The nuance you're evidently choosing to ignore is that democracy only works in practice if the system is inherently fair and objective, and people's opinions are be informed, rational and independent.
The nuance you miss is that its not democracy if you are deciding what people can be told by which candidate. If one party fails to counter the other's views, then that is their failing.
You may think opinions are not informed, rational and independent, but that is merely your oopinion. Others may thing the opposite and who are you to stop someone campaigning?
PS If someone decides to vote for party A or supports party A, then they are not independent, so effectively you are disenfranchising everyone with an opinion
There's a difference between respectfully accepting a candidate who won fairly, and one who's used every dirty trick available.
Says a person who cannot accept the result of an election and opposes democracy because they do not like the result.
There's also the right to be concerned / critical for the outcome regardless of the route that leads there' although you seem concerned only with rubber-stamping the election process.
As such, presumably you have no issue with the outcome of the 1933 German "democratic" election that brought Hitler to power...?
This is conflating 2 different things. I am merely accepting the result of a democratic election.
I have deliberately not commented on the views of either candidate - because I didnot have a vote in the election. It is for the US electors to decide who they want as their president
Once again, your argument seems to be an anti democratic one. You seem to have a problem with accepting the result because of something that happened in a different country with a different legal system 90 years ago. Do we scrap all elections because of this? Not very democratic is it?
Democracy means accepting the result of the election. It does not mean liking the result.
Have a nice day as they say in the USA