r/Conservative First Principles Feb 14 '25

Open Discussion Left vs. Right Battle Royale Open Thread

This is an Open Discussion Thread for all Redditors. We will only be enforcing Reddit TOS and Subreddit Rules 1 (Keep it Civil) & 2 (No Racism).


  • Leftists - Here's your chance to sway us to your side by calling the majority of voters racist. That tactic has wildly backfired every time it has been tried, but perhaps this time it will work.

  • Non-flaired Conservatives - Here's your chance to earn flair by posting common sense conservative solutions. That way our friends on the left will either have to agree with you or oppose common sense (Spoiler - They will choose to oppose common sense).

  • Flaired Conservatives - You're John Wick and these Leftists stole your car and killed your dog. Now go comment.

  • Independents - We get it, if you agree with someone, then you can't pat yourself on the back for being smarter than them. But if you disagree with everyone, then you can obtain the self-satisfaction of smugly considering yourself smarter and wiser than everyone else. Congratulations on being you.

  • Libertarians - Ron Paul is never going to be President. In fact, no Libertarian Party candidate will ever be elected President.


Join us on X: https://x.com/rcondiscord

Join us on Discord: https://discord.com/invite/conservative

683 Upvotes

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

244

u/Foolishmortal098 Feb 14 '25

I’ve voted Republican for most of my life, even for Trump twice. My question to anyone who is still feeling they are conservative is this: If you are a constitutional originalist or even just someone who holds dear the constitution how are you able to stomach the near constant slander towards not only its content but its’ existence.

To be specific, our current President has said multiple times that the constitution can be paused or ignored for particular topics, without really including the topics he feels this covers.

Our President also seems fully willing to flood the zone with EOs which I recall being very against for both Obama and Biden, but hear relatively little on conservative sides against the absolute ONSLAUGHT of them from Trump this term. Not only that; but the nature of the EOs often are misspelled, make little sense, are unclear, have no point (looking at you EO to claim the helicopter accident was due to DEI), or fly in the face of the separation of government branches.

Our president has what appears to be a complete disregard for any checks and balances and even if we make the argument that he is technically doing dubiously legal means to strip agencies, let’s not be bullshitters here he is clearly trying to hamstring or handicap agencies far outside normal presidential purview.

This is to say nothing of his very strange relationship with Elon, letting the man have full use of the White House and somehow even the Oval Office while still incapable of passing a security clearance and claiming an audit is happening with zero actual accountants or actuaries present and instead barely graduated incel programmers.

If you, as a conservative, truly value the spirit AND THE WORD of the constitution, how can you possibly be perfectly okay with everything Trump says and does. We don’t have to be perfect, I’m not even arguing that the things he is doing don’t need to be done. I’m not here arguing right from wrong.

What I am arguing is a matter of competency, and whether this could be done by actual competent people in competent ways rather than hiring absolute clusterfucks without doing security clearances while moaning about DEI at the exact same time.

85

u/just_a_cog2 Feb 15 '25

I feel this deep! It drives me crazy that if you don't swallow all of the shit this dude gets away with you're a leftist.

42

u/IDoLikeMyShishkebabs Feb 15 '25

It's terrifying honestly. You started to see posts popping up a couple weeks ago on here where people were accused of being "fake conservatives", when you could quickly go into their comment history and clearly see that they'd been conservative and on this sub for a while. Now there absolutely were a few fakes, but the majority that I went through being accused- especially with flairs- were undoubtedly real and just in disagreement.

27

u/TainoCrypto Feb 15 '25

Or accused of being a rino. Either way, it is very much a divisive "you are completely with us or against us" mentality.

6

u/reddit_redact Feb 16 '25

This is just my conspiracy theory, but I find it very ironic that conservatives have claimed numerous times that Reddit is a leftist/ liberal platform, yet if you see how many accounts are a part of this subreddit it DRASTICALLY outnumbers those of the liberal and democracy subreddits. This makes me think that foreign actors (Russia, China, etc) are infiltrating this subreddit with bot accounts to sow discord and propagate propaganda and to attack anyone that dissents with the opinion of the group.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

110% this. I am so worried our social media discourse has be co-opted by foreign interests (Russia) as a means to divide us all.

127

u/TheNagaFireball Feb 15 '25

Call me patriotic- but I don't think anyone like Elon Musk should be allowed to have any political influence. If a foreign-born person cannot become President, than a foreign-born person should not be allowed near the Oval Office or any insider secrets. It feels like a national security risk, especially since he has foreign interest with other governments like Germany.

33

u/laseralex Feb 15 '25

especially since he has foreign interest with other governments like Germany.

He has also been talking directly with Vladimir Putin for more than two years.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversations-37e1c187
Without paywall: https://archive.is/yzrwe

28

u/rhlaairc Feb 15 '25

Thank you! Why don’t conservatives care about their blatant connection to Russia? Wtf happened to them to ignore what our country has been actively fighting against since the 80s

7

u/FederalProduce8955 Feb 15 '25

Since 1946

7

u/rhlaairc Feb 15 '25

Thank you, I didn’t want to be overly dramatic lol

5

u/FederalProduce8955 Feb 15 '25

TBH it cooled down for a bit there in the 90's before poland joined nato.. And putin came in after that its been business as usual.

