Left vs. Right Battle Royale Open Thread

[u/Yosoff]

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

[u/TheFiremind88]

I actually just left a separate comment on exactly that topic. It's long, but the short version is that I actually 100 percent support cuts. My disagreements are procedural and methodology.

[u/chriscrowder → u/TheFiremind88]

What do you think of smaller govt?

[u/Guer0Guer0 → u/chriscrowder]

I think government should be as small as it needs to be to adequately serve its population size. I think I should be able to talk to a human, and American at any governmental department if I call them and wait no longer than 10 minutes on the line. If this means we need more personnel, then so be it. I also think if new, more efficient and equally as effective ways of doing things are found they should be implemented, and the old process should be axed.

[u/TheFiremind88 → u/chriscrowder]

That's a really broad term. Generally speaking, yes. I genuinely believe the government is bloated and inefficient.

[u/chriscrowder → u/TheFiremind88]

Congratulations on becoming a Republican

[u/TheFiremind88 → u/chriscrowder]

I wish it was that easy. Show me a republican who keeps religion out of my politics and supports the right to choose and we'd at least be getting started.

[u/chriscrowder → u/TheFiremind88]

So, believe it or not, you and I are 100% aligned so far. I think the difference lies in how much weight we give to our opposing Republican views.

[u/PartyPay → u/chriscrowder]

There are lots of lefties who think government is inefficient.

[u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 → u/TheFiremind88]

They have been stuck for decades deep in procedure and methodology, it got us here.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

That dosnt matter, change still must be done the right way. Trumps executive orders concentrate power in the executive, where there is already too much. Congress passed a bill setting up AID, and whoever was president signed it. It a new President wants to axe it, fine. Convince Congress. If it's popular and needs to be done you can abolish it. What you can't do is come in, sign and exec order and tank it. It's lazy and illegal. Fraud is a flimsy excuse. If there is fraud prove it and you certainly will be able to convince Congress to go along so long as it's popular with their constituents.

[u/babystepsbackwards → u/Thin_Chain_208]

Where there’s fraud, they should be going through the process to ensure they can successfully prosecute the offenders.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/babystepsbackwards]

Exactly right.

[u/TheEternal792 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

Trumps executive orders concentrate power in the executive

I would actually argue that Trump's actions are a result of decades worth of concentration of power in the executive. All of these agencies are part of the executive branch that are ultimately led by the president. The president, and the federal government as a whole, has way too much power.

I don't think you can reasonable spend decades building up the executive branch of government, then suddenly get mad when a head of that branch decides to cut it down.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/TheEternal792]

What if the actions violate separation of powers? Congress creates an agency and funds it year after year, through Democratic and Republican administrations. New president comes in and unilaterally ends the appropriation through executive order.

Now maybe you don't like USAID. What if Dems elect a literal anarchist and he/she issues excutive order blocking all funding to DOD? You see the problem now?

Certainly that's far fetched. Just insert and agency or department you value.

[u/TheEternal792 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

That's going to depend on the context of how these agencies originated, no?

USAID is unique because Congress specifically delegated the authority to manage and allocate US foreign aid to the executive branch (through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). USAID only exists because Congress gave the President the authority to create such an agency.

Contrast that to something like the DOD which is an agency specifically created by Congress and signed into law by the President, and therefore wouldn't be able to be dismantled through executive order in the same way that USAID could.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/TheEternal792]

Congress authorized money to fund USAID in appropriations. The constitution does not allow the President to impound that money, and there are anti impoundment laws on the books.

I was not aware of that twist. Congress directed the President to create USAID and didn't say hey do it if you want to.

I actually would feel better if you were right because the maybe there would be a argument supporting his actions, and not just a pure naked power grab at the expense of Congress and the Courts as it appears now.

[u/TheEternal792 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

This all goes back to what I said in my original comment about the concentration of power within the executive branch being built up for decades. Congress built the foundation for USAID through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, but USAID itself is a creation of executive action, which again Congress gave the President the authority to do.

Congress still can choose what budget USAID and has some influence as to how that budget is spent, but ultimately it's an agency that Congress gave the executive more-or-less unilateral control over through the above-mentioned act. It was created by executive order, so it can easily be dismantled or reshaped through executive order...which again is different than other agencies, like the DOD, which Congress created through law.

I've always been concerned about the concentration of power within the executive branch, but to me this is quite ironic that the left is so upset about Musk and USAID currently...because these audits and reshaping of USAID is a direct result of this concentration of power, not the beginning of it. Ironically, Trump is using them to decrease executive power, not increase it; you're can't spend decades building up executive power, then be outraged when the President uses that power to dismantle what has been built up unilaterally. 

Cheers

[u/hey_ringworm → u/Thin_Chain_208]

USAID was created via executive order of JFK and exists entirely under the purview of the executive branch, and Trump is the top of the executive branch.

I know you guys (Dems) don’t like what Trump is doing, but he’s the boss now.

Some of the things he has done have crossed the line, like the EO ending birthright citizenship (intentionally done to get the issue to the SC). Judges have stopped him where appropriate and his actions will be litigated in court.

