> in any system where there is some political influence over prosections.
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.
> 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.
> If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable.
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.
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'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 see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution.
Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then.
> Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor
I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now.
> that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation?
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.
> 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 world would be a much better place if everyone had a gun and not fear for reprisals from law enforcement when it is used to defend itself/family and bystanders. Like to have the Castle doctrine everywhere with a very very low threshold.
We have a balanced and proportionate self-defence law here, and that is way enough. With the Castle doctrine, we would build up an issue that is non-existent in the first place. We don't want to be a violent society, that's a choice.
>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.
> But they aren't trustworthy. That is the point. The US system sucks.
That has been the discourse of Trump there for years. His platform was based on instillating further and nurturing this perception. Instead of encouraging Republicans to work themselves AND with the left to improve what can be, carefully, progressively, on a rational basis (which is ... the basis of democracy), they've gone full rogue and decided to break it. To rebuild it as a better democracy? Not what it looks like, given both domestic and international situation, and the history and discourse of the man. But I would love to be proved wrong here.
> Democracy is when the most votes wins the election.
No. That is only a part of what a democracy is. If 51% of people voted to kill the other 49%, that would democratic? Of course not.
A democracy requires a Rule of Law, and the protection of fundamental rights for all. It requires three, balanced, separate, opposed branches of power; executive (presidency) is only one of these, not above the two others. It requires protection for minorities.
If all you have is the expression of the majority of the votes, that's not one, that's the tyranny of the majority and that's a completely different, violent system.
> I don't think anyone wants corruption.
No one wants to be corrupted in the first place. Yet, it exists. That's precisely the reason for a democratic system where each branch of a government must have the tools to lawfully take down those from opposing branches that are corrupt or exceed the power they are given.
> I don't know much about France but it seems to be functioning democratically.
We'll see.
Reading you, I get what you're saying, as there are people on the right in France holding roughly the same view... Only... if the AfD wins, is it going to be so different than the previous far-right parties have done? (there, in France, in Hungary, in Italy, in the USA, in Russia?)
Rather than the fear of the loss of a grip on power, what I see the fear of the loss of democracy itself and basic principles. It's the so called paradox of tolerance, and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it, at play.
The curious thing is that you Germans always have seemed to be good at negotiation and consensus, at least, compared to us French, where preventive opposition seems to be a too common rule of negotiations. When did that capacity change on your side?
The only ways out I see is a left majority demonstrating actually to the country both: the advantages of immigration (if only for the democraphics that won't support the country otherwise) and the perils of it if not managed accordingly, and enacting effective actionable laws about it.
Why a left? Because the right is incapable of getting rid of hidden far-right ambitions (we have our owns here) that spoil any project or the discussion by getting to racist/supremacist/antisocial tropes.
Will it happen? In France at least, no, the left is not ready for that exercise. The far-left is not helping the left itself, being even more rigid and killing attempts to have a negotiated government.
Will a moderate right succeed to do it? Neither. They're too busy to find a way to survive.
So, a hard right or more likely a far-right? The problem here is that these extremes that acquire the power, even if they do succeed to improve some things, once in power, they will not concede it, they never did in history.
Ultimately, who does all that mess serve?
> 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?
I'm not playing ;) I shifted the point there to policy (I could have avoided, true, it dilutes the conversation) because that point of the Constitution is respected/not at stake at all, whatever happens to the state. Contrary to the fundamentals of a democracy.
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.
> 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.
> If the convictions were disqualifying, the candidate would be unelectable.
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.
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'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 see any evidence that he is ignoring the constitution.
Ok. Cool. Obviously we don't read the same events. See you in 4 years then. I promise I won't ever come to the USA (to your relief). And, believe it or not, I promise I will eat at least a piece of my hat if there is a next election and if Trump concedes willingly and peacefully to the result then.
> Do you apply the same standard to every president or governor
I am not defending any other president, I'm telling on yours, right now.
> that has signed blatantly unconstitutional gun control legislation?
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.