• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Specifically - what is No Kings? Specific policies only.

Exactly.

Kings for me but not for thee. Do the anti-Trumps ever stop to think as to why we call them whiny partisans?
What they simply cannot see, and what several Democratic Strategist - ALSO SAID - that calling it "No Kings" is ineffective because there is no basis for the claim. It is yet another overly dramatic, removal of all proportionality and downright hypocritical nonsense.
Also as one person said - they are going for a general themed term because they can't label it for what it really is - anti-ICE. Which would put ultra hypocrisy because Trump will have to deport 5 times as many as he has currently to beat Obama's ICE deportations.
 
"The phrase "Obama acting like a king" originated as a pointed Republican critique during Barack Obama's presidency (2009–2017), primarily aimed at his use of executive orders and actions perceived as bypassing Congress. It became a recurring talking point among conservatives, especially on issues like immigration reform, environmental regulations, and gun control. For instance, in November 2014, House Speaker John Boehner publicly stated, "The president has said before that 'he's not king' and he's 'not an emperor,' but he sure is acting like one," in response to Obama's executive actions on immigration.

cbsnews.com
Similar rhetoric came from Sen. Rand Paul in 2013, who accused Obama of acting "like a king" on gun violence measures.

huffpost.com
Obama himself pushed back against the label multiple times, notably in 2010 when he said, "I'm president, I'm not king," while discussing immigration policy constraints.

scotusblog.com
This wasn't unique to Obama—executive orders have been a bipartisan tool since George Washington issued the first one in 1789—but the volume ramped up under him amid gridlock with a Republican-led Congress. By 2016, Obama had issued 277 executive orders, fewer than George W. Bush (291) or Bill Clinton (364), but critics focused on high-profile ones like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

nbcnews.com
A 2014 USA Today op-ed summed up the sentiment: "The idea that President Obama acts as if he is the king of the United States or a tyrant... has become a cliché over the past five years."

usatoday.com
Defenders, like CNN commentator Dean Obeidallah in 2012, argued that liberals weren't calling for monarchy but for Obama to work within a dysfunctional system where Congress wouldn't cooperate on key legislation.

cnn.com
Fast-forward to 2025, and the phrase is seeing a resurgence on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), often as a whataboutism in defenses of President Trump's policies. Amid recent protests and rhetoric accusing Trump of authoritarian overreach (e.g., "No Kings" marches), users are dredging up old Obama critiques to highlight perceived hypocrisy. Posts from mid-October 2025 frequently share a 2017 NBC News headline—"Republicans Alarmed Over Obama's Executive Orders, Cheer Trump's"—to argue that Obama set the precedent for executive boldness, with captions like "Obama declared himself a king" or "Hypocrites forgot this."

nbcnews.com
These often tie into broader 2024 election echoes, where Obama himself flipped the script at a Harris rally, calling Trump a "wannabe king."

youtube.com
In short, it's a politically charged meme that's less about literal monarchy and more about debates over executive power. Both sides have wielded it selectively—Republicans against Obama, Democrats (and Obama) against Trump—reflecting how "kingly" behavior is in the eye of the beholder when your team isn't in charge. If this references a specific recent event or post, feel free to share more details for a deeper dive."


Information above AI generated:

I think Trump actually wants to be a King though. That's why he's not trustworthy as president. He'd love absolute power. It's so obvious that's what he wants.
 
I think Trump actually wants to be a King though. That's why he's not trustworthy as president. He'd love absolute power. It's so obvious that's what he wants.

You think, but you don't know for certain.
Your own anti-Trump confirmation bias appears to color your world.
 
What they simply cannot see, and what several Democratic Strategist - ALSO SAID - that calling it "No Kings" is ineffective because there is no basis for the claim. It is yet another overly dramatic, removal of all proportionality and downright hypocritical nonsense.
Also as one person said - they are going for a general themed term because they can't label it for what it really is - anti-ICE. Which would put ultra hypocrisy because Trump will have to deport 5 times as many as he has currently to beat Obama's ICE deportations.
Look at you getting all excited.

Nobody gives a shit if you don't like it.
 
Maybe if we gave examples they'd see the hypocrisy in the No Kings mantras.
There's certainly an argument to be made about the growing power of the Executive Branch, and the willingness of Congress to cede that power; this has run across party lines. That would be a good argument to make, but it doesn't seem you're making it

Most of Biden's Covid mandates blocked by Supreme Court which affected millions, and were seen as coercive federal overreach.
Actually no, "most" weren't. He was two out of four in this regard.