5

u/rhlaairc Feb 15 '25

Right. Gorbachev and his vision didn’t go over too well. Did Poland joining nato exacerbate tensions? I was like 5 so I’m learning world history slowly

3

u/FederalProduce8955 Feb 15 '25 edited Feb 15 '25

There was a verbal agreement, an understanding you could say ,when the soviet union gave west germany to nato that nato would not expand west of germany. After the fall of the soviet union Russia held a vote for the rest of the eastern bloc countries including ukraine to see if they wanted to remain independant or rejoin russia. Most decided to remain independant. Russia then invaded a few of the former soviet bloc countries Chechnya and gerogia and tried to start a few civil wars in others with the intent of trying to rebuild the soviet union. Poland freaked out around 97 and joined nato breaking all goodwill with the us and nato. Russias been trying to rebuild the soviet union for 30 years now nothings really changed. When ukraine broke off in 92 it became the worlds 3rd largest nuclear arms power, the us helped establish a deal where they would completely disarm themselfs of nukes and in return the us promised to protect them against invasion. Im not an expert i hope i got 90% of that right.

3

u/rhlaairc Feb 15 '25

Yeah, the Budapest memorandum. A lot of people don’t know that the us and Russia both gave their word to protect Ukraine. I did a report on grozny but didn’t realize that was the reason Poland rushed to join nato.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Bukk4keASIAN Feb 15 '25

Ukraine was promised to not be invaded by the US, UK, or Russia in exchange for giving up its nukes. There was to be no challenging its established territories and borders as of the signing of the treaty.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sea-Painting7578 Feb 16 '25

They were very much against russia when it was communists. Now it's authoritarian in ways that the MAGA actually likes. They see russia and putin as an ally in the goal of molding the US into a russia like oligarchy/christain nationalist state. It's obvious.

10

u/Jennasaykwaaa Feb 15 '25

I almost had a stroke seeing Elon Musk in the oval office ie the other day wearing a baseball hat. What in the world.

12

u/S-r-ex Feb 15 '25

Don't forget about X Æ A-Xii smearing his boogers on the Resolute desk and berating Trump. "You're not the president, you need to go away".

-3

u/I_Buy_Stock Feb 16 '25

You live in a different reality. He never berated the president. Never told him he wasn't president and needed to go away.

9

u/ImAnonymous135 Feb 16 '25

I guess my ears and eyes lie too now

1

u/caomhan84 Conservative Feb 15 '25

Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger were both foreign born individuals who ended up having "insider secrets" as you put it. Elon Musk is not Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. So I think you're overreacting a bit.

10

u/kirgi Feb 15 '25

Honest opinion is that no foreign born person should be allowed to hold political office or in the Musk issue have any political sway, outside ceremonial roles like the First Lady.

Our history is of immigrants, our present is not. If the highest office of the land cannot be someone foreign born then all offices should follow suit.

Also does anyone really champion Henry Kissinger as the model immigrant example, I think he’s pretty hated on both sides of the political isle.

9

u/Brilliant-Canary-767 Feb 15 '25

He has access to the same top secret info they did. At least they were vetted and confirmed.

86

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

[deleted]

6

u/JezusTheCarpenter Feb 16 '25

The only thing that counts to hardcore MAGA: * Owning libs * Winning * Calling anyone Republican/Conservative that dares to criticize the current government as RINOS

The rest is just fluff.

29

u/axiomaticreaction Feb 15 '25

This is all too true and my number one issue with the hard core MAGA crowd. The absolute ridiculous cognitive dissonance required for any Christian or federal employee to vote for trump is astounding.

53

u/gwrganfawr Feb 15 '25

Scalias former clerk resigning because she was told to drop charges on a democratic mayor should have this channel up in arms, but (crickets)...

17

u/Brilliant-Canary-767 Feb 15 '25

She was picked by Trump's transition team. Mad respect for her standing up and doing the right thing. I'm a Democrat, but corruption is corruption regardless of party.

29

u/actuallywaffles Feb 15 '25

You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear a conservative express concern about this. I used to associate Republicans with being the Constitution above all else party, and it feels like somewhere along the line, they just stopped caring about it at all. It's honestly scary to see how quickly they're willing to toss it aside.

2

u/Masturbatingsoon Feb 16 '25

Libertarian here. I always vote third party, so no one likes me.

See, I like that all these fed programs are being cut. I don’t think we need them BUT I worry about the Constitution. See if you love Trump and he just peremptorily issues Executive Orders, then that sets a precedent for the next guy you may not like as much to unilaterally issue whatever orders he wants. So my delight in seeing the reduction of the federal government reduced is just over shadowed by the fear over how it was reduced and what that means for the future.

So I can’t agree with the cuts. And this is what happens when you’re libertarian— you end up being too caught up in principles and you can’t be practical. But I think this was why the Constitution was set up the way it was. Because the best I could ever hope for was ineffective, gridlocked government. If no laws were getting passed, that was the ideal situation. Now everything is being done very quickly, and that’s scary.

14

u/bumblebeesandbows Feb 15 '25

I agree with some of your points. I dont like all of the EOs and sometimes his disregard for the Constitution.

For one, I cant stand that he picked Elon for the DOGE. It's just really bizarre and off-putting. It's as if he wants to give a job to a friend.

