No Kings Day Protest - October 18, 2025

Trumpet said:
Poor Topless simply doesn't understand what democracy is all about.
Click to expand...


Donald Trump won every single swing state, the Electoral College, and the popular vote in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, which was a free and fair democratic process certified by all relevant authorities with no widespread irregularities reported.

Isn't that what democracy is all about?
 
  • Trump swept all seven major battleground states—Arizona (11 EVs), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10)—securing their combined 93 electoral votes. This included flipping six from Biden's 2020 wins (all except North Carolina, which Trump held).
  • Trump earned 312 electoral votes to Kamala Harris's 226, surpassing the 270 needed for victory.
  • Trump received 77,284,118 votes (49.8%) to Harris's 74,981,313 (48.4%), marking the first Republican popular vote win since 2004.

So, explain what you think a bunch of boomers with signs are going to accomplish.
 
Trumpet said:
Poor me???? Maybe it's you who needs to get his head straight.
Click to expand...


Yes, poor you. If you didn't protest Obama's actions, why didn't you?

Which actions of the duly-elected current POTUS are you objecting to?

Are you under the impression that you can have an election do-over, or something?
 
Diogenes said:
Yes, poor you. If you didn't protest Obama's actions, why didn't you?

Which actions of the duly-elected current POTUS are you objecting to?

Are you under the impression that you can have an election do-over, or something?
Click to expand...
The people voted for a president, but instead they got a wannabe dictator.
 

​

​

​

​

King Obama our latest monarch​


The idea that President Obama acts as if he is the king of the United States or a tyrant, instead of president, has become a cliché over the past five years. While to many Americans, the idea may seem over the top, it has deep roots in the American consciousness. Many Americans have long thought our Revolution simply replaced one despot with another. We moved from King George III to (insert the president of the day).

Unlike real kings, American presidents are elected, but they nevertheless enjoy powers a king would envy. George Mason, who declined to sign our Constitution in 1787, predicted this. He said U.S. presidents would be "elected monarchs."

And just as Mason predicted, we're seeing something like monarchical government under President Obama. In truth, however, the expansion of presidential power has been going on in one way or another under most of the presidents who came before. Obama has simply exploited the opportunities implicit in his office. The Framers thought they had erected a wall against rule by a king, but Obama found cracks in the wall, cracks with the fingerprints of presidents such as Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. If it's blame you're looking for, blame presidential government, not Obama.

The problem with presidents goes beyond the United States. The libertarian Cato Institute rates the U.S. as the world's 17th most economically free nation. All the democracies ahead of it are parliamentary governments. Looking more broadly around the world, an empirical study I conducted found that presidential governments are less free than parliamentary ones. The U.S. has had a good run for 225 years, but the time has come to reconsider.

It's easy to see why there are presidents for life but not prime ministers for life. The American system of separation of powers, which divided the responsibilities of Congress and the presidency, was supposed to protect freedom by preventing power from being concentrated in a single branch of government. But that's not how it turned out. Like a boomerang that swings back and strikes the person who launched it, the separation of powers has served to prevent Congress from reining in an imperial president.

Think of parliamentary non-confidence motions. With one majority vote, a government can be pushed from office by the House of Commons, and compare it with the cumbersome impeachment procedure of the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate after a majority vote in the House. Here's a trivia question: How often has a U.S. president been removed from office: Never.

Think also of the difference between the president's ability to avoid scrutiny and the prime minister's duty to attend parliament to answer questions thrown from every direction. The American system produces one kind of leader and parliamentary government, something different, quick on his feet and accustomed to brickbats and ridicule.

Finally, there's the difference between a parliamentary system that separates the head of state (the king or queen) from the head of government (the prime minister) and a presidential system that unites both in the president. Politicians should be figures of ridicule and not of royal reverence.

Should we be surprised, then, if presidents make laws by regulatory diktat, unmake laws by refusing to enforce them, or make wars when they want? It's in the nature of things in a presidential system. It is what happens when a president pokes his head through what was thought an impenetrable wall. It's dangerous, and we must hope for a revival of congressional power that seals up the wall again. That's what the Framers would have wanted.

eu.usatoday.com

King Obama our latest monarch: Column

Separation of powers prevents Congress from reining in imperial presidents.
eu.usatoday.com
 
Trumpet said:
The people voted for a president, but instead they got a wannabe dictator.
Click to expand...


