to the public version of choosing leadership? If it is superior, than it should rightly be used in order to do away with the present one which continually provides the public with individuals whose actions repeatedly engage in an impotence because the system is designed this way and retains a formula of government based on an antiquated perspective. And because it is not a Democratic practice, what then do we call it? A type of aristocracy? A meritocracy in which the "merit" of a person is due to the privileged selection of one or a few who must have some sort of super-human ability to distinguish capabilities? And why, yes... why is it that the military can not be scrutinized by the public to obtain a clarity of its overall demeanor and functionally as a burdensome cost venture; without being subjected to discreditation bordering on some supposed treasonous act that must, without censure, be subjected to a social vilification when "freedom of speech" rightly encompasses "freedom of analysis".
No less, what do we call a practice whose primary funding comes from the public's coffers of an enforced taxation system that the public rarely if ever gets to legislate and vote on... and yet the military is not self-sufficient unless it resorts to the ancient practice of plundering and pillage? If it is not a welfare program made possible by the public who can not share in a similar level of welfare provision (free medical, education, housing, etc...), then what do we call it? Do we substitute the word "welfare" because it has negative connotations, so as to try and conceal the practice of welfare? Thus, the military should rightly be referred to as the Military Welfare Program. Again, this is not meant as a disparagement, just like we do not disparage those who need subsistence in order to supplement their resource base, if any exist, in order that they may have their most basic needs addressed at a level necessary for living in an affluent society. In fact, if one reviews the account of genesis, it details a welfare program outlined by that great Social Service Superintendent named God. In other words, all of us were born into a welfare system whose resources are finite. Once Earth's pantry is used up, that is all there is. There are no nearby planetary stores to run to for a re-supply, and no nearby extraterrestrial neighbors to borrow from. It is a very selfish and self-centered person who thinks god's generosity can be bartered with for more indulgences by engaging in human contrived rituals, ceremonies, supplications with promises that are forgotten, devalued or outright frequently broken.
Not only does the nation need a well-resourced military, but the military needs a well-resourced public as well... and not just those whose singular wealth is slung about as an expression of obesity that seeks deference through bribery and deception. If military personnel suffer some privation, the capacity of the military's readiness is negatively impacted. The military needs to be well housed, well trained, well clothed, well equipped, well fed, and provided with excellent health benefits, to name a few of its needs; just as the nation must see to it the same for all citizens, so that it too can benefit instead of viewing itself as a modernized indentured servant that owes the country no loyalty... and survival requires tying to "get over" on the system as it does on the public... such as presenting itself to be of superior value to those who provide the means for their various subsistences. A military that views itself superior to the public which furnishes it its bread, butter, clothing, housing and other necessities, is an ungrateful military whose mission parameters must be seriously reflected on and revised... for it holds the attitude of a spoiled rich kid who thinks its parents money grows on trees without effort. Whereas the military expects the public to honor it without question, it dishonors the public by not recognizing a mutuality of respect is both deserving and warranted.
There is no reason for the public to have to sacrifice its needs so that a military can be well nourished in its many dimensions, when there is no crisis which requires the military to be provided a level of welfare that its sponsors, the public, must do without... and be forced to provide for its own welfare by being forced to engage in a commercialized practice of business enterprise privatization analogous to a person being forced to choose one business game over another... with the whole of society being run as a marketplace of casino-like options enabling one or another business to prosper at the expense of a public that has no real representation in the government... unless they pay Representatives some proportioned dividend that is provisionally supplied a loophole haven from any ethics violation. There are very broad and serious problems with the American government, as with many other governments else, that if they are not attended to, we are surely on the path of city riots, state rebellions and national revolution.
While it is hard for some to readily accept the realization that they are living under conditions which do not represent an Actual Democracy, others are despondent because their self-reflections are forced to recognize they have been living a lie. It is a lie that many would not have given their life for, and would have resisted all calls to turn a blind eye to believing in a system of authority which operates by way of deception, illusion and myth-creation. For it truth, Democracy in America is an illusion, is a myth promoted by a leadership whose real interests are the acquisition of wealth and/or power, at the expense of any or all publics, whatever is needed.
So, we stand at an impasse. We must decide whether we are going to continue in the lie, or alter the system to reflect the practice of an Actual Democracy. To live out such a lie is like belonging to an undesirable regime we have read about in history books. We are participating in the lie and are therefore liars to all those who have looked to America for guidance in their efforts of establishing a Democratic ideal in the face of so many kinds of oppression and repression that governing bodies routinely engage in, with various tactics and guises. Americans are liars and have no right to try to impose their views on others when those views are the product of so many falsifications. We are so very tired of the American lie, just as others are tired of the lie under which they are forced to live in their own countries. How much more must we tolerate, how much more must we suffer, how much more... unless you are the devil himself seeking our very souls. We must have the freedom, nay... the liberty, to collectively choose our own destiny.
In the presence of so many falsifications about the existence and practice of a supposed Democracy, one of these falsifications exhibits itself in the belief held by some that states "Islamists are against American Democracy". When it is impossible to be against something that does not in fact exist, it is by far more honest when Islamists point out the hypocrisy under which Americans live; and yet are unaware of the more severe forms of hypocrisy they and their families have been subjected to during times and places far from the watchful eye of journalists who might otherwise detail the horrors so many innocent people have experienced at the hands of the American government— which effects varying forms of economic, diplomatic, and military bullyism so as to enrich the coffers of one or another who is already wealthy, but has an insatiable greed.
It is rather foolish for someone to claim they live under the auspices of a Democracy by imagining that it is a quality which necessarily emerges due to some supposed natural order of thought, when there is an absence of a Monarchy, Dictatorship or Theological rule. Democracy is not an emergent property of psychological growth that occurs due to some underlying transition in mental maturity. For some, the presence of a Democracy is but a way-station in a succession of events that will eventually lead to the practice of a greater ideal. If this be the actual case, then it behooves all the Anarchists, Communists, Libertarians, Socialists, Social Democrats, etc..., regardless of specialized genre within, alongside or outside these designations; to force the nation to adopt an Actual Democracy. If it is true, that there views are eventual ideologies to be embraced at some later date when humanity has become used to the practice of an Actual Democracy and seeks to improve their lives beyond such a life style, then all of them must unify in a singular effort to push the nation towards the practice of an Actual Democracy. If ever you wanted a Cause that was just and real, this is it... because it will ultimately benefit you and everyone else. So, how sincere are you in your beliefs so that you might decide to join in the struggle to adopt an Actual Democracy?
We can't get to the home plate of your idea if the people are not even allowed out of the dugout to play the game in order to reach the succession of stages in the developmental processes of collective self-governance. If you truly believe in your Anarchic position, or your Communist position, or your Libertarian position, or your Socialist position, or your Theological position, you will join in a collective struggle to set the people free to choose their own destiny... and not have that choice mangled by a social gaming process to serve the desires of a few glutinous individuals that have banded together against the rest in order to control the lion's share of all resources for themselves. If you believe that the people have a right to both individually and collectively choose their own destiny, then you will join us— as we will join you— and we we will all be the better for it.