> Vetos almost definitionally aren’t destructive as they prevent things from happening. Government funding flows through congress, and being able to veto it me

> Vetos almost definitionally aren’t destructive as they prevent things from happening. Government funding flows through congress, and being able to veto it means Trump gets enormous control over what goes into it, because legislatures generally won't put things into it that he will refuse to approve, and conversely will put things in that he will approve. Outside of his war powers it's probably the most extreme power in the US. There are three checks against this that I know of. One is if Congress is not aligned party wise, they can punt to a large degree. Non-issue for Trump since they control Congress. Second is 2/3 majority but given our highly partisan state, unlikely to play any role. Third is perception, Congress and President and play the blame game, which affects their re-election. But given Trump's level of influence that is also unlikely to be a playable card, at least in the near future. In all Trump has an enormous ability to shape this country through this power alone. > Pardon power is another like veto: all it does is restrain the government (in this case, from punishing criminals). Not much damage. Yes but if he's pardoning people he knows, and in particular in a quid pro quo fashion, he can use it to effectively do illegal things without doing them himself. It's a serious loophole. Overall if people are voting for him because they like what he's doing that is one thing. But I suspect many people voted for / not against him because they ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and say what's the worst that can happen. And the answer is a _lot_. Though I still believe electing an election denier is the biggest issue, because its the simplest way to short-circuit our institutional protections in the future.