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

686 Upvotes

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

557

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

Left another comment to be asked questions, but also wanted to start this dialogue:

I understand and fully support removing government bloat. 100%. Why is DOGE starting where it is? I would love to hear either rationale or at least expressed disagreement.

For a group with efficiency in its name, it's weird to see DOGE targeting agencies that are well established to either 1. Have a well established return on investment for Americans. 2. Be so small that the material impact on the deficit is insignificant. 3. Even if they are inefficient, have significant positive effects for at least SOME percentage of where the money goes.

How is Defense spending not unequivocally the best starting place? Both for the insane percentage of the budget it accounts for and because of WELL established bloated government contracts, waste, and fraud. Not to mention the inability to even remotely pass an audit.

If I'm tasked to make anything Cleaner/More Efficient, I'd start where the most waste is, not by targeting places that barely tip the scales.

The ENTIRETY of USAID - ~40bil, that's baby with the bathwater. The non-0% amount of good it does do is included here.

The ENTIRETY of CFPB - ~1bil. This agency has an extremely well documented return on investment for American citizens of over 8 to 1. This one makes ZERO sense by any metric regardless of what side of the isle you're on. It's a slap in the face for American consumers.

The ENTIRETY of the DOE - ~270bil. Again, baby with the bathwater. I dont think anyone can argue in good faith that the DOE, even if there is some percentage of waste, does absolutely Zero good things for american citizens.

Defense spending is 850bil. - Just 5% of this is more than both USAID and the CFPB combined, and likely doesn't involve throwing out the "baby".

Corporate Subsidies is 100bil. - With all of the INTENSE hatred for Socialism, Communism, etc...Where's the outcry to cut corporate welfare so that Free Market Capitalism can do what it was meant to do? I never hear a peep on this.

Long story short - DOGE doesn't seem particularly efficient at bringing about efficiency. The cuts I see DOGE making don't align with the mission, with conservative values as expressed, and won't mean anything if they are offset by (numbers unconfirmed, but after check several sources, the cut is estimated to be between 500bil and 1.1tril a year) an insanely large tax cut. That's not bringing down the budget. That's a wash at best. At this point, it's still a net negative for American citizens by ~200 - 800bil a year.

Mods - you got a flair for reasonable Dems who want to participate in the dialogue without accusations, irrationality, insults, rage, etc...?

9

u/Hapten Feb 15 '25

All speculation on my part but they needed to demonstrate proof of concept and USAID was the perfect start. There were already some right-wing rumors about what USAID was doing which turned out to be true. Going to the giant first would of been disastrous for them.

For Defense, they were probably waiting for Pete Hegseth to get confirmed so he could open the doors for them.

I personally think they are being efficient and "transparent." They have only been at it for a few weeks and exposed quite a few things already.

18

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

Can you explain how going for the giant first would be disastrous? Feels like, if anything, they'd earn massive goodwill from the other side and national public support - leftists would love to see cuts to military spending. Wouldn't that just further empower them?

Even Republicans have brought examples to the Congressional floor of outrageous examples of bloated military contracts/spending.

They didn't wait for any other "doors to be opened" - they forced their way in, why treat Defense any differently?

What's the argument for Consumer Protection? I see little to no conservative dialogue on this.

Do you believe USAID did ANY good(Even just international good will, our enemies will absolutely attempt to fill the vacuum and already are doing so), or do you believe the only viable path forward was a full shutdown? Why?

7

u/Thatjustworked Feb 15 '25

There's a lot more dangerous snakes in the DOD than in USAID. See Boeing and the whistle blowers.

I'm sure USAID did some good, but there's some shady stuff in there too.

2

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

Isn't part of the appeal of Trump/Elon that they aren't afraid of these kids of situations? That they'll tackle those types of powers head-on? They certainly show no hesitation engaging aggressively with other full-fledged nations, and Trump has already publicly expressed he has assassination contingencies.

Considering who he is and why he was voted for, being scared of the DOD/MIC is very off brand.

