I think that's true in the general sense but a lot of that hasn't been really tested simply because of the power of tradition. Part of what [may] be dangerous a

I think that's true in the general sense but a lot of that hasn't been really tested simply because of the power of tradition. Part of what [may] be dangerous about Trump is that he is perceived as willing to run roughshod through political convention. Declarations of martial law (in particular if the military can be convinced to go along with it) or other more extraordinary actions would have a powerful effect on the country. During his presidency Trump showed that a president CAN have profound effects on the economic system. He ordered changes to trading policy with China that had effects that were obvious and felt (regardless of the merit of the actions). A lot of times presidents are simply unwilling to risk rocking the boat, preferring stability and the status quo. There is a lot of risk of ruining ones re-election chances and damaging the electability of congresspersons of ones party and thus the party itself losing political power (and thus the sweet teet of special interest lobbying money and such that comes along with wielding enough power to represent those interests). Trump--and I agree with this sentiment myself--is more willing to do something radical. That doesn't mean anything radical he does will be intrinsically bad or have bad effects, it's possible that he could affect positive radical change too. So, while it's true our president doesn't normally affect too much, it isn't purely because the office lacks the power to affect the economy.