Trump has exceeded his power and is destroying the basis of what this country has been for 250 years. No other president has gone to this extreme!

[MisterBeale]

JFK was a full-fledged member of the Swamp Club.

He was killed because he broke the rules of the club.

That checks out.

At least now we know why Trump has done the opposite of all of his campaign promises.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That checks out.

At least now we know why Trump has done the opposite of all of his campaign promises.

Oh yeah.

He's a Swamp Rat.

That's the establishment loves him and the voters hate him.

How you comin' on digging up a candidate to defeat whoever Trump choses as his successor?

 

[sartre play]

This is the reality of your post:

View attachment 1221771

No one person, or party is to blame for everything.
Want to blame? blame US. Just to busy, to be involved.
pick a person or party, FOLLOW dont look back.
hope for the best. Take what ever we get.

 

[blackhawk]

 

[ThisIsMe]

The statement was made by the Harvard Law Review. Can you prove THEM wrong?

• Comparison to Other Presidents: The assertion of such vast authority has been described as surpassing the power claims of previous presidents. Critics, legal experts, and analysts have frequently pointed out that the President's powers are not "total" and are instead checked by the Constitution, Congress, and the judiciary.
  Harvard Law Review +5

Based on an analysis of
Harvard Law Reviewarticles and associated Harvard Law School scholarship, the claim that recent presidential actions (specifically under the Trump administration) represent an unprecedented assertion of power is not a singular, biased opinion, but a common theme in academic literature and commentary.
However, a closer look at the context provided by these sources reveals that the claim is more nuanced than a simple "most powerful ever" assertion. Here is a breakdown of the context and arguments:

1. It is a Recognized Academic Debate, Not Just Political Opinion

• "Unprecedented Assertion": Articles in the Harvard Law Review and on the Harvard Law Today site have described moves to restructure the administrative state as an "unprecedented assertion of presidential power".
• "Exclusive Powers": Recent, in-depth analysis of Trump v. United States in the Harvard Law Review suggests the Supreme Court adopted an "apotheosis of the exclusive powers view," which grants the President absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive constitutional power".
  Harvard Law Review +2

2. Contextual Nuances: "The One-Way Ratchet"

• Cumulative Expansion: While specific actions might be described as "surpassing" past claims, legal scholars often point out that presidential power has been steadily expanding for decades. One Harvard Law Review analysis calls this a "one-way ratchet" where each president builds on the previous one's expanded authority.
• "Whataboutism": Some contributors argue that asserting one president is uniquely aggressive ignores the fact that "the Obama Administration was no different, save for its pursuit of progressive ends," and that both the Bush and Obama administrations were similarly assertive in their use of executive power.
• Shifting Roles: While some scholars see recent actions as dangerous, others (including those cited in the Review regarding "presidential administration") argued that increased control over administrative agencies can improve accountability and responsiveness.
  Harvard Law Review +4

3. Historical Comparisons

• Previous Expansions: The Harvard Law Reviewand related discussions acknowledge that other presidents have vastly expanded authority, such as FDR during the New Deal.
• Unitary Executive Theory: The push for a strong, "unitary" executive has been building since the Reagan era, meaning recent actions are often considered a continuation of a 40-year trend rather than a completely new phenomenon.
  Harvard Law Review +4

Conclusion on "Debunking":
The claim is not easily "debunked" as false, because it accurately reflects a significant strain of thought within Harvard Law Review articles and legal academia that views the expansion of presidential power—particularly regarding the administrative state and the "unitary executive" theory—as having reached new, or unprecedented, heights.
Harvard Law Review +2
However, the assertion is context-dependent. It is more accurate to say that scholars view the current era as the culmination of a decades-long, cumulative, and often bipartisan, expansion of executive power, rather than a sudden, one-time departure from a history of limited executive authority.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Trump 2028!

 

[Thinker101]

Though AI is far from providing factual information, it does give answers to questions.

One thing that you need to understand is that searching for facts is not easy and even then, Trump supporters pooh-pooh data, statistics and facts, meaning that spending the time and effort to search for correct information is a waste oIf time on this board.

Then again, at least I spend some effort to present what is "likely to be" the facts and that means that unless you prove that what I presented is untrue, what I stated will stand up, more so than your general dissing of it being AI generated.

To finish it off, 98% of my posts ALSO include videos of Trump stating publicly what the AI answer said was happening.

With this being (supposedly) a debate board, it is up to you to PROVE the OP incorrect.

None of you Trump supporters have ever been able to prove the OP being incorrect...........Let me state it again.......NEVER been able to prove the OP incorrect. You have not even been able to prove the AI response as being incorrect!

Oh, yes, you do deflect doing that by saying "it is an AI generated response". It is sad to realize that Trump supporters do not believe AI (which has a research base involved) but do BELIEVE blindly what a proven pathological liar (Trump) says.

