[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.