Remix.run Logo
▲ jimmydddd 3 hours ago

Without the discussion getting crazy, as a participant, do you think No Kings is poorly named? For an outsider like myself, it seems like a confusing movement. I mean the guy was elected, so obviously not a king. And couldn't even change the name of the art center, so not that powerful. So the king thing seems misplaced? And when they ask the people at the protest, they can't seem to articulate what the point is, except they don't like the guy's policies and conduct.

▲notyourwork 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Kings disregard democracy and do what they want. This is precisely what this elected official continues to attempt to do. No kings is a reminder that he and all other elected officials are not kings.

▲aeternum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hundreds of executive orders okay only when my guy is in charge

▲jimmydddd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed. A No Executive Orders protest would be more clear and would be one I could get behind. It does seem like it would be good to limit the scope of Executive orders. Like, many were asking, how can he just close down the department of education with an exacutive order? Oh, it's because the department of education was formed by an excutive order of an earlier president in the first place.

▲nradov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The scope of Executive Orders is already limited by the Constitution. What additional limitations are you asking for?

In some cases Presidents have issued orders that exceeded their legal authority. The effects of those are eventually blocked by the judicial system, although that necessarily takes some time.

▲Crunchified an hour ago | parent [-]

Well, a president should certainly be held accountable for any executive order that is overturned on constitutional grounds. Not only should the president have (and use) plenty of legal counsel to avoid this, but a president stepping beyond constitutional bounds is acting illegally which (a) none of us should and (b) ought not go unpunished.

▲nradov an hour ago | parent [-]

Held accountable how? Like a fine or something? Maybe a strongly worded reprimand from the judiciary?

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

> strongly worded reprimand from ...

Chucky Cheese specializes in this /s !/s

▲myersj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think making things up and attributing them to other people is more or less constructive than replying to what they actually said? Do you usually get a great response when you go for cute X clapbacks, or... what?

▲FireBeyond 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

DHS literally telling federal court judges that they are going to continue extraditing someone in face of a court order not to, that they are not going to turn a plane around.

ICE refusing to make officers available to law enforcement for investigation of issues.

A lot more happening than "making executive orders", though kudos to Trump for trying to sign executive orders that even his own DOJ are not just illegal, but unconstitutional.

▲giantg2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"No kings is a reminder that he and all other elected officials are not kings."

It would be great if the "other elected officials" part turns out to be true, but my in my experience I don't see that happening. Have there been any policy proposals out of No Kings that would create better oversight and accountability?

▲verdverm 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are ideas for how to improve representation, which comes first. I do not get the feeling that current elected officials are interested in ceding their position, power, and prestige.

One of the good ideas are expanding ranked choice voting.

One of the bad ideas is justifying gerrymandering, because the other side is doing it too.

Roughly only 10% of House seats are actually competitive. This is a problem that needs fixing.

▲jimmydddd 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you can just vote them out. End of story. No Kings. Maybe I'm just too literal in my thinking.

▲romanows 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can't vote anyone out alone, so groups/ideas like No Kings seek to collect people around some general organizing principle. Involved people are more likely to vote and it's possible that you highlight the issues for people who aren't aware or energized enough to vote.

Plus, protests can influence other people in government, outside of elections.

▲delecti an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There was an attempted self-coup last time he was voted out. I think it's pretty reasonable to be extra reactive to anti-democratic tendencies from him.

▲verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Keep an eye on the Texas Senate race and what happens if Talarico wins. Paxton has granted himself the ability to investigate election fraud as the sitting AG.

Let's see if the will of the people is honored, or if the king steps in too.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲CodeWriter23 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Please, cite examples.

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

January 6, 2021 is well known. There are numerous examples leading up to, on the day, the years after, and even the first weeks of 2.0 - all interconnected - all anti-democratic.

"NoKings" is one identity for the resistance to autocratic tendencies and the backslide of democracy seen globally. We does not need to be so literal, step back to see the full picture.

▲gosub100 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He's not attempting he's fucking doing it. Which to me signals deeper problems with our supposed "system of checks and balances" that we're taught since grade school. The system was specifically designed to prevent this, and yet it's happened. Whether Trump is impeached or imprisoned or whatever is secondary to plugging the holes he used to do this in the first place.

