The US is going downhill quickly, and I wouldn't advise anyone to move there.

However it's still a long way away from countries like Turkey or Uzbekistan or Russia.

Compare the US to Brazil or South Africa sure, point out how it's no longer in the same bracket as Canada or Denmark or NZ, but comparing to Turkey or Thailand does a disservice.

It's really not far from Turkey. I agree it's not "as bad", but the US isn't done rotting. Populism, attacking and discrediting the press, running state media (FOX), control over all branches of government, a blind, rabid and xenophobic fanbase...

Like, yeah, Turkey is worse. I think. I'm not even sure, given that Turkey has less power. So no, it's not at that level. Yet.

What's important though is to compare the whole system and not just individuals. The US has very robust democratic institutions, checks and balances and rule of law.

Trump's inclination to reduce everything to ass kissing ("has said nice things about me") and personal vendettas would be an absolute disaster in many countries. But the US is healthy enough to survive him - I think.

> The US has very robust democratic institutions, checks and balances and rule of law.

Does it. A first-past-the-post system which reduces everything to two parties. Low voter turnouts. High gerrymandering. Terrible voter accessibility laws. Three branches of government end-to-end owned by only one party. And a ton of money in politics thanks to Citizens United.

I'm sorry, but "robust democratic institutions" and "checks and balances" at this point are things americans tell themselves to sleep better at night. If you step back, you start seeing just how far gone the country is.

In terms of keeping one person in check, even if that person is the president, the US constitution does a great job. And this is very much borne out by what has happened since Trump was elected (by a minority of voters).

(I'm not American)

The constitution is a document, not a branch of the government. Who amends the constitution? Who enforces the constitution? The answer to both of those is: Branches of government controlled by the same single party as the one in power right now.

These are very baffling claims that lack any relation to reality. The US constitution defines the branches of government according to the principles of seperation of powers.

The constitution also defines the process of changing the constitution itself (article V), and it does not include a way for Mr Trump or his party to do that as they do not have the required two thirds majority in both houses or in state legislatures.

Importantly, there isn't even a way for him to whip up emotions in a referendum in order to change the constitution.

The judiciary is not controlled by any party at all. Supreme court judges are appointed for life to prevent arbitrary interventions by other branches of government.

And in practical terms, did you really get the impression that Trump has unwavering support even just among the legislators of his own party? Did you get the impression that the FBI acts on Trump's say so? How about the courts?

No, what I'm seeing is a wannabe autocrat who is kept in check by an extremely robust set of institutions, constitutional arrangements and by a lot of principled individuals inside those institutions.

I don't see Xi, Erdogan or Putin getting investigated by their own police or courts, having to fear impeachment or face the sort of (well deserved) journalistic onslaught that Trump has had to face.

This reply goes back to the general sentiment I have a problem with: That things have to be as bad as in Russia, China or Turkey for people to take action.

You realize that if they get this bad, it's too late to take action, right?

Here's the same logic, applied to a different field: "Oh, yes, you keep talking about climate change but I only see mild temperature increases and I'm not even sure they're man-made. I don't see the sea level rise and catastrophic outcomes you're talking about. If we start seeing those, we'll take action."

It'll be too late.

I don't find Trump harmless. I'm just saying that the constitution and the institutions matter a great deal when it comes to limiting the damage a single powerful individual can do.

That's exactly why so many autocrats and parties with an authoritarian bent try to change the constitutions of their countries in order to give themselves greater powers.

Trump hasn't done that because he can't. And I think this deserves far more attention than it is getting. It is something other countries can learn from.

You are wrong about White House press access; the current President has been far more open and accessible than his predecessor.

https://apnews.com/f29a23df19214466b226e2cbdec78cbd - AP (As neutral as it gets) - White House press conferences grow rare

https://apnews.com/0a029f0bf678452aa89facb6dfba5f25 - AP - WH restricts AP, Reuters, Bloomberg for KJU summit

http://time.com/5270968/donald-trump-reporters-credentials-m... - TIME, Donald Trump threatens taking away reporter credentials

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/09/donald-trump... - The Guardian - White House won't rule out banning press for 'negative' coverage

Just a couple of examples of what white house press feels like under the Trump era. Talk to me more about "his predecessor".

Edit: Today's bonus article on freedom of speech, press, and assembly: https://outline.com/3TKY5M - CNN - DOJ demands Facebook information from 'anti-administration activists'.

There's like one of these every day at least. So, you know, I don't believe you.

To be fair, thanks to Twitter we do have much more access than before to his unfiltered stream of consciousness at 3AM.

For what it's worth, I think that is one of the very, very, very few good things that will come out of that presidency. We'll see what future presidents make of it, but I have hope that in the long run it leads to increased transparency.

Of course, other checks are being removed left and right, so I don't think it evens out in the case of the Trump admin.

I don’t think this kind of “transparency” is a good thing for any president. It is far better for the head of government to make considered, careful, well-timed statements with the benefit of staff research. You know, like normal governments have always worked...