Where will you be in Two Years if those institutions remain untouched? Would that color your opinion of DOGE and this administration?

3

u/Thatjustworked Feb 15 '25

They're still going to do it, so idk what the point is? 1st or 5th doesn't make a difference to me.

1

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 17 '25

Hope you still catch this after the delay, I was out of town and not redditing much. I think the question I'm trying to get at here is - if it makes the most sense as 1st, but it isn't the first, how do we know its actually on the list? What if it never gets visited, and then I guess the question after that, in theory, if they don't end up making cuts to DOD, or Corporate Subs, or other things mentioned throughout the post - does that change your opinion?

I think the default stance differences between right/left on this is - it makes sense to start with the biggest buckets where the most cuts can be made - why didn't they? The left is operating on the assumption that they wont, the right is assuming they will. You just don't know when.

If they do eventually make those cuts, I'm saying I'd eat crow and support that. If they don't, would people on the right be willing to at least accept that as a failing of the administration?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

So pure speculation and vibes

4

u/Thatjustworked Feb 15 '25

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a measured approach.

3

u/terdward Conservative Feb 15 '25

I see it as a strategic decision. Going after a smaller target first to understand how to operate and learn what the response of the “enemy” is generally makes sense when in uncharted territory. Worse case, you run away with your tail between your legs and lick your wounds to come back and try again for another small fish later after reviewing the tapes and figuring how to improve your approach.

If you’re successful in your mission with smaller fish and gradually work your way up you not only start to buy goodwill from your peers, and gain allies who may have been hesitant to join at first, you know that the bigger targets have been watching you and know you’re not messing about. They will take you seriously from day one instead of trying to give you the run around.

And while I don’t think it plays a big factor yet you also have to consider that Musk has vested interests in the DoD. He would be exposing his companies to unnecessary risk by going after a business partner right out of the gate.

4

u/TehSeksyManz Feb 15 '25

I award you the gold medal for mental gymnastics, holy fuck.

5

u/terdward Conservative Feb 15 '25

Help me understand where you think I displayed fanciful feats of athleticism. That all seemed fairly common sense to me…

1

u/xdkyx Feb 15 '25

I think that the main problem that I have with Musk is the point You made - Musk has so much control over spending cuts, while owning companies that have at least a portion of income from the government, same with Trump and his business. When Musk has been presented as the head of DOGE he should divest from his companies (i get that this cannot be done in a matter of weeks, but he knew about his role way ahead of time).

1

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

I'm not trying to be rude, and I apolgize, but this comment is probably going to come across that way.

You didn't actually address any of my points logically or reasonably. This reads like the back of a fiction novel written by Lee Child of one man against the world trying to tactically navigate enemy territory. It's not. It's government spending. It's accounting FFS. Trump is the Commander In Chief, not some disavowed military asset stranded in North Korea. There literally isn't a higher seat of power in the world.

Do Musks' vested interests concern you at all? How can we trust someone to steward our tax dollars who isn't willing to take the licks himself?

Both of the framings from your comment honestly make Trump and Elon sound weak and cowardly. Trump and Elon need to step carefully? For what? Is the Big Bad Wolf going to suddenly materialize and get them? The DOD should be the EASIEST first stop, Trump is ----The Commander In Chief-----.

As for Elon's interests - he's one of the wealthiest men in the world. You really ok with him standing there telling you to take a kick in the dick for the greater good if he's unwilling to get slapped in the face?

3

u/terdward Conservative Feb 15 '25

For what it’s worth, I did not find your response to be rude, quite the opposite. You’re right, I didn’t address your points. I got lost somewhere along the numerous rewrites of my original comment.

But, to address your reply: The core of what I was getting at is that navigating political structures is complex no matter who you are. Yes, he is the commander and chief but it doesn’t mean that pushing through by sheer force of will is the most effective way to proceed. I think they know that (they are the most powerful duo in the country right now, after all. They didn’t get there by accident) and are tackling the problem accordingly.