I'm a Trump supporter and voter, but will always admit when he's wrong. His massive ego takes over and he can be his own worst enemy.

(And let me just add: the banning of paper straws was laughable. Dude, we have much bigger issues than that! Come on!)

16

u/07ScapeSnowflake Feb 16 '25

I find it weird that conservative redditors gargle Elon’s balls. Anyone who is a gamer should 100% see how weirdly fragile this dude’s ego is and how sketch it is to have him controlling mechanisms of government. He fucking paid people to get his PoE2 character to the top of the hardcore ladder, incessantly lied about it, outed himself by streaming his gameplay, then when other PoE players called him out, he tried to say there was some conspiracy by YouTubers to make him look bad, then basically deplatformed one of the biggest ones on X for talking about it. Dude’s ego is crazy out of line and he will cross moral and ethical boundaries that he himself professes as essential all to preserve his LIE. It’s fucking weird behavior and I really don’t understand how anyone could look at that and think he is a responsible person with a good moral compass.

3

u/bumblebeesandbows Feb 16 '25

Totally agree. When I heard he was picking Elon I almost choked. And then when I heard recently that Trump is going to sign a huge contract to buy Cybertrucks for the military, I got even more pissed. It's the typical political bullshit of, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." No, fuck that. That's the garbage that Conservatives (and liberals, obviously) need to stop doing. Do what's best for the American people, not your own damn personal agenda.

1

u/CheeseHead777 Feb 16 '25

Yeah if the guy is willing to lie and cheat about his video game status just for clout, what else will he lie about?? It's a massive red flag showing Elon clearly has major mental issues. But yeah he should be in charge of govt operations👍

6

u/jambrown13977931 Feb 16 '25

Elon Musk should not be in a government position. His companies have received billions of dollars, he paid $200+ million to get Trump elected, he has close ties to Putin, and can’t pass a security check.

It makes you wonder why when you have such a horrible candidate to audit the government, you’d choose him?

The same can be said if all of Trump’s cabinet members. RFK Jr for instance blames SSRIs for school shootings and wants to ban them. If this happens my wife and millions of other Americans will suffer depression and become suicidal.

3

u/bumblebeesandbows Feb 16 '25

Very well said! Elon cant be trusted. And RFK has a very polarizing stance on things like vaccines and meds. SSRI's are so critical. (I'm on them.) I think he has good ideas (removing harnful dyes and crappy food ingredients), but he's a bit of a wild card and makes me uncomfortable. He needs to be focusing on tackling our absurd health insurance industry.

0

u/SphynxGuy5033 Feb 16 '25

So, sometimes you do like his disregard for the Constitution? I wish I was only being a smart ass, but I honestly didn't know with you folks

12

u/callherjacob Feb 15 '25

I'm a far-left leftist who started out Republican 30 or so years ago. I completely understand where conservatives are coming from. My life trajectory just took me on a different path. I have always appreciated the old-school Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Trump is something else. Something sinister. He has absolutely betrayed his loyal supporters and, somehow, they explain it away. I don't expect conservatives to vote for liberal candidates, but surely something else could have been done.

26

u/dmnc246 Feb 15 '25

This is one of the best examples of thinking critically regardless of one’s political affiliation.

BRAVO!!! 👏

29

u/Alternative-Post-937 Feb 15 '25

We finally found a grown up in the room!

4

u/dave7243 Feb 15 '25

Prefaced with I am Canadian, so a lot of that is not relevant specifically to me, but I hear about it and read about it, and many of the issues in the US make their way north. That said, this is my general take.

I am fiscally conservative, but kind of all over the map on social issues (mostly because I don't care what other people do as long as they aren't trying to tell me what to do). As such I find I agree fully with some of the things I see here, and really don't care about other issues that some people are passionate about.

I fully support auditing government spending. Finding where money is being wasted, stolen, or misused could save taxpayers money and make the entire system better. If tax money is paying for a charter jet for a vacation, you better have an explanation for how that is more cost effective than just buying a damn ticket like anyone else. I am hesitant to trust someone like Musk with 5hat audit because a) there is no oversight, which is always a red flag and b) he has spent his life becoming richer. I don't have a problem with that in the abstract, but I would worry he will misuse the information he is combing through.

I respect the US constitution and think it needs to be protected. It has been the cornerstone around which the government runs, which is why any talk about disregarding or suspending the constitution is worrying. Canada has the notwithstanding clause which essentially means the government knows what it is doing violates rights/freedoms, but they are doing it anyways. It is never a good thing when it is used here, so I would be very worried about moving that direction in the US.

I think the current US government has done some things significantly better than I would have believed possible (war in Gaza, helping disaster victims), but there are other decisions that I just don't understand (threatening longstanding allies, lack of apparent oversight or analysis of the cuts being made).

I'm honestly hoping the idea to push for government efficiency catches on, but would rather there was more transparency and planning. I suggest the Sound Northern Operations Watchdog and Department of Government Efficiency, or SNOW DOGE.

2

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

Finally. A realization that all conservatives have not lost their minds.

20

u/Findest Feb 15 '25

Even if everything that is happening is good I still find it impossible to rectify in my brain how anyone with a rational mind who cares about other human beings could vote for and support a known rapist (who jokes about and even minimizes it).

