Then detail explicitly how, because I find such a claim rather untenable. Either you are governing yourselves, or the United States is, so which is it? What Trump does or does not do short of invading your country, has no impact on your local environmental policies. Despite the perception desired by both Americans and non-Americans what the POTUS does, or what “goes down” in the U.S. really doesn’t have the global impact people claim it does.
The only thing flawed regarding the nomination process for POTUS is the common misunderstandings of what the U.S. government is, what the office of POTUS is, and how the process works.
To give you a hint of what that misunderstanding is: the POTUS is not a representative of the people. The office of POTUS does not serve the people; it serves the union of states.
I find it fascinatingly curious that people claim the E.C. is “flawed” but have no misgivings about how the head of the U.N. is selected. The U.S. Federal Government is a union of states that is tempered by and tempers the passions of the people in the states.
And just because you don’t like him, it is a pathetic ad hominem, and demonstrably false, to label Trump as lacking intellect. It speaks more about your proclivities and capacities than it does about him. Indeed, an astute look at the modern history of Republican presidents who were not already in the White House as VP reveals that they were all underestimated, and it was claimed they were of low intellect.
Reagan was some “dumb actor” who “lacked the intellect to win”. Served two rather successful terms. George W. Bush was called a dummy, mocked for his words or pronunciation, and dismissed as having a chance. Served two terms. Donald Trump was dismissed as a “reality T.V. star”, someone who was “clearly not smart enough” and “too rough and tumble” to win POTUS. We’re still in the first year of his office, but there is a pattern and Democrats are repeating it to this day.
The only one the Democrats didn’t really push that line in was George H.W. Bush. He served one term, and according to some if it hadn’t been for Ross Perot would have served two. That is arguable, since Clinton didn’t have a majority and Perot’s totals would have, if they were Bush voters in Perot’s absence, given a majority to Bush. But nonetheless that is mere speculation. But the Democrats actually took him seriously. The ones they didn’t take seriously won, and served two terms where possible.
Indeed looking at other levels we see the same pattern. Schwarzenegger was dismissed by the Democrats in California. He won, then won re-election. Jesse Ventura, dismissed by both Democrats and Republicans as being not smart enough won, and won re-election. It really makes sense when you look at it. The moment you think your opponent isn’t smart, or that you are much smarter, you stop trying so hard, and you think that whatever he or she is doing is broken because “stupid is as stupid does”.
It may feel good to bash someone successful that you don’t like, but is useless at best, and self-defeating. It may feel good to dismiss someone you don’t like or disagree with as not human or somehow less so, but it is self-defeating and little more then avoiding an inward look at ourselves and seeing our own inadequacies.