How on earth can anyone dis AI but believe Trump? It is a dichotomy of major proportions

You poor thing, it's so difficult....boo fricken hoo.

 

[Luckyone]

You poor thing, it's so difficult....boo fricken hoo.

thanks for your "caring" remark. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that you are a Trump puppet, who doesn't know anything, who is a critic that offers no solutions or answers, and who is a total piece of shit.

Congratulations!

You just won the gutter award

 

[Luckyone]

Based on an analysis of
Harvard Law Reviewarticles and associated Harvard Law School scholarship, the claim that recent presidential actions (specifically under the Trump administration) represent an unprecedented assertion of power is not a singular, biased opinion, but a common theme in academic literature and commentary.
However, a closer look at the context provided by these sources reveals that the claim is more nuanced than a simple "most powerful ever" assertion. Here is a breakdown of the context and arguments:

1. It is a Recognized Academic Debate, Not Just Political Opinion

• "Unprecedented Assertion": Articles in the Harvard Law Review and on the Harvard Law Today site have described moves to restructure the administrative state as an "unprecedented assertion of presidential power".
• "Exclusive Powers": Recent, in-depth analysis of Trump v. United States in the Harvard Law Review suggests the Supreme Court adopted an "apotheosis of the exclusive powers view," which grants the President absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive constitutional power".
  Harvard Law Review +2

2. Contextual Nuances: "The One-Way Ratchet"

• Cumulative Expansion: While specific actions might be described as "surpassing" past claims, legal scholars often point out that presidential power has been steadily expanding for decades. One Harvard Law Review analysis calls this a "one-way ratchet" where each president builds on the previous one's expanded authority.
• "Whataboutism": Some contributors argue that asserting one president is uniquely aggressive ignores the fact that "the Obama Administration was no different, save for its pursuit of progressive ends," and that both the Bush and Obama administrations were similarly assertive in their use of executive power.
• Shifting Roles: While some scholars see recent actions as dangerous, others (including those cited in the Review regarding "presidential administration") argued that increased control over administrative agencies can improve accountability and responsiveness.
  Harvard Law Review +4

3. Historical Comparisons

• Previous Expansions: The Harvard Law Reviewand related discussions acknowledge that other presidents have vastly expanded authority, such as FDR during the New Deal.
• Unitary Executive Theory: The push for a strong, "unitary" executive has been building since the Reagan era, meaning recent actions are often considered a continuation of a 40-year trend rather than a completely new phenomenon.
  Harvard Law Review +4

Conclusion on "Debunking":
The claim is not easily "debunked" as false, because it accurately reflects a significant strain of thought within Harvard Law Review articles and legal academia that views the expansion of presidential power—particularly regarding the administrative state and the "unitary executive" theory—as having reached new, or unprecedented, heights.
Harvard Law Review +2
However, the assertion is context-dependent. It is more accurate to say that scholars view the current era as the culmination of a decades-long, cumulative, and often bipartisan, expansion of executive power, rather than a sudden, one-time departure from a history of limited executive authority.

leaving all that aside and simply using common sense, can you show me one other president that destroyed so many established government institutions, like Trump did? Or even one president that had only loyalists running the important cabinet positions? or one president with a bigger ego to stroke? Or simply one president that lied more than Trump has?

 

[j-mac]

Ignorant, illiterate whites like you tell this lie because I have explained to your dumb --- that not all whites are racists. You just happen to be a right-wing Republican, Trump-supporting MAGAT, and they are the whites who are racist. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, because you can't disagree with me based on your lived experience as a black person. You disagree with me based n your racist beliefs, which you have posted many times.

You’re ate up with it.

 

[j-mac]

U.S. Citizen Wrongfully Deported to Mexico, Settles His Case Against the Federal Government | ACLU

www.aclu.org

Mark Lyttle, an American citizen with mental disabilities who was wrongfully detained and deported to Mexico and forced to live on the streets and in prisons for months, settled his case against the federal government this week.

Lyttle will receive $175,000 for the suffering he endured after being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who deported him despite ample evidence that he was a U.S. citizen.

So, he got arrested for assaulting ICE and was serving a 100 day sentence. And, upon intake the mix up was a clerical error by the intake clerk…Now, should someone have caught that yes. And his deportation wrong? Yes.

I’m glad he won his $175,000 judgement, and hope it’s not appealed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

leaving all that aside and simply using common sense, can you show me one other president that destroyed so many established government institutions, like Trump did? Or even one president that had only loyalists running the important cabinet positions? or one president with a bigger ego to stroke? Or simply one president that lied more than Trump has?

Based on historical analyses of foreign policy, several U.S. presidents have been identified as having weakened, bypassed, or actively dismantled international norms and institutions to advance American interests, though often in different ways than the "America First" approach.

