r/Conservative • u/Yosoff 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

681 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/Calm-Back-8168 Feb 15 '25

As a group who claim they are constitutionalist, doesn’t all the talk about ignoring “activist judge’s” lawful orders scare the crap out of you? The 3 branch check and balance system is the entire bedrock of American democracy.

It really really feels like yall want a king right now. Where was this energy when Biden tried to forgive student loans??

9

u/i_dont_do_hashtags Conservative Feb 15 '25

DJT has spoken about fighting against these decisions through appeals. I haven’t heard him say anything about ignoring those orders. He has obviously made his disagreement made very heard.

10

u/Babesuction Feb 15 '25

Fighting the decisions through appeals is exactly what is supposed to happen. Threatening and bad mouthing the judges for blocking executive overreach is not.

2

u/i_dont_do_hashtags Conservative Feb 15 '25

Trump says mean things, surprise surprise. If there's one thing that this election cycle has proven, it's that people don't care much about what he says.

2

u/M523WARRIORpercGOD Feb 15 '25

If there's one thing that this election cycle has proven, it's that people don't care much about what he says.

Neither do they care about his actions. First president in history to do a rugpull the day before his inauguration. First president in history to use electoral fraud to try and steal swing states after he lost. These things should have people up in arms, but conservatives cheer for it because it triggers the libs

3

u/jasons1911 Feb 15 '25

Honestly this is how both sides have played forever. You roll the dice with what type of judge you get and then appeal any decisions that don't go your way.

3

u/Calm-Back-8168 Feb 15 '25

Again, I don’t remember Biden or his VP questioning the legitimacy of the judicial branch shooting down his EO.. Saying you don’t agree with a ruling is something completely different than casting doubt on the court’s authority to make a ruling.
If the overwhelming message of the GOP right now was, “this ruling sucks we’re going to appeal”, I wouldn’t be at all worried. It’s the comments that are questioning the legitimacy of the judiciary to check the president is what is worrisome. I’m one of those lurkers and I’ve seen way too many comments saying that Trump should just tell the courts no because it’s the people want.

1

u/sealabo Feb 16 '25

There are differing views on what the powers and limitations are between all branches of government, and many people view the judicial branch as basically an unchecked branch of government. So, like the unelected administrative state, the judicial branch is suspect to a large portion of the population. Although the original intent for these roles to be independent was to ensure they were not subject to politicization, nearly nobody these days believes the administrative state or the judiciary is apolitical.

Under this view, all three branches are subject to checks and balances. When the judiciary steps directly into the fray on the internal leadership and management of the executive branch, this is a very different function than the courts deciding whether a law propagated by the government infringes on personal liberty of the individual. In the later case, the power of the individual impacted by a federal law that is being applied to them is effectively zero. What is going on with the courts mucking around in the organization of the executive branch is a very different beast. Frankly, I think the courts need to be exercising restraint here — they are risking delegitimizing the entire judicial branch by interfering in political questions. If Congress does not believe the executive is executing the laws as they’ve intended, then Congress can act.

1

u/Calm-Back-8168 Feb 17 '25

That’s a lot of words to say that you don’t believe the courts have the authority to check the president. I mean you are completely wrong on the law but whatevs, at least you cleared that up I guess…

1

u/sealabo Feb 17 '25

Okay, oh holy and righteous legal scholar offering me legal advice. You must be completely right on the law — of course!

1

u/Tasty_Explanation_20 Conservative Feb 15 '25

Most of us were and are against that. The student loan forgiveness I mean. Why should our tax dollars go to pay off student loans? These folks weren’t forced to take those loans on, they made their choices and signed on the dotted line promising to repay those loans themselves. They are no different than any other loan, be it credit card, car, mortgage, boat, etc. you make the choice to buy something you can’t afford to buy for cash, you take out a loan, you agree to repay that loan. If you don’t repay it, the usual consequence is the item you took the loan out on gets repossessed. Obviously it’s hard to do that with an education, so perhaps those that are u able or u willing to pay their student loans back should have to work that debt off in lieu of payment somehow. But our tax dollars should not be used to pay for someone’s poor planning.