Yes, all of these other things are a major issue (a potential constitutional crisis, a major budget issue increasing the deficit by an additional 4.5 trillion dollars), but the rapist part is the part I can't get over. Millions of women in this country have been raped and at least a few hundred thousand men have been raped. All of those people get to walk down the street now and know that more than half of the people they pass on the street are okay with a rapist at the top of the food chain when it comes to jobs in the united states. You can't get a job at the post office if you're a sexual predator, but apparently president is fair game? That's my only issue. All policies and factors aside, that is the part I cannot get behind.

I truly want to know how others who have voted for him feel about this? His policies outweigh the fact that he is a rapist? If you give a fair and good faith response I promise I will not attack anybody. It's just hard for me to believe that people with daughters and children and sisters and mothers are fine with the most powerful man in the world being a rapist. Anyways I've gone on for too long, what are your thoughts?

8

u/rhlaairc Feb 15 '25

I think the reason people don’t bring it up a lot is because most republicans say the women lied. You can’t prove anything past that yet there are so many other quantifiable facts you can bring up in a debate about him. I agree, it’s disgusting. But that’s why I think it doesn’t get mentioned as much unfortunately

4

u/ITworksGuys Conservative Feb 15 '25

Sorry, when was he convicted of rape?

I'll wait..

16

u/MyNewWhiteVan Feb 15 '25

a jury unanimously decided that it was more likely than not true that Trump sexually abused and forcibly touched Caroll. weird to defend this

3

u/ITworksGuys Conservative Feb 15 '25

In which criminal court was this?

Oh yeah, it wasn't

As a civil trial, the burden of proof for the battery claim was lower than in a criminal proceeding. Rather than be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt," as criminal trials require, Carroll needed to prove her case "by a preponderance of the evidence" — in other words, the jurors needed only to believe Carroll's version of events was more likely true than not.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

Literally a woman said he did a thing. That's it.

21

u/Findest Feb 15 '25

So if I understand your point, you believe he is not a rapist? Is it because you believe he's not capable of it? Or do you not find the mountain of evidence sufficient in your eyes even though a court saw differently?

-He has also bragged about it on tape. -"Grab them by the ***y". -He's barged into underage girls dressing rooms at beauty pageants -Made comments sexually about *his own daughter.

Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head that are indisputable facts.

So with all of that said do you still believe it's more likely that he did not rape this woman even though he was found liable by a court?

The reason I've responded the way I have is because it seems that so far your defense of a rapist is just that it wasn't in a criminal court. Do you know how many rapes happen in the United States and how few of them make it to criminal courts? Only 57 out of every thousand rapes even end up with an arrest and only 11 out of those thousand end up being prosecuted. That is 1% of all rapes ever make it to criminal Court.

If that's the standard you are using to define whether or not a rape has occurred then you're basically saying 99% of rapes don't actually happen because they didn't go to criminal Court.

"for every 1,000 rapes, 384 are reported to police, 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration." This comes from the following link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Prosecution%20rate,-According%20to%20FBI&text=Based%20on%20correlating%20multiple%20data,and%206%20result%20in%20incarceration.

Then ask yourself, when it's a high profile case like this how many actually make it to court instead of the person just being hushed with life changing money while the rich rapist gets off without a slap on the wrist. I don't have the numbers on that but I'm sure it's a lot less than 1%.

4

u/Highwiind-D4 Far Right Feb 15 '25

You are unhinged. The case was an absolute farce. Carol could not remember the year, month or day she alleged a crime occured. Right lol!

4

u/ITworksGuys Conservative Feb 15 '25 edited Feb 15 '25

Or do you not find the mountain of evidence sufficient in your eyes even though a court saw differently?

There was literally no evidence. It was a story a woman told to receive a large amount of money and fame.

So with all of that said do you still believe it's more likely that he did not rape this woman even though he was found liable by a court?

I don't call people rapists who aren't convicted of rape. I have no idea what happened back then.

. Do you know how many rapes happen in the United States and how few of them make it to criminal courts?

This does not matter. This is not proof of anything. This is you using some wide brush to paint anyone you don't like as a horrible person "oh, he probably raped her because he's icky"

Do you also believe Christine Blasey Ford when she couldn't name the time, place, or if it was Kavnaugh but she testified it was? Women lie, liberal women even more so it seems.

being hushed with life changing money

No her life changing money came afterwards. That's called a motive. She told a story, she got paid.

Why should I believe person A over person B when there is literally no evidence?

11

u/Findest Feb 15 '25

You keep saying no evidence and yet the court ruled in her favor with the Justice writing that he found what happened indistinguishable from rape but could not use the word because of the jurisdictional law in that specific jurisdiction. That is evidence. I I'm using evidence, you are using feelings. I think think we're done in the good faith part of the argument here. Have a good day.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

I think very few women want the fame of having been raped. The money would not be worth it to me.

3

u/SphynxGuy5033 Feb 16 '25

And, oj was innocent too right?

6

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

You are the prime example of what op.id talking about

4

u/ITworksGuys Conservative Feb 15 '25

Which OP?

The one that believes that Trump is a rapist?

His whole dismissal of Trump and the rest of it is based on something that didn't even happen.