Supreme Court ruled Biden's Student Loan forgiveness as unconstitutional. Despite that, Biden went ahead later and forgave $136B more through other channels.
This is fair, though the "other channels" were not illegal ones since SCOTUS ruled on the particular method the administration chose versus a flat out "student loan bail outs are forbidden" framing.

Biden paused new leases on federal lands/waters and canceled Keystone XL, ignoring a court order to resume. He then proceeded to drain Strategic Petroleum Reserve to historic lows causing the price of gas to unaffordable levels.
This one's accurate as well, since he did this via Executive Order. The problem here is the same one the MAGAverse has complained about during this administration, which is whether district judges can issue nationwide injunctions. What's your take on this?

Biden aimed to protect 30% of U.S. lands/waters by 2030 (UN/WEF-inspired), designating 1.5M acres without Senate confirmation for roles like John Podesta's "climate czar." Because he bypassed congress this was seen as a massive federal land grab.
Congress ultimately addressed this and defeated his effort via legislation, though calling it a "land grab" is a bit hyperbolic since this was protecting waterways from pollution than it was seizing land.

Biden's DOJ and FBI targeted parents at school boards, hence, he was criticized as weaponizing federal agencies against dissent.
There's been nothing supporting the premise you copied from an chat bot regarding why the FBI targeted these parents, and I see you conveniently left out the parents in question were those who made threats during school board meetings.

The Biden administration used censorship and pressured Big Tech.
Administration coordinated with platforms to suppress COVID origins, vaccine skepticism, Hunter Biden stories, and election information even when accurate.
Federal judge called it the "most massive attack on free speech" and it also included pressuring Amazon to censor books.
Yep, this was a big mess. However, there's nuance here because the action they tried to take was to prevent misinformation that could affect people's health. I think the lesson from COVID is that the government should ignore pandemics and let the public sort it out on their own. I do, however, think they overreacted in trying to dismiss contrarian viewpoints. As for the Hunter Biden story, that's been debated to death and even the mainstream media outlets like Fox News didn't pick up the initial story. Did it make sense for the government to get involved? Maybe not, but that's not a vindication of that story either.

Not sure I'd trust a chat bot that starts spamming users with "I am Mecha-Hitler" messages, but YMMV.
 
What they simply cannot see, and what several Democratic Strategist - ALSO SAID - that calling it "No Kings" is ineffective because there is no basis for the claim. It is yet another overly dramatic, removal of all proportionality and downright hypocritical nonsense.
Also as one person said - they are going for a general themed term because they can't label it for what it really is - anti-ICE. Which would put ultra hypocrisy because Trump will have to deport 5 times as many as he has currently to beat Obama's ICE deportations.
That makes perfect sense as to why they implemented the phony platform known as "No Kings". Thank your for sharing the above.
 
What they simply cannot see, and what several Democratic Strategist - ALSO SAID - that calling it "No Kings" is ineffective because there is no basis for the claim. It is yet another overly dramatic, removal of all proportionality and downright hypocritical nonsense.
Also as one person said - they are going for a general themed term because they can't label it for what it really is - anti-ICE. Which would put ultra hypocrisy because Trump will have to deport 5 times as many as he has currently to beat Obama's ICE deportations.
Man, not sure why this chaps the MAGAverse's butts so much. It's apparently a dumb thing, but there's so much harping about it. This kind of reminds me of those politicians who preach family values then get busted with hookers.
:)
 
Posh.

All I have is this regular coffee that tastes like hot antifreeze and regret.
That really sucks. I will point you to the path that takes you to much greener pastures:

1044px-Moka_Express_Bialetti.png
+
img19o.jpg
+
Single_Origin_Product_Picture_with_pattern-01.png
= 😁


Never settle for bad coffee!
 
That really sucks. I will point you to the path that takes you to much greener pastures:

1044px-Moka_Express_Bialetti.png
+
img19o.jpg
+
Single_Origin_Product_Picture_with_pattern-01.png
= 😁


Never settle for bad coffee!
Can you even IMAGINE the squad seeing me drinking frou-frou coffee?

I'd never hear the ****ing end of it. They'd club up and buy me a tutu.
 
That makes about as much sense as "No Kings"
It doesn't given all of the consistent froth from MAGA aligned posters, who one would at least come prepared to debate specific points but instead come poorly prepared and don't even seem to get what the protests were about. Instead, silly assumptions that take the slogan literally to all sorts silliness exhibited in this thread, particularly your OP in which you seem to think this is some kind of political platform to generate policies.
🤭
 
Back
Top Bottom