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

While I agree with you, there is also the fact that America chose Trump 2.0 - something we should try to understand and learn from. We, the credentialed elite (most people do not have a college degree), have failed to help our neighbors and fellow citizens.

The advent of the computer changed how automation impacted society. We (majority of HN audience) benefitted immensely, rising in wealth and social acclaim, while at the same time failing to create new tasks for regular people, who's jobs we replaced with technology.

▲mangodrunk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The No Kings protesters seem to want to disregard democracy because they don't like the current president. Repeatedly claimling the sky will fall given an election result seems to be undemocratic. Which certainly goes both ways, but right now it is the democrats who have fallen into this line of thinking. What has he done that is any more undemocratic than previous presidents?

▲myersj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> disregard democracy because they don't like the current president

What, specifically, do you think this means? Do you think they're trying to install a new government without a vote?

Or is "disregard democracy" just word salad nonsense that you're repeating for some reason?

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, they (some democrats and No Kings protesters) seem to want to do some very undemocratic things.

I am very concerned with much of the rhetoric on the left. I used to be more concerned with the right.

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree the far left says concerning things, as I do the hard right.

The difference to me today is I see intentional cruelty to our fellow humans by those currently in power. Especially from the likes of Pete Hegseth and Stephen Miller.

▲glompers an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Naming taxpayer-funded public facilities for a living politician has been historically unusual in America. LaGuardia Airport and Shushan Airport in New Orleans were both named for sitting politicians because they were strongmen or allied with strongmen.

Living ex-presidents were not fair game until the partisan late 1990s. It was still done primarily as a posthumous tribute. Naming taxpayer-funded facilities for a sitting president who hopes to find a way to run again was not done under Franklin Roosevelt and has always remained drastically outside of the Overton Window. While in office, Trump has now directed attention to making the following public items promote his personal brand, name, image or likeness:

US Passports, US entry visas, US Naval class of vessels, US Institute of Peace federal building, National Park entry passes, and currency struck by the US Mint;

Moreover, presidential staff have confirmed that the president has asked for New York Penn Station to be renamed for himself before he would agree to release congressionally approved federal funds for its improvement. He also explored having Washington Dulles International Airport renamed for him; since then, his supporters have renamed Palm Beach International Airport (IATA PBI) for him and changed the IATA designation to DJT.

The president recently diverted over $22MM from Homeland Security and Border Protection to pay for television commercials featuring himself talking about causes dear to himself. I have not tracked whether this spending went to all major broadcast networks or was directed to be spent at networks that the president considered deserved the tax money. The third commercial "was virtually identical to an ad for Trump's Republican reelection campaign in 2024 and showed him walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a 'final battle' against 'globalists' and 'warmongers'." The president has reportedly agreed not to continue spending government money on this series but refuses to reimburse taxpayers the $22MM.

▲AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

All true, and all both alarming and disgusting... with one nit.

In 1926, coinage was struck with the image of the sitting president, in honor of the nation's 150th anniversary. It turns out that Trump on coins for the 250th anniversary has precedent.

The rest of it... yeah. Appalling, especially when you put it all together like that.

▲verdverm 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

> In 1926...

Populism and nationalism were on the rise, much like today. Hopefully we reflect on history and don't do another world war.

▲libertine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think any other president promoted anything like January 6, and doesn't recognize an election of a president to this day - undermining democracy, the same democratic system that elected him twice.

Just that alone is enough I think.

But you can also see his disgust to western democracies, and his fascination with autocracies, the vast majority of them are extremely incompetent - thank God for that at least.

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What about the Russian Hoax to discredit Trump's first presidency?

What about the repeated attempts by left wing fanatics and the rhetoric that supports such actions, like claims of being a king or a fascist?

▲verdverm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What has he done that is any more undemocratic than previous presidents?

Can you recall any other instance where FoxNews boycotted the White House press pool in support of left wing media outlets?

That is unprecedented as far as I know. What did Trump do that inspired FoxNews to make this choice?

▲erulabs 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The executive (1/3rd of the government) being capricious with the press is _undoubtedly_ embarrassing and unamerican, but is so far away from the behavior of a true monarch that the name "no kings" is still farcical at best.