• George W. Bush: His administration significantly damaged the credibility of global institutions by invading Iraq in 2003 without the explicit authorization of the UN Security Council, directly bypassing the UN. This was seen as a major blow to the post-WWII international order and the UN's authority.
• Richard Nixon: He violated international and domestic norms by initiating a secret war in Cambodia, ignoring international law regarding sovereignty and attempting to evade Congressional oversight. His administration also worked to undermine democratic processes, such as in Chile in 1973.
• Harry S. Truman: While central to establishing many post-war institutions, his decision to bomb Nagasaki was influenced by a desire to intimidate the Soviet Union, highlighting a willingness to challenge the emerging, more collaborative global order.
• Ronald Reagan: His administration often bypassed international norms and institutions to pursue its own foreign policy, such as during the Iran-Contra affair, which involved covert actions that undermined international legal standards.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: He broke with long-standing domestic norms by running for more than two terms, which forced a constitutional change, and attempted to challenge the Supreme Court.
  The Washington Post +4

These actions generally fall under the umbrella of US interventionism and unilateralism, which, according to historians, have long challenged international institutions and the stability of the global order, even before the specific, broader dismantling policies of the Trump era

 

[Luckyone]

Based on historical analyses of foreign policy, several U.S. presidents have been identified as having weakened, bypassed, or actively dismantled international norms and institutions to advance American interests, though often in different ways than the "America First" approach.

• George W. Bush: His administration significantly damaged the credibility of global institutions by invading Iraq in 2003 without the explicit authorization of the UN Security Council, directly bypassing the UN. This was seen as a major blow to the post-WWII international order and the UN's authority.
• Richard Nixon: He violated international and domestic norms by initiating a secret war in Cambodia, ignoring international law regarding sovereignty and attempting to evade Congressional oversight. His administration also worked to undermine democratic processes, such as in Chile in 1973.
• Harry S. Truman: While central to establishing many post-war institutions, his decision to bomb Nagasaki was influenced by a desire to intimidate the Soviet Union, highlighting a willingness to challenge the emerging, more collaborative global order.
• Ronald Reagan: His administration often bypassed international norms and institutions to pursue its own foreign policy, such as during the Iran-Contra affair, which involved covert actions that undermined international legal standards.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: He broke with long-standing domestic norms by running for more than two terms, which forced a constitutional change, and attempted to challenge the Supreme Court.
  The Washington Post +4

These actions generally fall under the umbrella of US interventionism and unilateralism, which, according to historians, have long challenged international institutions and the stability of the global order, even before the specific, broader dismantling policies of the Trump era

The KEY word to my post is "MORE". At no time has anything been said about Trump being the only president to do anything like this. The KEY to the OP is that "no president has ever gone as extreme as Trump has done.

Please address that simple statement and prove that other presidents have done that MORE than Trump

 

[dblack]

The KEY word to my post is "MORE". At no time has anything been said about Trump being the only president to do anything like this. The KEY to the OP is that "no president has ever gone as extreme as Trump has done.

Please address that simple statement and prove that other presidents have done that MORE than Trump

Every single idiotic, corrupt thing that Trump does is excused by MAGA. They don't even really seem to care that their excuses are laughable, that they can't be taken seriously, that they are making fools of themselves.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The KEY word to my post is "MORE". At no time has anything been said about Trump being the only president to do anything like this. The KEY to the OP is that "no president has ever gone as extreme as Trump has done.

Please address that simple statement and prove that other presidents have done that MORE than Trump

Several U.S. presidents have taken actions deemed more "extreme"—often defined as violating constitutional norms, expanding executive power, or causing significant loss of life—than those of Donald Trump, particularly during times of war or national crisis.

Key historical examples often cited by historians and legal scholars include:

• Abraham Lincoln: Suspended the writ of habeas corpus (allowing for detention without trial), authorized military trials of civilians, and called for 75,000 military volunteers without congressional approval at the start of the Civil War.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR): Ordered the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens during WWII, which is widely considered one of the most severe civil liberties violations in US history. He also issued 3,721 executive orders, the most in US history, and attempted to pack the Supreme Court.
• Woodrow Wilson: Signed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which were used to silence critics of WWI, and oversaw the government's crackdown on civil liberties during the Red Scare.
• Andrew Jackson: Defied the Supreme Court regarding the treatment of Native Americans, leading to the "Trail of Tears," and frequently ignored Congress to act as the sole representative of the national interest.
• Richard Nixon: Authorized secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia (bypassing Congress), ordered surveillance of political enemies, and impounded funds authorized by Congress, leading to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
• George W. Bush: Authorized enhanced interrogation techniques (widely described as torture) and initiated the indefinite detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
  Harvard Law School +8

Contextual Factors

• Executive Orders: While Trump's actions have been controversial, FDR holds the record for the most executive orders (3,721), while modern presidents like Obama (276) and Trump (220 in his first term) have lower averages.
• Unprecedented Nature: Some analysts argue that while past presidents took more drastic physical actions (internment, war), Trump's actions are considered unprecedented in terms of challenging democratic norms and institutions in a peacetime environment.
• Polarization: Trump has been ranked as the most polarizing president in surveys, often compared with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson for low historical rankings.