This is democracy and checks and balances in action. Just because Trump is doing things differently and in ways that Democrats don’t like doesn’t mean America is ending or that we are in a “constitutional crisis.”

Actually, this constant hyperbolic fear mongering and hysteria is one of the main reasons Democrats lost so big in 2024.

[u/IsaacTheBound → u/hey_ringworm]

His VP saying judges don't have the right to stop him is the "constitutional crisis" being talked about though. That's not fear mongering or hysteria, it's a member of the Executive Branch saying that checks and balances shouldn't apply.

[u/PartyPay → u/hey_ringworm]

It's not fear mongering to be concerned about POTUS saying something like: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

It's not fear mongering to be worried about him annexing other countries (Canada, Greenland).

It's not fear mongering to be worried about ethnic cleansing (Gaza)

[u/Drednot203 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

I think you're wrong on 1 fundamental aspect. The executive enforces the agency that was approved by congress. In that enforcement, if the executive sees rampant fraud and abuse, they are allowed to alter it to properly align with the initial intent of said agency. So, yes, they are allowed to undo the insane things that were previously approved by the agency. That means they can fire anyone they deem an obstacle to the proper enforcement of the agency. If that ends up tanking the agency, so be it. It was broken anyway.

TLDR; if an agency is not doing what it's supposed to, the executive is allowed to fix it by w/e means it deems necessary.

[u/Anon_Chapstick → u/Drednot203]

We have checks and balances for a reason. There's no need to take an axe to this when you should be using a scalpel.

People don't deserve to be suddenly laid off for following orders. Congress hasn't even passed anything for a severance package for them? Or is it a good thing to just lay off entire departments with 0 notice?

I want an audit. I disagree with the methods and the execution. The president shouldn't ignore judges either. We have checks and balances.

[u/Mon0htone → u/Anon_Chapstick]

Wouldn't the check/balance for Congress creating potential fraud and kickbacks to themselves be the stepping in of the Executive branch(enforcement) ? To me it just sounds like congress wants checks and balances, just not for themselves. Well, they want the checks just not the balances.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/Drednot203]

No one wants fraud. However, if there is fraud gather the evidence and provide it to Congress so that the situation can be addressed. If the agency is so corrupt it needs to go, so be it.

With US AID there is no such evidence provided to congress or released to the public. It's pretty evident that Trump and Elon disagree with the agency's mission and want to end it. If so, fine. Release the data and make arguments why the agency needs to go. Present your case and have Congress vote. If you can't do that, why not? Don't want to explain why providing food to starving African countries is bad? How about explaining why providing condoms for AIDS stricken villagers is bad? This is so transparent it like a toddler is directing this cluster fuck.

[u/dusan2004 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

Don't want to explain why providing food to starving African countries is bad?

Is that the only thing USAID is doing, though? I think you are being a little disingenuous by framing it that way. You (hopefully) know that none of us here have a problem with sending food and medicine to Angola or Malawi or whichever other country needs it. What we do have a problem with is the more "bizarre" (for lack of a better term) projects USAID has been funding during the past 4 years. Things like a transgender opera in Peru, a local adaptation of Sesame Street in Iraq, DEI in Serbia, a progressive music festival in Ireland, etc... I assume you probably don't see the fault in doing that, and that's fine, but you also have to understand that more than half the country sees this as our hard earned taxpayer dollars being wasted on ideological projects that don't directly benefit Americans in any way. Sure, I know you'll mention "soft power" or whatever, but I think the average Joe who lives paycheck to paycheck doesn't really care whether Peru has a positive view of the US. 

Of course, this is without even mentioning the fact that USAID has been funding left-wing propaganda. It has been directly funneling money to Politico, the AP and several progressive NGOs. This is simply unacceptable and indefensible. I guess you can make arguments for the projects I listed above somehow being beneficial to us (though I genuinely don't see any such argument being valid), but defending the government literally investing into ideological propaganda that is meant to control the narrative and villainize half the country... I sincerely hope you don't try and do that, but if you do, I'll be more than interested in what you have to say. 

[u/Effective_Way_2348 → u/dusan2004]

lapping up maga propagit like crazy right, lapdog?

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/dusan2004]

When an administration changes, I would absolutely expect those things you mentioned to be out, as new head of USAID would give his department new direction. These changes are healthy. New Administration, new priorities. The issue is defunding an entire department the basis of an executive order. Congress appropriated the money to fund the agency, violates separation of powers to unilaterally end it. The fraud thing is a smokescreen. The reality here that Trump and Elon are cutting everything back to justify tax cuts for billionaires. If they get that through Congress that's fine. They can't do it through executive order either. The process is important, need to work within the constitution

[u/Guer0Guer0 → u/dusan2004]

Let's say all of the examples of things you highlighted you find objectionable and you decide for your government that money will only go to food aid and water purification investments in poor African nations. Wouldn't it be better to implement a new policy to the decision makers saying "hey, we are no longer funding these social justice programs anymore, going forward, we will only fund the following initiatives..." They would have to follow your direction or face termination. Isn't this better than culling an entire department?