▲serf an hour ago | parent | next [-]

'the press' is seen as a pillar of democracy, without which the rest of things fall apart.

it's more important than you make it seem.

▲verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's one example, there are daily reminders to why "NoKings" has staying power as a movement, compared to the Indivisible brand. I suggest watching a full segment from the oval office, listen to the things that preoccupy his mind.

I do agree there is a ton of hyperbolics in NoKings / Indivisible / the left. I work within these organizations, enduring it, to temper their messages and opinions. Minds are moved in real life while biases are reinforced online. It's hard to forget there is another human with different experiences when you sit face to face.

▲erulabs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh my parents and their partners go to all the no kings rallies. I can see the size of the movement dwindling over time. I'm very happy someone is attempting to temper though, because, as I've said for a decade now, the hyperbolics drive way more support for your opponents than they do for your cause.

▲verdverm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Both extremes are shrinking, independents grow. This is a good thing. The far left and hard right do not represent the majority of people.

Occupy Oligarchy, we are the 99%

▲erulabs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Heck yeah, I appreciate you!

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

The way out starts with community. I cannot understate how much getting involved has positively impacted my life. We have to interact with those different from us if we are to find collaboration and compromise.

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Here are some things Obama did that were unprecedented or very concerning regarding the press:

* Obama extensively used the Espionage Act to uncover government sources used by the press and also against the press directly

* Obama secretly subpoenaed the phone calls of AP reporters

* Obama didn't allow or severely restricted photojournalists

I don't think that it is good to ban the media from the White House, and I do think the much of the criticism is fair, but to then claim that this is undemocratic is wrong.

▲verdverm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Both parties, the oligarchy, are the problem. Power continues to concentrate in the President, Congress does nothing. SCOTUS polls marginally better, the Press has ceased fulfilling their role. Wealth inequality reached an all time high in America. We The People are furious for varied and valid reasons.

Occupy Oligarchy, we are the 99%

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I do think there's a problem and certainly agree with the general sentiment. I also do think we probably have it better than most other countries. So, perhaps we can deal with the oligarchy and fraud within our system. I do think that is what led many to vote for Trump, in that they feel failed by both parties and Trump was an outsider, similar to Bernie's ascendance.

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree, I have not heard it put better than The Tyranny of Merit by Michael Sandel. It goes beyond party politics to the failures of Liberal Democracy stemming from its own success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp5qsEuUOWo

▲jl6 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe the best time to express disapproval of kings is before they happen.

▲r3trohack3r 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More confusing, they change the name of the protest when they organize in places that actually have a king.

▲jareklupinski 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> they change the name of the protest when they organize in places that actually have a king

why tho? it's No King_s_

you can have one

▲MentalM 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds pretty humiliating.

▲roughly 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m glad this situation doesn’t affect you personally, and I hope that continues, but history suggests it won’t.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲b3ing 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump posted on twitter/x several AI pictures of himself as a king, that’s where the name comes from

▲deathanatos an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He's referred to himself as a "dictator". CPAC put out imagery likening him to Caesar. He's referred to himself as "King" and put out that ridiculous AI generated image of him as a king. He put out that ridiculous AI generated image of him as Jesus (and then later gaslit reporters about it). Him and his campaign have repeatedly stated ideations for an (unconstitutional) third term "and beyond".

> except they don't like the guy's policies and conduct.

That too, but his conduct rises above "policies I don't like"; he has shown direct contempt for the other branches of our government. For example, his administration has essentially dismantled or destroyed various functions in violation of the Constitution: take USAID as an example here: USAID is an agency created de jure by Congress, yet it has been de facto dissolved by the administration. We all learned, I think, in grade school, that the job of the executive is to implement the laws passed by Congress. From an article at the time about it:

> “The President does not have constitutional authority to ignore a statute that establishes a department or agency,” says Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

He holds the judicial branch in contempt too: quite literally any time any judge does anything he disagrees with, the judge is blasted as "left-wing radical", even and including cases where the judge was a GOP-appointee. Further examples include ignoring judicial orders and depriving people of access to the courts by physical force (see the many cases of the administration's removal of people from the country; to put it one way: "For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury", or "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene" — Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan & Jackson.)

▲pdpi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would go further than that.