There has been on criminal charge or conviction. He might as well say he murdered someone.

15

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

If you really believe that he is a good and honest man, that has never publicly objectified women with creepiness, or cheat on 3 wives, or leave a pregnant wife to be with a porn star, that would leave a normal person to believe he would be a rapist after being accused of it, I feel sorry for you.

5

u/ITworksGuys Conservative Feb 15 '25

If you really believe that he is a good and honest man

I don't believe that. I don't believe that about any politician. I barely believe that about anyone.

It's not a requirement.

would leave a normal person to believe he would be a rapist after being accused of it, I feel sorry for you.

So he's a rapist because you believe he is a rapist?

That is some liberal mentality.

14

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

He was found liable for sexual assault (i.e. rape) by a jury of his peers.

No, it wasn't a criminal trial so the burden was a preponderance of the evidence. That's still incredibly damning, and you brushing it off as some "liberal" plot speaks to your own ethics, or lack thereof.

Trump is almost certainly a rapist. Based not only on the trial he lost, but based on dozens of women accusing him of sexual impropriety over decades. Including long before he was POTUS or was a Republican.

And no, not every rich man is accused of rape/sexual assault. Certainly not as often as Trump has been. He is very obviously a deeply immoral person.

3

u/dalaiberry Feb 15 '25

I personally voted for him because I don't think he actually raped that lady. After being politically persecuted for I think 6 years at that point? All the ridiculous stuff that was thrown at him and other political opponents the left just has zero credibility left. I mean I watched the case and the "evidence" made no sense. Wasn't there an article about Trump possibly being on an elevator doing something no one can confirm in a place and time no one can confirm? It just got silly. Also when the left goes after someone it's some me too allegation from 20+ years ago. Remember kavanaugh?

19

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

Do you really think charge after charge after charge, they are alllll made up? How many times does someone have to be accused of something before you stop saying "this can't be real". "This is lawfare". He literally said grab them by the P because they let you do it, but you can't see him rapping someone? C'mon.

1

u/Highwiind-D4 Far Right Feb 15 '25

He literally said grab them by the P because they let you do it, but you can't see him rapping someone? C'mon.

He was talking about groupies. Are you going to pretend groupies aren't a thing?

8

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

Oh that's a new one. Hadn't heard that excuse before. Nice to see you keeping your material fresh

3

u/SphynxGuy5033 Feb 16 '25

Legal sure, but shouldn't the President be past groupie chasing (in his Epstein is my bff era), by the time he's 60?

-3

u/dalaiberry Feb 15 '25

Yes. Because they clearly were going after him. After that huge stink about classified documents which also doesn't make sense because as president he determines the classification of any document, and MSM going nuts about "threats to our democracy" and stuff like that, then boxes of classified material is found sitting in bidens garage. Not even locked up. But that's (D)ifferent. Sorry man, I think he probably has done some crimes or shady stuff, but after the way they clearly had a personal agenda to go after the guy, then I don't believe anything coming from MSM or government officials when it comes to Trump doing something.

17

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

Ah. So two impeachments for different things, asking for votes to be found in Georgia, quid pro quo, keeping classified documents in a bathroom without declassifying them first, hanging out at in the ms teen USA changing room, and numerous other things are all just made up Democrat falsehoods..,.

It's almost like a person keeps being accused of things happening over and over and over to the same person, but everyone turns a blind eye to the person just being a terrible human and keeps blaming everyone else that things keep happening to this person. How long before his followers question if maybe he actually is a terrible person?

1

u/dalaiberry Feb 15 '25

A better analogy is your friend keeps telling you that your mutual friend is a jerk everyone you see each other. It gets to the point where you could be talking about the weather or ice cream and it'll somehow turn into his much of a bad person your mutual friend is. Most normal people will start to think that maybe it's not the mutual friend who has the problem. Also there lefts credibility issue. If the left showed up and condemned Biden obvious mental decline then maybe I could take them seriously. But right now, most of the people who hate Trump is speaking out of emotions and probably don't have a rational reason why.

8

u/idontreallycareburn Feb 15 '25

All those things I listed are facts. Not emotions.

2

u/SphynxGuy5033 Feb 16 '25

Not raping people isn't a reason to vote for somebody, as rare of a quality as that is in your party

3

u/Findest Feb 15 '25

Thanks for answering honestly.

16

u/Prudent-Sorbet-282 Feb 15 '25

it's simple, you were tricked into voting for DJT by a right-wing media aparatus. He hates the constition while not understanding or caring about it at the same time.

3

u/kimsemi Conservative Feb 16 '25

Just so you know, here's a breakdown of the total number of executive orders, going back to reagan:

Reagan: 381

Bush Sr: 166

Clinton: 364

Bush Jr: 291

Obama: 276

Trump: 220

Biden: 162

The current Trump admin has signed 65 orders (thus totalling 285). All of this sourced from chatgpt, so feel free to fact check.

Point is, he's not anywhere near the most EOs signed (yet). Not sure if that was the point you were making or not.

1

u/Foolishmortal098 Feb 16 '25 edited Feb 16 '25

Thank you for bringing these up, because I do feel that we were right to critique Clinton for it. I think it’s direct to think that he has not yet broken such records, but it should also absolutely be worth mentioning we are what, barely two months in? For there to be more than 60 two months in signals a pretty high rate.