So you say.

I'll ask again:

If you didn't protest Obama's actions, why didn't you?

Which actions of the duly-elected current POTUS are you objecting to?

Are you under the impression that you can have an election do-over, or something?

Of course, I'll understand if you can't answer the questions you've been asked.
 
Diogenes said:

​

​

​

​

King Obama our latest monarch​


The idea that President Obama acts as if he is the king of the United States or a tyrant, instead of president, has become a cliché over the past five years. While to many Americans, the idea may seem over the top, it has deep roots in the American consciousness. Many Americans have long thought our Revolution simply replaced one despot with another. We moved from King George III to (insert the president of the day).

Unlike real kings, American presidents are elected, but they nevertheless enjoy powers a king would envy. George Mason, who declined to sign our Constitution in 1787, predicted this. He said U.S. presidents would be "elected monarchs."

And just as Mason predicted, we're seeing something like monarchical government under President Obama. In truth, however, the expansion of presidential power has been going on in one way or another under most of the presidents who came before. Obama has simply exploited the opportunities implicit in his office. The Framers thought they had erected a wall against rule by a king, but Obama found cracks in the wall, cracks with the fingerprints of presidents such as Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. If it's blame you're looking for, blame presidential government, not Obama.

The problem with presidents goes beyond the United States. The libertarian Cato Institute rates the U.S. as the world's 17th most economically free nation. All the democracies ahead of it are parliamentary governments. Looking more broadly around the world, an empirical study I conducted found that presidential governments are less free than parliamentary ones. The U.S. has had a good run for 225 years, but the time has come to reconsider.

It's easy to see why there are presidents for life but not prime ministers for life. The American system of separation of powers, which divided the responsibilities of Congress and the presidency, was supposed to protect freedom by preventing power from being concentrated in a single branch of government. But that's not how it turned out. Like a boomerang that swings back and strikes the person who launched it, the separation of powers has served to prevent Congress from reining in an imperial president.

Think of parliamentary non-confidence motions. With one majority vote, a government can be pushed from office by the House of Commons, and compare it with the cumbersome impeachment procedure of the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate after a majority vote in the House. Here's a trivia question: How often has a U.S. president been removed from office: Never.

Think also of the difference between the president's ability to avoid scrutiny and the prime minister's duty to attend parliament to answer questions thrown from every direction. The American system produces one kind of leader and parliamentary government, something different, quick on his feet and accustomed to brickbats and ridicule.

Finally, there's the difference between a parliamentary system that separates the head of state (the king or queen) from the head of government (the prime minister) and a presidential system that unites both in the president. Politicians should be figures of ridicule and not of royal reverence.

Should we be surprised, then, if presidents make laws by regulatory diktat, unmake laws by refusing to enforce them, or make wars when they want? It's in the nature of things in a presidential system. It is what happens when a president pokes his head through what was thought an impenetrable wall. It's dangerous, and we must hope for a revival of congressional power that seals up the wall again. That's what the Framers would have wanted.

eu.usatoday.com

King Obama our latest monarch: Column

Separation of powers prevents Congress from reining in imperial presidents.
eu.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
Another opinion piece.
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.

I'll ask again:

If you didn't protest Obama's actions, why didn't you?

Which actions of the duly-elected current POTUS are you objecting to?

Are you under the impression that you can have an election do-over, or something?

Of course, I'll understand if you can't answer the questions you've been asked.
Click to expand...
Obama is no longer president, and what actions of his should I have protested?????
 
Trumpet said:
Obama is no longer president, and what actions of his should I have protested?????
Click to expand...


Nobody said he is.

Answer the questions you've been asked, please.

If you didn't protest Obama's actions, why didn't you?

Which actions of the duly-elected current POTUS are you objecting to?

Are you under the impression that you can have an election do-over, or something?
 

“No Kings” Protest Is Too Late — Obama Already Wore the Crown​




yournews.com

“No Kings” Protest Is Too Late — Obama Already Wore the Crown – [your]NEWS

The recent “No Kings” protest may make for a catchy slogan, but its message arrives about a decade too late. The truth is, if Americans were truly worried about presidents acting like monarchs, that conversation should have started during the Obama administration — not with Donald Trump.
yournews.com yournews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top