A bunch of European countries (including all of Scandinavia) are constitutional monarchies, and they don't devolve into the sort of anti-democratic behaviour we're all seeing from Trump. As a UK resident, I would prefer if the UK were a republic on general principle, but I fail to see the monarchy causing any real large-scale harm to society (individuals like Andrew notwithstanding).

The real point they should be making is "no more despots". Some despots are kings, but some are styled presidents, such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un.

Also, legitimately elected or appointed officials become despots all the time. Hitler had a plurality (but not outright majority) of votes in 1932. Salazar was an MP and minister of finance, and actually legitimately tried to resign from that role several times over many years before he was eventually nominated to the role of prime minister. Ferdinand Marcos won the Philippine presidential election in 1965 with some amount of intimidation, and the Philippines only formally became a military dictatorship under his rule in 1971.

In many ways, that's the scariest scenario — people who legitimately get elected to power, and then use that power to solidify their illegitimate rule.

▲rootusrootus an hour ago | parent [-]

> As a UK resident, I would prefer if the UK were a republic on general principle, but I fail to see the monarchy causing any real large-scale harm to society (individuals like Andrew notwithstanding).

I'm not a UK resident [obviously] but I thought the parliament was explicitly superior to the monarchy? Isn't the monarchy essentially cultural theater at this point, for centuries now? The moment the king causes a crisis by stepping out of his very narrow lane, one Act of Parliament could make the monarchy a memory, right? I suppose he could refuse ascent then, and that would be a legitimate constitutional crisis.

▲JayNitram 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just watched Trump talk for 5 minutes sitting at the desk in the oval office about how he gets to choose what he likes and the blathering about a seriously good question being 'fake news'. The president acting like a petulant toddler makes me feel like the name couldn't be more appropriate.

▲techblueberry 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it really confusing?

Like first of all I would call a person who tries to pass the checks and balances of a democracy, even if they fail, the target of the ideals or “no kings”

And while we can disagree with the extent to which any one act or bribe elevates someone to dictator, and whether or not all the accusations are true, can you not understand why someone caught up in the narrative ecosystem happening over the past few years may develop the perspective that Trump is trying to consolidate power?

Also “no folks who incrementally Test the limits of power and fail” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

▲kentm an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Like first of all I would call a person who tries to pass the checks and balances of a democracy, even if they fail, the target of the ideals or “no kings”

Its incredibly frustrating to talk to people that take the position of "Well eventually they gave up after pressure from the courts and legislature, so no harm no foul." There's a difference between doing things that have a reasonable legal basis that the courts disagree with and what much of this administration was doing -- sometimes fragrantly ignoring court orders until D politicians got involved to pressure compliance.

Using the 2020 coup attempt as an example, yes, the courts shot down his attempts. The issue is that *he even tried* -- the attempt was transparently not good-faith concern about election integrity.

▲krapp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

A common bad faith political tactic is an attempt to derail conversation and reframe it around linguistic pedantry, to discredit an activist movement by pretending not to comprehend its rhetoric. The same thing happened with "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police." Instead of talking about actual issues, all of the oxygen was taken up with futile attempts to litigate the specific meanings of these terms.

▲goatlover 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No Kings is a catchall for no tyrants or authoritarians. It's what the founding fathers were worried bout when setting up the US representative democracy with checks and balances and a constitution. They didn't want a president to act like a tyrant or a king.

▲aeternum 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Would the founding fathers support a wealth tax and do you?

▲goatlover an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't think they had a wealth tax back then, but if that's somethings the voters had wanted their representatives put into law, I don't see why not. And yes I do support it to prevent even great concentrations of wealth across generations.

But what is that have to do with No Kings being a protest against the president acting like a tyrant?

▲verdverm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reading the Federalist Papers these days feels quite ominous. So many passages describe Trump to a T.

▲kefirlife 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And somehow the federalist society folks stick their head in the mud and make up some nonsensical interpretation, violating the clear and obvious interpretation, to justify further eroding rights and democracy. A party of greedy and traitorous fools taking down the country they pretend to love, enriching themselves at every step.

▲ModernMech 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They were describing their experience dealing with kings and people who want to be kings. King is a personality type, not only a role. In more clinical settings they’re called narcissistic sociopaths, which is what Trump has proven himself to be, so that’s why we call him a king. Sometimes their title is “dictator”, sometimes it’s “emperor” or “fuhrer” or “chairman”. In this case his title is “president”, but he acts like a king, so that’s why we say we don’t want kings. This applies equally to wannabe kings.