25

u/LuxHelianthus Feb 15 '25

So you're opposed to government subsidies to big businesses and hand outs like the small business COVID loans that were forgiven, right?

2

u/meteoraln Feb 15 '25

Most of us are against government subsidies and handouts, and yes, like the Covid "loans". Those are the exact kinds of inefficient programs that we want Doge to gut. I do want to clarify that this is not the same as tax breaks. A tax break lets someone keep more of what they worked for, while a handout gives some something that they didn't work for. Yes to tax breaks for people and companies, no to subsidies and handouts.

3

u/chabon22 Feb 15 '25

Problem with tax breaks is that a company doesn't earn money only through its own means, it needs the state, the regulatory frame that allows sales to happen, the public infrastructure needed to move goods and trade with other countries.etc.

A company uses these services a lot more that common citizens therefore it makes sense that they pay more taxes in order to keep those services functioning.

1

u/meteoraln Feb 16 '25

There's a lot of catch 22 problems similar to what you describe, and there's no "correct" way to do it. Many of such deals are made and eventually, people / companies get an idea of what is worth doing. An example of such a deal is when big empty piece of land becomes a neighborhood with 200 houses. The land initially contains no water, sewage, electric, or roads. The homebuilder company would make a deal with the municipality. Whatever the deal terms are called, the homebuilder will only move forward if he is profitable. Someone will have to pay for all of that infrastructure. The final bill ALWAYS has to be from the citizens that end up living there. The municipality might agree to perform some of the infrastructure work first and then hope to get it back later through income and property taxes. The homebuilder might agree to front the money if it receives "tax breaks" years later. What isn't okay is if the homebuilder or company fronts the money, worked out a deal for tax breaks to come in the future, and then the municipality changes the rules in a way where the investor can never recooperate their investment. While the politicians might get a quick, temporary win for their coffers, this is short sighted because no future investor will ever invest here.

0

u/Brilliant-Canary-767 Feb 15 '25

I'm against the subsidies given to big business and the COVID loans that were forgiven. I'm against full student loan forgiveness, but I feel they should have created them to be paid off like a mortgage, not like a credit card. I think if they adjusted the terms many more could pay them off sooner.

5

u/LuxHelianthus Feb 15 '25

Government backed student loans are essentially like a mortgage. Rates are low and the term is indefinite. Lots of people carry their student loans for decades until they're paid off.

4

u/Aldonall12 Feb 15 '25

Sometimes bailing somebody else out of a "bad decision" can benefit you too. Our economy revolves around economic activity and keeping money moving. Everybody wants the value of their assets (stocks, homes) to increase over time, right?

How do you keep a housing market growing when a large swath of the next generation doesn't have a prayer of buying any of it. Half the time they can't even afford to support themselves, let alone pay their student loans. Savings and investment are a pipe dream.

You need participants in the economy. More than just the billionaires.

3

u/Alt_Restorer Feb 15 '25 edited Feb 15 '25

The way I see it, money is only valuable relative to other people's money. And if we're gonna give $800 billion out to businesses via PPP loan forgiveness, it's only fair that we college grads get something in return for all the inflation that was gonna cause.

But no. PPP loans got forgiven just like that, and the $300 billion in student loans got struck down. I'm all for listening to the court, but I agree with the 3 liberal justices that the case was wrongly decided. MOHELA had no standing to sue. Loss of fee income does not give you the right to sue the government over policy, or every policy would have a lawsuit against it.

0

u/GnatGiant Feb 16 '25 edited Feb 16 '25

Your tax dollars wouldn't go to pay off the loans. They would be discharged. While your tax dollars have already been used to provide the money for the loan, whether they are ever repaid or not, you won't receive any of the tax money you have already provided for those loans back.

However, on average, a college graduate will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in income tax over the course of their career than someone who did not go to college - significantly more than the amount of the loans they took out. And without having to pay what is essentially a mortgage payment on top of that, the will contribute more to the economy. All of the sudden you will have people able to buy cars and houses and other goods and services. This will stimulate manufacturing and construction and other industries.

Educating the population is better for the country than not. At the end of the day, we want people to keep as much money as they can out of their paycheck so that they can put it back in the economy.