> clearly not a better alternative.

To what, though? What's the choice here? Give a few people even more power without having to be voted in? Who decides which people get all the power? What if they're worse? How do we get rid of them? Is a bloody revolution or decades of dictatorship really the same as having elections where the votes don't always make the best choices?

Thank you. Democracy is not about guaranteeing competent government, or government that agrees with you. Democracy is about avoiding civil wars. I think people forget this, and forget how hideous civil wars can be, because it's been so successful.

I don't know. I didn't offer an alternative, and I'm not sure that there is one. I only pointed out that from the GP's viewpoint, these examples of democracy reflecting the will of the people (Trump, Duterte, Brexit) are not having positive impacts on society. I don't believe they should be held up as examples of democracy at work, but rather as unfortunate failures of democratic systems.

Failure only because you disagree with the outcomes. Many of us supported Brexit and Trump. Democracy does not guarantee the outcome you want, and to believe that democracy has failed when it does not go your way means that you have a wrong idea of what democracy is and perhaps are anti-democratic.

I would love to hear what in the world you think "centrist neoliberal politics" means.

I'm not sure what you mean. Neoliberalism is a centrist philosophy on the U.S. political spectrum, and has been the dominant political ideology in the US and the UK for the past three decades. [0][1][2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17436985

[2] https://theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-neoliberalism-84...

>If Trump, Brexit and Duterte are what the people want, perhaps we live in societies that are incapable of self-governance

Only if we take the preferences of the 10% of well cushioned (who see themselves as Elois and the masses as Morlocks) as some universal law, or _the good_ itself, as opposed to what they are: preferences based on their private interests.

You are advocating for the marginalization of minorities if popular opinion is that minorities should be marginalized.

This is the very definition of "tyranny of the majority", and is also self-defeating in terms of democracy: marginalized groups are no longer fully represented in democracies once they have been marginalized.

>You are advocating for the marginalization of minorities if popular opinion is that minorities should be marginalized.

That's part of democracy. Whether they should be marginalized or not is up to the culture, not to the political system.

How long is this going to be the go to excuse? Some ad buys and an email phishing scheme is “manipulated”?

Russian interference and manipulation went far beyond that. They've been buying election machine companies, sending spies to funnel money and influence to U.S. politicians, hacking and offering stolen information on opponents (which they've done for decades, but this is the first known time someone accepted rather than reporting it to the FBI immediately, and in fact ignored the FBI's warnings that it might happen), not to mention the years of deliberate manipulation and radicalization of people online through advertising and sockpuppet accounts.

The crudeness of the accusations has raised the Russians to some kind of James Bond villain organization status...

NATO has been suffocating their borders, steadily advancing, bombing around, creating proxy states (Kossovo), influencing "orange revolutions", and operating tons of political groups and NGOs in Russia and tons of army bases around Russia. Including tons of sponsored reporting on all mainstream media (not just an obvious state outlet like RT which the Russian government has).

And it is Russia that's made into the "villain du jour" based on BS like "hacking the democratic emails" etc, as an excuse for the democrats that have made a mess for themselves by cutting off their better candidate, and offering a Wall Street pawn nobody really likes in his place...

The same old hypocrisy of colonialism and Cold War. Which never ended, apparently. Even back in 1996:

"The outcome was by no means inevitable. Last winter Yeltsin's approval ratings were in the single digits. There are many reasons for his change in fortune, but a crucial one has remained a secret. For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin's campaign. Here is the inside story of how these advisers helped Yeltsin achieve the victory that will keep reform in Russia alive."

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136204,...

Whereas "manipulated" = some emails nobody cared about and fewer read were leaked at a time that everybody had made up their mind already? Or maybe some FB groups they pointed at?

What was the "manipulation" exactly?

The biggest manipulation scheme is what's going on with the establishment and their media getting 50% of the American populace, which typically believes that it is enlightened and beyond conspiracy, to believe in some some massive Russian influence and collusion conspiracy.