Fair enough, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
|and who knows, perhaps the process is lengthy enough to everybody forget about it and then the system may decide to judge in his favor.|
Truth, Justice, and Fairness are three different things, sometimes they don't coincide as much as they should. Does letting it go until people forget (or until the election has happened) strike you as a form of interference? Maybe both political and legal?
|probably lost in translation, I fail to see the issue here.|
Billionaire versus ordinary citizens. Even with the resources of a $200M class action with possibly good potential to win legal costs, I still wonder whether that will be fair. Donald Trump will spend any amount of money (apparently his is spending millions) to avoid being tarnished by this, the big prize is the Presidency. Judges can be influenced, despite them supposed to being above all that. If those kind of issues are discovered, it will be several years before that lands in court.
|I didn't see you mentioning Clinton.|
You are right I wasn't being balanced in that respect, but could I get way with not doing that? If it quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. Alternatively, a spade is a spade. That is, I have seen his type before, as I mentioned. There is plenty of history that tells us what is bad, if the same is happening again, should there be a need to provide the context for the opposing side in order to point out the badness?
So, what - we sit back and let it all roll by? Not speaking out (or at least encourage a debate) against something that is ostensibly wrong, is mediocre. Mediocrity is one of the reasons bad things can flourish.
|don't worry, even if you could, your vote would be worthless.|
Well that is decidedly undemocratic: if no-one (or a small proportion) exercised their voting rights , we wouldn't have an effective democracy. Apparently, in the Brexit referendum, 76% of young people voted against leaving the EU. But the participation rate for young people was only 36%. One might wonder how the result may have been different (maybe there is reasonable probability that more would have voted to stay) if there had been a much higher participation rate. Participation is important: some countries have compulsory voting and fine those who don't.
|instead of voting, you should campaign.|
Doing both would be very good democratic things to do.
|but if the mentality is «the lesser evil» then you lost already. |
And what of the amount of difference between these two evils? If the difference is large (I think it is), I know what I would prefer to do. Defeating oneself to the point of inaction isn't very democratic either.
Another thing, if Trump does manage to win, there could be considerable financial fall-out as there has been with the Brexit. The opposition by other leaders to Trump isn't universal though, apparently North Korea thinks he is a swell guy.