[wizzwizz4]

> A king or queen needs no such justification

Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article:

> Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45]

Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch?

[ericmay]

Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here.

He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress.

Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is.

Your placing of King in quotes is bizarre. Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king, and your takeaway is to try to retcon history and claim the king was not a king?

Your argument that someone can't act like a king unless they're breaking laws is a bad argument (and ignores the fact that this one is doing both). Don't let your reality tv fool you.

If that's your criteria as to who is "not acting like a king", I’m not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

[ericmay]

> Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king

No, I don't. An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument.

For example, you refer to King George being stymied or frustrated by some act of Parliament. Is he a king or president? Our president today (and since the founding of America) is similarly stymied and frustrated by some act of Congress. Are the presidents kings or are the kings presidents?

It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part.

This is demonstrably false: King George, who was an "actual king", was constrained by some checks and balances, yet he was still a king. We know that much is correct. Therefore your personal definition here must be what is incorrect. And indeed, it is. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument.

It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.

[ericmay]

Ok then all presidents were acting as kings or King George was just acting more like a president.

> It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.

Yes I agree that you are doing that here. And now you've reached the point to where you're shifting definitions and cherry-picking various historic world leaders to draw inane conclusions and comparisons.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Ok then all presidents were acting as kings or King George was just acting more like a president.

You're confusing how someone acts with which laws they are subject to, and as a result, you've been reduced to inane wordplay as your only argument.

Previously, even though a US president theoretically had the power to act like a king, they have mostly maintained a precedent of not doing so*.

Now, a new precedent has been set: A president acting like a king*.

Hope that clears things up.

* - I realize you may personally disagree with this. That's okay. I'm open to hearing arguments otherwise, but the ones you've put forth so far were unsuccessful at swaying people from the consensus stated above.