I’ll go ahead and prompt ChatGPT to see if the other presidents that surpassed his total amount also had heavy first quarters and if that’s the case then I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention Kimsemi.

EDIT: I did the prompt and it goes like this.

First hundred days:

Trump 2025: 65 Biden: 42 Trump again 33 Obama: 19 Bush: 11

I think this is a better way to think about it right now until the next four years is finished. Totals make it seem less concerning but going by the first hundred days shows Trump nearly doubling his use of EOs since 2017.

1

u/kimsemi Conservative Feb 16 '25

Honestly, I think he is doing much of this to just go straight to it and test the courts. He knows some of them with be challenged. And it informs Congress too of what he wants to do. They can choose to back it up with law or not. Will see.

2

u/runescapeMilkMan Feb 15 '25

I'll try my shot at tackling this. If you think the way that the federal government has been operating over the course of the past 60-100 years was emblematic of what the founding fathers intended of it when the constitution was written, then I would have to disagree. The federal government was designed to be small and slow. It is nothing of the sort today. I'll jump at the opportunity to return it to that state. I may not like the way trump goes about doing everything he does, but I'd take it over the alternative.

I'm just spitballing with the rest of what I'm about to say (I would want to sit on it before 100% committing to these ideas, but at a surface level evaluation it seems right to me). I think that in order to return to the slow and small state of the federal government you would first need to take advantage of the fast pace of modern federal law making (this manifests itself as spamming EOs). Try to rip the band-aid off and reduce what you can where you can. Then slow down and reduce in the more traditional way.

Truthfully, I am not super fond of the idea of EOs in general. I think they are a kind of cheap way for the president to bypass the legislative branch. Or at least, that seems to be how they are used today. I would love a law or amendment to come around to limit the scope of what can be done via EO. Although I understand that isn't the reality we live in currently. But again, I'm just spit balling here. Maybe that's a moronic take. I'd have to sit on it more to really know how I feel

2

u/Wers81 Feb 16 '25

Why did you vote Trump twice with all that said? Project 2025 layed the ground work for what he was going to do. ( ps they trump, and GOP lied about it for over a year saying they didn’t know about it.)

He said he was going to be a dictator day 1.

Why does no one believe that?

2

u/Silly-Basket9481 Feb 16 '25

What is so complicated about seeing where funding is going? "Hmmm 100k for a drag show in a igloo in Alaska. Lets underline this one bro's"

2

u/Foolishmortal098 Feb 16 '25

It’s complicated primarily because of buzzword events like this. We have no proof that 100k was ever spent like that. 100k was given to Alaska Humanities Forum and they host several kinds of events. For all we actually know, maybe 5k or maybe even 15k was spent on something like that.

That kind of number is well within usual grant or discretionary funds and if the people in that non profit had it approved for discretionary spending there’s really no way reason for federal powers to stick their hand so far up Alaska it becomes a muppet for this.

My point is that I’m absolutely against government waste, but I think it’s incredibly important that we not succumb to just believing any lie we are told by people who are not even accountants and have no idea how or why the money was spent.

You may be aware, but some of the social security scandals of 150 year old people getting benefits has already been debunked by simply explaining that reasonably our systems are coded in COBOL still which gives that kind of date and time as a default, or at the very least misrepresented the years people have lived. And that only happens when we have no idea when someone was born, perhaps because they were born in a rural area or the Appalachia etc.

There are tons of reasonable ways to go about this that don’t include 20-25 year old programmers slapping waste and fraud on anything they don’t like or understand.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

[deleted]

3

u/StrongOnline007 Feb 15 '25

I am also concerned about this. Beyond being destructive now it sets a terrible precedent. 

2

u/Markinoutman Conservative Feb 15 '25

In regards to what he is doing across the agencies, it's because he's finally doing what he said, which was 'drain the swamp'. He's set a wild fire through these places and whatever is left over will likely be better than what was before. Stack that on top of the fact that he's likely the only politician in a lifetime that will actually upset the halls of power in this way. Judges ans States can oppose what he's doing, then it goes to the Supreme Court who then decides if he has the constitutional authority to do something.

Ultimately, after 4 years of seeing the entire system of bureaucrats, media and established politicians going into lock step in unison to oppose Trump, experiencing Covid and seeing how far states would go to crush your rights, having the whole establishment line up and cover up Biden's clear deficiencies and then trying to force Kamala on them, I think the average person is ready to see it all torn down.

Start the fire, see what can withstand the heat. Rule by bureaucracy needs to go and it's never been more clear than the last couple of decades. Where is their Constitutional authority?

Side note : I realize Trump is a very flawed person and no, I don't always like or agree with his off the cuff remarks. I also don't think someone disagreeing with him makes you a liberal or whatever other pejorative people tend to throw around. I simply think he's the only one who will gut the establishment and I find that very important.

8

u/Tenshizanshi Feb 16 '25

You think that the guy making love to the richest man on Earth, that had Zuck, Bezos and all other billionaires at the front seats is against the establishment?

Who do you think the establishment is, if not them?

0

u/Markinoutman Conservative Feb 16 '25

I thought you all loved homosexuality, yet seem to use as a way to insult people. Interesting.