▲samatman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I do not believe you have been "reading the Federalist Papers".

I do believe you read a blog post where someone told you there were passages which "describe Trump to a T".

This one, probably: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/how-hamilton-warned-in-the...

▲verdverm a minute ago | parent [-]

I do believe you have projected instead of responding to the best possible interpretation

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwP... (readings)

▲dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the first AI slop nonsense coming out of the White House was Trump wearing a crown on a mock Time magazine cover with "Long Live The King" printed on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/29/the-slopagan...

▲Larrikin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which specific interview are you referring to where a person couldn't articulate a response to a very simple question?

▲unethical_ban 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He tried to overturn an election, his destruction of executive agencies is both unprecedented in scope and illegal in manner, he breaks the law constantly to enrich himself, and he repeatedly ignores the will of the legislature. It isn't "I don't like his tax rates, he's a king". His conduct is anti-democratic.

▲jauntywundrkind 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The Project 2025 agenda (only that latest in a long series of Heritidge Foundation plots), to destroy thr federal government to shatter universities, to generally keep the government from functioning, in a desire to pull people towards libertarianism, towards disbelieving in government, was terrifying to America during the election. Terrifying. No one wanted it.

But Trump disavowed it, said that's not what he was running on. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/us/politics/trump-project...

Today though, this plan to destroy the government is in full effect. It's had remarkable success with the quadfecta of GOapnhouse & Senate doing nothing, allowing the president to seize the power of the purse, enact recisions, whatever. And the partisan hack joke of Florida election recount denier "justices" enabling him at every turn, using shadow docket rulings at an unheard of rate to step in to deny the regular courts their normal motion of things, to forward dear leader along. Executive power we have no belief they will continue to espouse when it's a Democrat in a hopefully less gilded tacky ass White House. Project 2025's progress undoing America & governance has been a horror. https://www.project2025.observer/en

▲MC995 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> was terrifying to America during the election. Terrifying. No one wanted it.

If you can't separate your personal opinion from a factual statement like this, you're not someone worth listening to.

▲giantg2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most political movements (and arguments) in the US use hyperbole. No Kings is hyperbolic to show disapproval of Trump's actions. This single-sided bias on a conceptual is also a hall mark of most political movements in the US. It's fine if someone takes a similar action that I see as good, but it's bad if I think it's bad.

Before I get hated out of existence, please note that I don't like either party or political tactics in general because they've devolved into politically commercialized populism without any empathy or critical thought. Just as an example, deportations under Trump are roughly on trend with Obama, Trump targeting activities are similar to Obama targeting conservative groups with the IRS, Obama lied in the SoTU about the gender wage gap, Obama was hard on journalists (highest prosecutions?) Like Trump has been, and Obama ignored court orders such as issuing immigration permits in violations of a order similar to Trump ignoring orders. I could sit here and hope that any of these abuses results in better oversight, but that would be naive based on the history.

Edit: if you're going to disagree, at least contribute to the discussion.

▲AnimalMuppet 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

Deportations under Obama may have been approximately equal to under Trump. Obama did it without nearly so much violence, though.

Obama lied in the SoTU. Um, OK? I mean, we should expect better than that, but are you seriously saying that Obama lied as much as Trump does?

For me personally, the single biggest thing was January 6, the whole "alternate electors" thing, and Trump pressuring Pence to accept the alternate (fake) ones. That was a full-blown attempt to steal an election that he lost. That I do not forget and do not forgive. And if you can show me something Obama did that's on that scale, well, I'll be surprised.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲tarr11 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

they could have gone with NoTrump which would have had the correct connotation (at least for Bridge Enthusiasts)

▲verdverm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

NoKings has name recognition. I volunteer with my local Indivisible, but people know this name far less.

Trump acts like a king, even if he was elected. He gets tributes and requires deference, clearly visible from the foreign and corporate donations, and behavior of the Republican Party. Or take the "super intelligence" thing, him dictating what a technology shall be called, lest you become an ENEMY OF AMERICA. Or the repeated attempts to silence the media. If we consider the Kennedy Center you brought up, Trump's name was on there, then removed by court order. His response was to close it in spite. The Kennedy Center remains closed to this day, until he gets his way.

