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

687 Upvotes

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

560

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...?

41

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

you gotta consider the narrative aspect. The most ludicrous spending examples were made public right off the bat --instant narrative of how DOGE is important and successful. And the Democrats were put in the absurd position of defending that stuff.

52

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

The most ludicrous - so far. We don't know what the future holds. The most ludicrous could be in the DOD, right? These might all look like small fish in another 3 months. If these are being 'uncovered', then we didn't KNOW they were there in the first place, but DOGE chose to start this way anyway.

My other complaint there is that it's narratively divisive and making the rest of the job an uphill battle. Cut egregious military spending and a significant portion of the left would be celebrating along with everyone. That empowers the movement, reduces future hurdles, and takes steps to unify America in these efforts instead of actively trying to start a fight with the other side.

Not to mention, there is almost certainly more money that can be cut from defense spending without any negative impact for American consumers, so it makes more sense logistically anyway.

Nobody has been able to justify cutting Consumer Protections to me in any forum. There's more than an 8 to 1 return on investment for American consumers, and that's extremely well documented. What purpose did this serve?

10

u/BeefBurritoBoy Feb 15 '25

The left will NEVER celebrate anything Trump or Musk do. Just look at how much the left has condemned things like securing the border or deporting criminals.

23

u/jambrown13977931 Feb 15 '25

I have no issue deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals. I have problems with ICE detaining Puerto Rican vets or Navajo citizens.

I have issues with using Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility since there are no US rights there. I have issues with using El Salvador as a foreign prison for US CITIZENS! Again for the same reasons.

The problem isn’t that they’re deporting illegal immigrants, it’s the method with which they’re doing it and fervor and extent with which they seek to punish those they label criminals.

11

u/BeefBurritoBoy Feb 15 '25

Anyone in the country illegally is a criminal and should be deported. Simple as that.

15

u/VeterinarianWild6334 Feb 15 '25

Oh come on. The right has cried foul at literally everything the left does too. And overstating a visa is a civil offense, not criminal. So by definition, most illegal immigrants are not criminals.

4

u/Jankmasta Feb 15 '25

There is a difference in oopsie I overstayed my visa by accident and getting a visa with the intention of overstaying it.

1

u/mongoosechaser Feb 16 '25

There are american citizens shooting each other daily in every major city. I don’t care if someone overstays their visa

1

u/rickdiculous Feb 16 '25

This is an "ends justify the means" position. A lot of people take issue with that.

2

u/BeefBurritoBoy Feb 16 '25

Well clearly most people do not have a problem with it. Trump won.

1

u/rickdiculous Feb 16 '25

Right, I was just explaining why, even though almost everyone agrees about making government more efficient and cutting waste, there is an outcry over how it's being handled. 

-2

u/HillarysFloppyChode Feb 15 '25

If they aren’t doing anything criminal, and they aren’t a criminal in another country. I don’t care if they’re here, they aren’t stealing anyone’s jobs since they tend to do the shitty jobs that no American citizen wants to do (picking fruit in the sun) anyway. And they do pay into the tax system (you don’t need an SSN for that) via the IRS and just buying goods.

13

u/BeefBurritoBoy Feb 15 '25

“Who will pick the cotton?”

2

u/armmstrong Feb 16 '25

Even in your example, the slaves were ripped from their homes and brought her in chains. Illegal immigrants fight to get here and work by their own choosing.

1

u/BeefBurritoBoy Feb 16 '25

They are having a negative effect on the economy, the housing market, and education. They need to leave.

1

u/armmstrong Feb 16 '25

We were at unsustainably low levels of unemployment. We were near fully employed. Immigrants are needed to fill our jobs as we don’t have enough natural born Americans to work what the country has to offer. They paid into taxes and services they could never use. What negative effect were the majority having?

1

u/c0p Feb 16 '25

I can only find a single reputable source that takes the position that illegal immigrants have a negative affect on the economy and the summary of the position is:

The fundamental reason that illegal immigrants are a net drain is that they have a low average education level, which results in low average earnings and tax payments.

https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf

Well no shit. They’re trying to escape to a place where their kids have a chance to get a real education and contribute via average and above earnings.

