President Donald Trump

Does this logic extend infinitely far in all directions? If some team's mascot was the watermelon eaters, and the team's logo was a stereotypical caricature of a black man straight from the 1920s, would you be making the same argument?

I do not see any quotes.
I'm on PC with the new 2p2 version.
Not even a blank or a popup saying this message is hidden.
Just complete absence.

Which weird because you don't even have the choice to click read, it's like the void.

Neither did the left. I don't have the patience for this right now so just going to tell you that continue to express these extremist lies will catch you a ban for the foreseeable future

Its literally, objectively, and measurably false

Final warning, shut the **** up with this nonsense

If you fire people in the executive branch without replacing them, that's literally reducing the power of the executive branch. Fewer people to execute whatever you want to do with that department or agency.

Closing down agencies, same thing.

Trump increased ICE funding, and decreased a lot of everything else in government. That's a reduction in the power of the executive (and he just started, most reductions are being litigated even if the stay orders have mostly been lifted by SCOTUS. So we still don't know the full extent of those reductions once the legal part is settled).

I don't understand how you can claim that saying this very obvious things is a bannable offense. Nor how you can argue that cutting a department is anything but a literal reduction in executive power.

These dipshits just repeat the same lies over and over, then act all victimized when they’re called out on it. It’s such a boring playbook.

Firing people is not reducing power of the executive branch

Closing down isn't either, its just consolidating

Reduced funding isn't reduced power

You are spewing nonsense and you aren't even trying to frame it as not nonsense, you just expect people to be too exhausted to continue to call out your nonsense

Also completely ignoring the record deficit increase. Not one dollar has been “saved.”

Too exhausted is definitely the goal. Just a torrent of empty words that never ends.

This is one thing I object to in the discussion - using mascot as a synonym for nickname. Here's the difference. The University of Georgia is nicknamed the "Bulldogs". Its mascot is a specific bulldog named "UGA". University of Texas is called the "Longhorns". Its mascot is a longhorn steer named "Bevo". See the difference?

Also, as an aside, in regards to your notional "Watermelon Eaters". A high school in a town in Texas has the nickname "Cottonpickers". What do you think of that? (Hint: Only about 5% of the town is white.)

You've successfully made the transition from right wing to full on cultist.

If you have a bipartisan executive branch and you fire all leftists, that doesn't reduce power for the right

If you close down an agency and give the power that agency wielded to a consolidated agency that fired all leftists that doesn't reduce the power

If you reduce funding to all services then overfund your personal Gestapo police force well, surprise, thats not reducing power either

Shocking you can be this dishonest. Wait no its not, its just how you operate

Are you telling me that dictators are in charge of vast bureaucracies?

I didn't claim any dollar was saved. But cutting taxes isn't an increase in the power of governmnt either. Government doesn't do MORE STUFF after you pass the tax cuts.

If you have a bipartisan executive branch you are violating the constitution. The executive branch should be fully, completly partisan according to who won presidential elections.

If you close down an agency and stop most of that agency functions and move a few remaining ones to another in a consolidation, that's a reduction of power.

"reduced funding isn't reduced power" is possible the most absurd take i have ever read about cuts to the federal government.

Power is the ability to accomplish things. With less resources , that ability is objectively reduced. That's it. It's incredible to claim otherwise.

In what way has he reduced the power of his office as a net? He still went to war without congressional approval, he still acts unilaterally to set policy that is given to the congress, he has gone to the supreme court and gotten them to expand the power of the presidency on multiple occasions including establishing it’s legal to deport to random countries, etc.

There’s literally no way he has reduced the POWER (potential) of the presidency, just reduced funding for certain things (in ways that expanded the power of the presidency fyi).

Funding wasn't reduced, it was moved around. Its absurd you can point to an increased deficit and also in the same breath claim that funding was reduced

Its objectively nonsense

Ah, sorry I still use the old version, so wasn't aware they improved the ignore function also.

Given you are usually rational, can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to intervene on public education nationwide is expanded by gutting the DoE?

can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to intervene with environmental regulations nationwide is expanded by gutting EPA?

can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to influence third world countries culture and politicians is expanded by dramatically reducing foreign aid?

can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to influence international organizations is expanded by *stepping out of those organizations*?

can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to do anything in general is expanded by impounding (refusing to spend) money congress appropriated?

can you elaborate for me how the power of the executive to weaponize the DOJ or otherwise prosecute whatever he wants to prosecute is expanded by reducing the number of DOJ employees?

As for the "he went to war" hyperbole, Obama bombed 563 times without congressional pre-approval. I don't think Trump (for now?) has expanded that either.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/st...

Do you understand that the increase in deficit is all from tax cuts (= less revenue) not from increases in spending on net? the spending increases were more than offset by the cuts .

If you spend 100 and collect 95, and i come and spend 98 and collect 90, i increase the deficit a lot while i reduce spending as well.

And yeah, the main nonsense is that the executive branch has largely leaned on EOs to overreach their established powers while the courts play catch up to try and reign in the EO overreach all-the-while simultaneously leaning on the Supreme court to rubber stamp away any opposition to the Executive Branch

But sure this explicit overreach, reduction in checks and balances, and expansion of power is the least power hungry executive branch ever

You guys are explicitly not serious people when you go down this path

I truly cannot imagine a less important point for the purpose of this discussion, but fine, change the word "mascot" in my post to "nickname."

There is no net reduction in budget for 2026 from 2025. They are just moving budget from services to DOD and ICE

Its incredibly easy to extrapolate how this will go 2-3 years from now as well

Sure it matters, it got flak 60 years ago by Native Americans and 30 years ago by everyone else, so it's hardly the modern incarnation of "woke" and you need to up your troll game.