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 an hour 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 40 minutes 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)