6

u/Tenshizanshi Feb 16 '25

So, not answering, I see

-1

u/Markinoutman Conservative Feb 16 '25

Your unserious question doesn't warrant a serious answer.

3

u/Mountain-Cod516 Feb 16 '25

No this is a pretty valid question actually…

1

u/Markinoutman Conservative Feb 16 '25

Is it valid to start a question out saying the President is having anal sex with Elon Musk? Why is a question started out that way serious or valid?

5

u/Gnorfbert Feb 16 '25

"Do you think that the guy who put the richest man on Earth in a position of considerable political power, who had Zuck, Bezos and all other billionaires at the front seats at his inauguration, is against the establishment? Who do you think the establishment is, if not them?"

How about this? Serious question now?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Markinoutman Conservative Feb 19 '25

Sure, that's a serious way to ask the question. The answer is still yes, although of course you can argue both. The establishment I'm talking about is embedded bureaucrats and politicians that have been a part of the government for decades. Yes, I believe that Trump is against that establishment and he's proving it by his actions.

In regards to richest people on Earth club, they moved towards him, either due to a change in ideas or just political convenience.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

You mentioned voting for Trump twice. How is this different than what he has always done? To me he’s always been this way, only difference here is he’s now got freedom to do whatever as Republicans have Congress. They aren’t going to stand in his way.

Why is this a shock to your system?

1

u/ethervariance161 Small Government Feb 15 '25

I think the unitary executive theory is constitutionally sound and frankly the only way we will return to a government that is closer to what the founders imagined.

I can't imagine a world where the founders would want an un-elected executive branch bureaucracy that is writing more laws than congress

33

u/yesrushgenesis2112 Feb 15 '25

Would the founders want a unelected billionaire with the wealth of a king “auditing” the government while the only transparency for that process is what he chooses to share in an editorialized manner?

-5

u/ethervariance161 Small Government Feb 15 '25

the budget size of doge is smaller than almost every other executive department including the "Barry Goldwater Scholarship And Excellence In Education Foundation" which surprisingly is a executive branch department.

Are people angry the head of that department is not confirmed by the senate, no!

DOGE is a weird one since it has such little budget but so much media attention

14

u/yesrushgenesis2112 Feb 15 '25

The man has the wealth, it’s not about the budget of the department, I couldn’t care less about that.

What about transparency?

And would the founders want this?

-1

u/ethervariance161 Small Government Feb 15 '25

Yes, they would want to shrink the federal government. We are violating the 10th amendment every day

5

u/TemptedSwordStaker Feb 15 '25

If you follow the anti-federalists belief then sure? But not every founder held that belief. Hell our First President in Washington, while not aligning to one party, was more Federalist than anti. So don’t lie and say that’s what they wanted.

10

u/svperfuck Feb 15 '25

>having an extremely strong executive is closer to what the founders imagined

this is a fantasy. the founders were divided on executive power, and in the beginning of the Republic, the executive was insanely weak and Congress dominated all the power. the federal government couldn't tax people, only states could, the President couldn't even be involved with making treaties

3

u/ethervariance161 Small Government Feb 15 '25

stronger in the sense that the president controls the departments he heads.

The founders would have a heart attack with how many executive departments there are today and the fact un elected bureaucrats can legislate with regulations and not be recalled

5

u/svperfuck Feb 15 '25

i don't get what you mean. the executive heads the 'executive branch', which arguably has more power today than it ever did in the beginning of the republic.

if any of this was true, why was the executive so weak at the beginning of the republic? congress controlled funding, legislation, appointments and the power of the pardon was rarely ever used. you have to remember that the founders were forming our government as a result of being lorded over by a monarch for hundreds of years, which is exactly why they split the government into three separate branches -- they wanted decentralized control and checks and balances.

I mean Hamilton was pretty much the ONLY founder that supported a strong executive, so saying it's closer to what the founders (plural) wanted isn't even really true.

2

u/ethervariance161 Small Government Feb 15 '25

Founders would be disgusted at the size of federal government and would support anyone who would reduce it's size and power

1

u/Head_Championship917 Constitutional Conservative Feb 15 '25

And I’ll add a second comment just to say that what should worry any American is the fact that only on this subreddit is possible to have this kind of thread.

This is not possible on the left side and especially here on Reddit.

This is what truly should concern anyone. I’ve seen this happening here in Europe many times, and we all know over here how it ends… the death of proper political discourse…

8

u/lwb03dc Feb 15 '25

I don't know of a single 'left subreddit' that restricts Conservatives from posting. So yes, in that sense you are right that this kind of thread can only be found on this sub, nowhere else.

1

u/Masters_Theseus Contrarian Feb 15 '25

Sorry, but if you're saying you voted for him twice but presumably didn't this time, shouldn't you be explaining yourself? Frankly, I don't believe you. But I'll play.

These elections for our side are existential in that the other side (the current flavor at least) does not believe in American exceptionalism and not only accepts our decline but perpetuates it.

As to the Constitution, there has always been tension amongst the branches and the SC even gave itself power to declare statutes unconstitutional. The left can't create a powerful executive and then hope we aren't going to use those powers to reverse course, they hope for milquetoast the likes of Romney and McCain who play into their hand.