 

[Luckyone]

Several U.S. presidents have taken actions deemed more "extreme"—often defined as violating constitutional norms, expanding executive power, or causing significant loss of life—than those of Donald Trump, particularly during times of war or national crisis.

Key historical examples often cited by historians and legal scholars include:

• Abraham Lincoln: Suspended the writ of habeas corpus (allowing for detention without trial), authorized military trials of civilians, and called for 75,000 military volunteers without congressional approval at the start of the Civil War.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR): Ordered the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens during WWII, which is widely considered one of the most severe civil liberties violations in US history. He also issued 3,721 executive orders, the most in US history, and attempted to pack the Supreme Court.
• Woodrow Wilson: Signed the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which were used to silence critics of WWI, and oversaw the government's crackdown on civil liberties during the Red Scare.
• Andrew Jackson: Defied the Supreme Court regarding the treatment of Native Americans, leading to the "Trail of Tears," and frequently ignored Congress to act as the sole representative of the national interest.
• Richard Nixon: Authorized secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia (bypassing Congress), ordered surveillance of political enemies, and impounded funds authorized by Congress, leading to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
• George W. Bush: Authorized enhanced interrogation techniques (widely described as torture) and initiated the indefinite detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
  Harvard Law School +8

Contextual Factors

• Executive Orders: While Trump's actions have been controversial, FDR holds the record for the most executive orders (3,721), while modern presidents like Obama (276) and Trump (220 in his first term) have lower averages.
• Unprecedented Nature: Some analysts argue that while past presidents took more drastic physical actions (internment, war), Trump's actions are considered unprecedented in terms of challenging democratic norms and institutions in a peacetime environment.
• Polarization: Trump has been ranked as the most polarizing president in surveys, often compared with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson for low historical rankings.

No one has reached Trump for the extreme seen!

 

[Mac1958]

No one has reached Trump for the extreme seen!

No one. Not even close. Not within a million miles. Not in behavior, not in temperament, not in sheer, everyday volume of madness, recklessness and childishness.

They keep trying to normalize him by comparing him to, or equating him with, anyone they can think of. Constantly.

This shows you that they know what he is. And it shows you that they're fine with it.

The man person they're supporting is disgraceful, he's obscene, and therefore so are they.

 

[Lockback]

No one. Not even close. Not within a million miles. Not in behavior, not in temperament, not in sheer, everyday volume of madness, recklessness and childishness.

They keep trying to normalize him by comparing him to, or equating him with, anyone they can think of. Constantly.

This shows you that they know what he is. And it shows you that they're fine with it.

The man person they're supporting is disgraceful, he's obscene, and therefore so are they.

Just for the record, I'm totally fine with Trump.
I wasn't at first. In 2015 and well into 2016, I genuinely was offended by him, particularly the way he treated fellow Republicans like Cruz and Rubio.
But then two things happened:
1) After he was elected President (I abstained from voting for that office), I marveled at how outrageous his critics were. There's an old saying, "You tell the measure of the man by the enemies he makes."
Trump made all the right enemies: the mainstream media, which I hate, and Far Left Democrats, who I also hate.
2) He's a fighter. Never in modern American history has the opposition to American values, traditions and culture been higher and Trump battles that like nobody else in our history. I love him for that.
He's a flawed human being. Guess what?
We all are.
I don't agree with all of his ideas.
I don't agree with all of his positions.
I don't agree with everything he says or the way he says it.
But after watching what the Left tried to do to him during and after his first term, it only strengthened my support.
I now rank him among the most consequential Presidents in American history ... and I mean that in a very, very positive way. He has fought against this woke bullshit and I am absolutely convinced he's doing the right things for the right reasons.
He genuinely loves this country.
And I do too.

 

[Lockback]

So Mac1958 thinks my take on Trump is funny.
Look at your party.
Look at what they represent: they can't tell a vagina from a penis.
Your party offers NOTHING.
You back illegal aliens over American citizens.
So laugh all you want, pal. But your side and your party suck ass and fail at everything they do.
I can go on and on and on. But I'll relent for the time being ...

 

[theHawk]

The claim:

Trump has exceeded his power and is destroying the basis of what this country

The “proof”:

Trump has expressed that

Trump has stated that "all executive power is vested in the one man elected by the whole nation,"

So President Trump talking means he’s exceeded his authority?

Also, haven’t may of his actions been curbed or stopped by the courts? How is that him “exceeding his authority”?