Trump has tried to violate most of the Bill of Rights. There are reasons people see every day for why NoKings sticks and resonates.

I do agree NoKings (and broadly the far left) have really bad messaging, a product of echo chambers (imo). I suspect the Democrats will learn the wrong lessons from the midterms... sigh.

▲mangodrunk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You and others are not able to say anything of substance other than repeating the claim that he acts like a king without saying what actions are making you think that. Do you think Obama was a king, given his control and adverserial relationship with the press?

It's also incredibly ironic that the claim that democracy was on the line during the last presidential election given that the democrats first fielded a candidate whose health concerns were downplayed and then a candidate who was not elected in the primary.

▲JayNitram 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I read the replies and see a large number of them listing quite specifically, perhaps you need to reread?

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think because you agree with the sentiment, you think that it has been done, and that vague claims are counted as substantial.

▲JayNitram 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, so what I am seeing is that someone goes, "Hey, holding up the money that congress appropriated is overstepping what has historically been the legislative branches power and usurping it to be an excecutive branch power" and then I look at the specific instances they mention and come to the same or a similar conclusion, I am performing confirmation bias, but you reading their example and equating it to "they don't like Trump" is pure analysis.

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

From the other perspective, they think they have the legal right to do so and that they are wanting to limit wasteful spending. This is still very much inline with working within the constitution. How do you think this is king-like behavior?

▲JayNitram an hour ago | parent [-]

For that specific case? Pretty simple, many of his actions that held up congressionally appropriated funds were found unconstitutional in a number of federal courts. Add to that there being a seeming intention to 'claim' that power and authority by this administration gives a few flags. I guess I need to know what you definition of a President overstepping his powers would be?

▲diputsmonro 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Obama comparison is a great one to bring up to destroy your point. Obama made frustrated comments, but he never revoked their press badges or used government powers to stifle their ability to report on him, which Trump has done. There is a huge gulf between simply making a comment and actually using your official powers to force a change. Trump crossed that gulf, Obama did not.

▲MC995 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

> he never revoked their press badges or used government powers to stifle their ability to report on him

He absolutely did. The selective memory of those who are so vehemently against Trump just makes that side seem ridiculous and disingenuous.

The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists, more than all previous administrations combined.

The Obama Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid.

▲boothby 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Obama certainly did his part in strengthening executive power and your attention to the role that Democrats played in this is well deserved. This whataboutism, however, does not absolve the Republicans who are pushing the Unitary Executive theory -- of which a monarchy is the ultimate expression. Therefore, the name "no kings" -- a catchy title that captures the undeniable thrust of the founding of the USA and warns of the end of the slope our country is accelerating down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't necessarily see this about whataboutism if the people making claims support another person or party that has the same faults that they are claiming.

That is a rather misguided and hyperbolic view of unitary executive theory. The president would still be elected and bounded by the constitution.

▲ModernMech 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s a rather naive view of unitary executive theory if you look at how it’s actually been used. The people pushing it say they are not bound by the Constitution, because part of the theory, which was advanced during a Trump’s first impeachment trial, is that if the President does it, it can’t be a crime. He was acquitted under that theory. Moreover, he argued the proper venue for accountability is the courts. But in court, he argued the proper venue for accountability was impeachment. SCOTUS essentially agreed with that.

So when you say “bound by the Constitution” what you really mean is bound by being able to sway 10 senators from his own party. So… not exactly bound is it, considering he’s already shown he’s willing to arrest his political opponents (and under unitary executive theory it’s within his power to do so)

▲mangodrunk an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? This actually seems like the more democratic approach. Though I think to handle too much sudden change, some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

They of course are bounded by the constitution and haven't claimed otherwise. The court decides if something is unconstitutional and I do think impeachment is certainly a venue for accountability as well

▲boothby 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected?

Yes. In a representative democracy, a plurality of views are represented in government, enabling checks and balances to prevent arbitrary and corrupt governance. When the president is allowed to eviscerate independent bodies and replace their leadership and fill their ranks with loyalists, you get further and further from an expression of the will of the people and closer and closer to totalitarianism.

