>That's why you got to trust your democracy, and in the balance and independence of each branch; and work on maintaining that trust. If you ever get your trust broken in the institutions, it's all downhill from there. It's a constant effort.

But they aren't trustworthy. That is the point. The US system sucks. Elected judges. Elected prosecutors. Elected police commissioners. Clear pressure from above in the federal justice department. President-appointed politicised courts. It is nuts. The US justice system is political. It is not independent from politics. It is not designed to be.

It is so funny to me you say "trust your democracy" then argue why the person that got the most votes shouldn't be allowed to be elected. That is trusting democracy? Democracy is elected leaders. Democracy isn't always good (see above) but it isn't ambiguous.

>> It is up to the electorate who wins the election.

>That point of view makes might prevail over law. Doing so invites corruption, systematically. And that's precisely not how a democracy works.

This is blatant double speak, how do you not see that? Democracy is when the most votes wins the election. He didn't cheat to get those votes. His victory was legitimate.

Why would it invite corruption for voters to choose who wins elections?!

>I don't know how you can judge a character morally and strength-fit for presidency, of someone paying a prostitute to shut up about it, and denying having done so when caught. It's a telling trait for someone vulnerable to corruption or kompromat. That single bit alone should be a basic repellant (it would be a matter of dismissal for any high ranking public service officer, and for any CEO), but... obviously not for everyone.

Because it isn't up to me. It isn't up to you. It isn't up to a judge. It is up to the electorate. The voters balance all the factors and make a decision. Is he perfect? Of course not. But it isn't a choice between him and perfection, and the voters picked him over the other options. That is all the qualifications required (well, and being 35 and being American by birth).

>See, in France, we've had our own corruption issues (and still have some, it's a constant struggle too). And finally, hopefully, a past president has been convicted recently (Sarkozy). And boy, as much as I have trusted this guy, and voted for him, twice, as much am I relieved that the justice made things clear: being a president does not make you apart, you get to live by the same rules as everyone.

I don't think anyone wants corruption.

>I'm relieved too because it revealed how much the right and hard-right in France are against the independence of the judiciary breach, while unfunding it (for obvious reasons), and how it opened my eyes: democracy is so, so far from a given. And it's been a terrible realisation that today, you have the right fighting actively against democracy, the left not realising and complacent about it, the center about the same, and the far-right and far-left just waiting for it to fall.

I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically. In Germany though it is the left fighting democracy, constantly demanding that AfD be banned from competing in elections because they are terrified of losing their grip on power and the leverage they have over the CDU/CSU by forcing them to always compromise to the left and not to the right. It has boosted AfD in the long run by making it impossible for the CDU to pass popular migration controls that are desperately needed. Yet if you ask the left they say they are "defending democracy", by banning parties! "Orwellian" is overused but here it is the only word that fits.

>You're telling on yourself right there, on a different plane. The USA is the only country in the world that has such a permissive regulation on fire arms, with an equally permissive and disdainful result in civil casualties. Yemen comes next.

The USA has a constitution. It guarantees gun ownership rights absolutely ("shall not be infringed"). The courts have been clear on this for decades. I don't think it is a good rule, but it is the constitution.

Notice how on this topic you immediately stop talking about the constitution? You start talking about policy merits. What happened to the importance of respecting the constitution now that it says something you don't agree with?

He is not my president, btw. I am not American. Not that it should make any difference.