Your reply is pretty much the equivalent of "no, you are" as far as witty responses go.
Firstly, it's highly debateable as to whether Trump is particularly successful. He started with a huge sum and really has not added to it greatly. We've had this discussion before.
But the thing is, you've completely ignored the point (presumably because you have no response to it). He's likely in breach of the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "anyone can be President". It strictly limits who can hold such office and how they must behave once they are elected to it. If you're relying on the kindergarten explanation then that's probably a sign of what's wrong. The grown ups understand that you need to read past the popular headlines.
There's no problem with him being wealthy - the problem is when he uses the office for his own personal benefit - that's what the constitution prohibits. I'm sorry if the term emolument didn't mean what you thought it meant and actually has a defined meaning and encompasses exactly the sort of thing that Trump is doing, but that's the way it is.
No, I didn't miss what the constitution said. "Delegates to that convention agreed that executive officers of the new national government they were creating could not accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without congressional consent, and could be thrown out of office by Congress for taking bribes from anyone. But they didn’t make any rules constricting officials’ investments and business interests."
The framers to the constitution did not want to limit the presidency much beyond having to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen. George Washington, our first President, was a filthy rich landowner, who owned over 100 slaves and had his fingers in all sorts of business enterprises. He became rich like Trump did through his family and other connections. Washington married one of the wealthiest women in Virginia. He grew tobacco which was greatly desired and purchased by Europeans at the time, so one could argue that he could have made deals with monarchs over there that enriched him even further. Many of his contemporaries and writers of the constitution were likewise in business and wealthy. They did not want to give up their wealth either and therefore had no intention of limiting a president's business interests. Of course, they didn't want the president to take a bribe either from anyone and that is another reason for impeachment.
The emolument clause has never been tested. It relates to taking a gift from a foreign king or country. The writers of the constitution were concerned that a monarch, particularly the French one at the time, would try to influence America's foreign policy by giving gifts to the president. Certainly if Trump's conflicts became too great, he can be impeached by Congress and/or not re-elected. In the end, it was Hillary who actually sold her office for political influence. Her whole Clinton Initiative was about selling speeches for access to the Clinton's power. Of course, now that she lost, the Initiative has closed down, which shows just how much it was a way of getting rich from being a politician. At least, Trump didn't make his money from being a politician.