Russia is a nominal democracy. Putin is the elected leader. He enjoys unchecked power, of which Trump is nakedly envious. Do you think that Russia’s approach is "more democratic" than that of the US because of the strength of its executive?

▲unethical_ban 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't take it seriously when someone compares Obama's comments about, say, Fox, vs. how Trump behaves.

The scope and the shamelessness of his behavior is unprecedented. Nothing any other president has done compares to what Trump has done, with the negative impact to the country, with such explicit opposition to American interests.

Off the top of my head: Illegal tariffs, sicking ICE on society with brutality, trying to overturn elections, constantly lying about election security to sow doubt in our democracy, declaring that any election he or the GOP loses is illegitimate, declaring that anyone who criticizes him is an enemy of the state, enriching himself and his friends with bribes and insider deals 10x what anyone could possibly claim any other politician in the US has done, selling pardons and stopping DOJ investigations for money, destroying the independent agencies that serve the country, threatening to invade allied territories, mocking our allies and reliable trading/military partners, betraying Ukraine for the benefit of his friends and Russia.

I cannot think of a way in which a determined deep Russian asset would behave differently than how Trump operates. If he isn't one, he's putting on a perfect impression.

▲mangodrunk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲thunderfork 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hope you don't think this is a strong response

▲verdverm an hour ago | parent [-]

perhaps they are too "mangodrunk"

as the comment thread gets deeper, they show more of their cards (poor media choices)

▲unethical_ban an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was not always pleased with Obama's behavior, particularly around drone strikes, and I am always skeptical of going after the press, which he did far less than Trump has. I reject that "both sides" have operated on the same scope of malice.

Now,

You hand-wave the methods of ICE by speaking of the desire for immigration enforcement in general. I think uncontrolled, undocumented immigration is a problem, but not the problem, and I don't think sweeping up mostly-law-abiding undocumented residents and placing them into concentration camps, shipping them to foreign prisons for life, or killing them is the proper response. ICE recruits are not well trained, and the leadership was explicitly aggressive and hateful.

You incorrectly call the verified behaviors between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 a hoax. Mueller said action should be taken but that it should be handled by Congress, which did nothing. Counterpoints: https://wannabewonk.com/summary-of-hypocrisies/

You wave off the 2020 Congressional attacks and absolve him of any involvement, and ignore his calls to the GA secretary of state asking for more votes, wave off that everyone one his staff told him the election was legitimate while he continued to call it a fraud, wave off that all his claims about fraud have been rejected in court cases around the country.

You conflate my criticism of Trump's attacks on the voting system with a lack of interest in secure, reliable voting systems in general.

You may not be aware the recent pivots to Russia the invader and away from Ukraine the invaded. I'm interested in the extenuating circumstances that would justify taking the side of the authoritarian invader, supplying them with money and reneging on the spirit of bipartisan legislation signed last month to put more sanctions on Russia, while calling for the ouster of the leader of the invaded country.

▲ModernMech 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You also have the option to learn more about these things, there was a whole violent insurrection you missed. Are you American? It was a big deal here…

▲verdverm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Democracy is in crisis, both parties are to blame.

Try out some Michael Sandel content, see if it speaks to you more than your preferred wing of the Oligarchs.

▲deepfriedchokes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲notahacker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also rejecting kings is part of America's founding mythology, whereas if anything America seems to embrace oligarchy more than most democracies...

▲1234letshaveatw 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is especially true for No Kings attendees

▲tempfile 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I mean the guy was elected, so obviously not a king.

The point of the protest is to prevent him from making himself a king.

> And couldn't even change the name of the art center, so not that powerful.

This is really weak cherry picking. He has successfully removed medical care from millions of Americans, started foreign wars of aggression, destabilised several countries, probably tanked US international reputation for a generation... he is incredibly powerful.

▲verdverm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Trump did actually get the name changed, then a court said take it down, so he closed the arts center down in spite, which it remains to this day

▲ModernMech an hour ago | parent [-]

You could argue he did change the name: the name “Kennedy” is nowhere to be found on the building. The Kennedy Center is in state of existing but also not. It’s mandated to exist, it’s funded, there’s laws and courts that say it should be opened and operational… and yet, it isn’t because one man doesn’t want it to be.