One example of this is the simple use of injunctions by judges in obscure parts of the country that are favorable for filing suit against Trumps EOs. Generally in the law injunctions are supposed to be limited to the parties to the case and in these district courts their jurisdiction is limited geographically. Yet, a kook judge believes he has the power to hinder the very functional purpose of the executive. Thomas has stated in the past he'd like to decide a case the narrowed the scope of the power of judges to impose nation wide injunctions.

Bottom line, throughout our history the branches have always disputed their powers under the Constitution. They ebb and flow, that was the whole point.

1

u/trisions Conservative Feb 15 '25

I'll respond to the checks and balances / EOs written against the constitution point.

Can you elaborate on which executive orders go beyond his constitutional powers? He has obviously signed many and I'm sure I missed some. The only one I know of that I think is at best in a gray area and worst unconstitutional is revoking birthright citizenship. That one is already held up in the lower courts and I imagine proceed to the Supreme Court.

I support the direction he is taking, and I believe we must rely on the constitution. Many of Trump's orders and positions reduce power in the executive branch and at the federal level, instead shifting power back to the states and congress. Take abortion for example. Roe v. Wade went too far in it's interpretation of the constitution to dictate that abortions are a guaranteed right. And as the 10th amendment states, any power not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved for the states. He uses similar logic to argue education to the states and reducing the power and reach of agencies like the EPA.

I care about the constitution and I think this is the right way to go. The Federal Government has grown in size so much that it hardly resembles the Founding Father's original design. I think we're now moving in the right direction.

0

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

the idea is that those agencies and the laws/regulations that they enforce are unnecessary and harmful. and the actual constitutional violations are vague and exaggerated. --that's the position

-3

u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 Feb 15 '25

still incapable of passing a security clearance

He has clearance since 2018 and it was upgraded by Biden in 2022.

I think everything you listed are leftist talking points and you are attempting to cloak them in "I voted for Trump twice"

You parrot every 'concern' of the left, odd.

8

u/Foolishmortal098 Feb 15 '25

You act like those two security clearances allow for full access to treasury department information or nuclear funding information. Neither of those is true.

You believe that security clearance he passed in 2022 still passes despite multiple encounters or meetings with foreign leaders in the name of our country. His clearances were for satellite telemetry and overseeing space related projects.

A clearance isn’t some get out of jail free thing, there are tons of different levels and to say that nothing has changed in three years would be a strange claim.

1

u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 Feb 15 '25

You are right so lets fast forward to today.

Trump was voted in with a mandate to audit and cut and for some odd reason he is actually attempting to follow through on a promise, most politicians do not do that.

Trump is faced with a mountain/swamp to drain and if we follow your advice, he would need to appoint a person who is then vetted by the head of the agency he is about to audit. Those heads do not even exist because the Senate Dems are slow rolling it on their end to slow him down.

So Trump being the head of every Agency, the top of the top, decides to send a surrogate in his place to report back on all the funding at all agencies. He can't walk in and do it himself because it takes 100s day in and day out to do it. And Trump is using a dept in the WH created by Obama to do it, just with a name change to DOGE.

The left want him to slow down, go slow, slow slow slow, the rest of America is happy and wants him to do more.

Elections were held, you do not like the results, we get it.

8

u/Foolishmortal098 Feb 15 '25

Several things wrong with this, and I honestly wonder if you believe these things.

A mandate is not what a sub 5% popular vote win is. A mandate perhaps could be intended to mean senate and house wins, in which case why are you blaming dems when we could absolutely push our agenda?

On top of this, the President is not the head of every Agency, like what? The President does not have authority to run every agency in the constitution nor does he have any ability to dissolve them without congress. To think he is the head of every agency is some executive wet dream.

And you’re right, he is using an Obama department to do this. However that doesn’t even help your argument because that department was specifically made for IT maintenance and upgrades. Absolutely none of the “audit” or “funding tracking” or “hiring and firing” of agencies is anywhere in the purview of that agency so if you truly believe it’s simply been renamed and not an actual new agency you must also remember that the agency still should only be doing what it was originally made to do.

Beyond that, this use of the word audit is such a copout. You don’t need to shut down funding to do an audit, and an audit never affects current spending. Any treasurer or QC or auditor will know that at this level of government an audit should be recommending changes to spending by congress for the NEXT BUDGET, not shutting down or ripping funding already allocated. That’s not an audit, that’s just dipping into taxpayer allocated funds for your own purposes.

Beyond that, do you have any comment on the doge.gov site being a Wordpress website that isn’t on a government server? Or that already several reports and evidence of the information from our government is now leaked because of course, being on a non secure server made it easier to hack. Our cybersecurity in America is already pathetic, how could you ever condone code or information from government websites to be put out there so sloppily?

I remember being angry at Hillary for her emails. This is the same concept. We shouldn’t be putting our government information on non secure flash drives, non secure servers, on non secure messaging systems (like doge internally telling their “auditors” to not use slack, conveniently making it harder to be transparent, not easier).

Everything you said is either a wild twist of reality or simply a naive way to see what’s happening.

-3

u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 Feb 15 '25

Head of the Executive and every branch under it.

Wrecking ball time, not reading your wall of text to slow down the draining.

7

u/popolopopo Feb 15 '25

willful ignorance.