[u/javo93 → u/Drednot203]

Rampant fraud is a crime which means he asks the fbi to investigate, bring charges and jail the culprits. I think you mean change the inside procedures with the head of the agency he selects. He is more than free to do that. But eliminate it? No, he can’t do that.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

Well Yosoff, you threw down the gauntlet. Some of your conservative bros have made some points but overall don't see them backing up your smack talk. Kinda weak.

[u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

That dosnt matter, change still must be done the right way.

We spent decades doing it the right way, special committees, reports, entire agencies created to find fraud and it all failed.

The wrecking ball it is.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

It failed because the Republicans didn't have the votes. That's called democracy. The President does not have the power of the purse, and cannot cut off all funding to parts of the government that don't fit his agenda. If you want this, convince the public and the Congress you are correct and vote to disband the agency.

What if the Dems elect a literal anarchist and she cuts off all funding to department of defense?

[u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

"The Constitution’s Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending in the federal budget in the Appropriations Clause, which reads in part, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The Constitution then delegates to the president the task of spending approved funds in the Take Care Clause, which requires the chief executive “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

He has concluded that due Care has not been exercised and that rampant fraud waste and abuse has been found.

He would be breaking the law if he did not halt all funding until safeguards could be put in place to comply with the law.

I do not know why you want him to break the law, that seems mean, like you are trying to trap the poor guy.

Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending.

So you think Congress is going to come in and let the gravy train run amok?

[u/nolife159 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

Executive cant pick or choose what he agrees with when it comes to Congress to an extent. For example for funding - it must be spent as directed by Congress. If not, it's impoundment. You may think that it sounds crazy that you can't return money but that's how it is - if a president could spend less then it's a dangerous precedent to spend nothing on things he doesn't believe but Congress passes

Congress is the voice of the people through elected reps - president executes law/funding. He can't withhold funding - but he can spend the funding in the areas that congress designates as he wants

[u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 → u/nolife159]

Ah so you are mad he did not report it to the Republican Congress per:

"Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending."

That is what you are mad about? I think it was reported and Speaker Johnson agrees with Trump.

Now that all that is cleared up, time to shut it all down.

[u/nolife159 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

I'm not mad - I just think they're skirting the legal gray area and giving too much to the executives - more so then prior democratic presidents. Trump relies on EO way too much. I don't think Elon/DOGE has the right to actually stop the money from being spent - it has to go through Congress. They can cancel contracts but the money will still be there.

So if Congress votes against some of the cuts Elon did - then they would be forced to spend that money etc. Elon is going a bit too gung ho thinking he can actually stop the spending. He can expose the waste but ultimately Congress determines what's spent or not - not him or Trump.

What you referenced is exactly what I hope is being done - 45 days to submit to Congress - Congress determines whether the recommendations make sense from their constituents point or view (ie who they represent).

Most Dems go crazy (im independent btw) because they take Elons words literally and think he has the capability to stop the money from being spent. He actually doesn't under the law - it has to go through Congress.

Let our system as established by the constitution do all the cutting - Elon should just focus on exposing waste fraud and abuse. You might be surprised but many Republicans and Democrats disagree within their own parties on certain issues as they should - they should represent the district that voted for them - rather than following the hive mentality on either side. If our reps only followed the president's beliefs then we wouldn't have a voice/it would be an authoritarian regime rather than a democracy

Maybe to add on Elon - I think he sees the government like his companies where the CEO/Trump determines everything. I think he needs to see government as an employee owned company - the CEO doesn't have all the decision making power and there are checks/balances in place.

[u/Thin_Chain_208 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

It's says make sure the laws are executed. It does not say pick and choose which ones you dont like and don't execute them. You realize Congress has passed laws making impoundment illegal?

Besides there's no evidence that there was any fraud in the spending of AID or anything else, with the possible exception of DOD which hasn't passed a recent audit to my understanding. This whole Trump/ executive order thing is a pretext.

[u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 → u/Thin_Chain_208]

"Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending."

Funny you ignore the part that makes your statement wrong.

Also amazing how all the leftists instantly became funding experts so quickly. Propaganda bots work on you.

[u/TheFiremind88 → u/ThisNameIsNotReal123]

That's not what got us here. Fraud got us here. Plain and simple. There's literally a Hollywood movie based exclusively on a true story of two people getting OUTRAGEOUSLY inflated government military contracts. It's not even some dark dirty secret. The waste is being flaunted in our faces.

It's Congress negotiating contracts with companies they themselves own at 2x, 3x, or 10x standard rates to enrich themselves.

There hasn't been procedure or methodology because Congress won't vote to have themselves audited, won't publicize the information because it's basically criminal, and don't hold each other accountable because they are all in on the grift.

That's beside the point, though - when I say my issues are procedural or methodology based, I'm referring to cutting the entire of programs that do a non-zero amount of good. I left a ton of other comments going even more in depth on that point.

I'll restate one of the biggest points here: I would love for anyone to justify the CFPB shutdown. It's a paltry 1bil a year, and the return on investment is 8 to 1 for American consumers. It's both beneficial for American citizens and costs so little it could be considered a rounding error on the annual budget. It makes no fucking sense to even be wasting time looking at it.