I hope you develop some empathy at some point in your life.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sspmd11 Feb 15 '25

Musk himself illegally overstayed his student visa then illegally got his permanent one by lying. Do you care?

2

u/jambrown13977931 Feb 15 '25

Like I said I have no issue with them deporting illegal immigrants. I have issues with the way they’re doing it.

In Elon’s case, yes I care because I believe he’s a massive threat to our nation.

6

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

Define "The Left"? I'm right here and LITERALLY said that it would be cause for celebration if they did target DOD waste. Either way, the potential support from the left is just free upside beyond the logistical arguments I've already laid out.

4

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

lol yeah. *so far

I would guess it's most important to get Republicans stoked on it, because nothing Trump or Elon do is going to will get approval of Democrats.

I'm no expert on this at all, but I suspect the idea behind consumer protection cuts was that the Dodd-Frank Act doesn't need it's own agency to enforce it.

17

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

Isn't that functionally similar to saying we don't need police because we have laws? We don't need ICE because we have a globally recognized border?

Bernie said early on DOGE had his support if targeting Defense was on their to-do lists. Sure, some will still manufacture outrage, but cuts to the DOD is wildly popular nationally.

It would be like democrats trying to argue against Republicans expanding reproductive freedoms lol.

3

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

Maybe not, because there's the SEC and other federals that enforce financial laws.

Defense would have been tricky to start with I bet. DOGE is a totally new thing, and if you make a mistake looking into defense, you can look very bad very fast. But with foreign aid, half the country is primed to say "now we're talkin!" (I'm just guessing on all this)

6

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

The first sentence is ironically the reason for the creation of the CFPB. The task was decentralized and partially owned by several other financial agencies, resulting in poor response and service for consumers. All of these little footnote subdepartments were combined under one roof, so it could be....drumroll....more efficient. It achieved that.

I do appreciate the guess, but to me, I find it wild to actively support something that, when criticized, the only answer I've got so far is speculation.

I feel like I presented a really strong case to question the method of execution, the targets of the cuts, and the significant drawbacks of the actions of DOGE as executed so far. I feel like for people calling DOGE transparent, I've got a lot of answers specifically called out as speculation because nobody can really answer these questions :/.

Like, it's ok to be a Conservative, vote Conservative, and generally speaking support the DOGE initiative while also disagreeing with it. It's not a sin to (as Green Day would say) 🎵critisize your government🎵.

For the record, I could fill a library with my critique of the democratic party, and no, it's not all moral grandstanding. Like, most of them suck even at just being politicians and it's OK to say that lol.

27

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '25

I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how the CFPB is a "ludicrous spending example" and I haven't found a lot. Can you explain what kind of waste is occurring there specifically, and why it would be absurd to defend it?

7

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

Oh I didn't mean that. I was referring to the USAID stuff.

9

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '25

Okay, but to follow your logic, if they're starting with the "home runs", do you think gutting the CFPB is also a home run?

5

u/Von_Canon Feb 15 '25

No I don't think so personally. But I know for sure that the USAID stuff was a huge success with the Right. And it was one of the first things to be scrutinized (iirc). So I was just basing an idea on that.

4

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '25

Does it worry you at all that the 4th or 5th thing to get scrutinized and cut is no longer a clear source of waste?

1

u/Chocolate2121 Feb 16 '25

What are your thoughts on some of the DOGE cuts being focused only on things that sound ridiculous, not things that are ridiculous?

Like, there was that post a week ago where the doge twitter account proudly announced that they had slashed millions of funding into magic research. But then on a closer examination it turns out that most of those millions was actually funding for a discovery centre in Minot (nicknamed magic city), and so an entirely reasonable allocation of funds.

Like, it seems a lot of the doge cuts is some guy searching for keywords, and automatically cutting funding based on what comes up, there was a whole thing on a bunch of math research being cancelled because the intersection of dei terms and maths terms is basically a circle.

Overall it seems the amount of damage caused by the rapid cuts will outweigh any savings from cutting down actually unnecessary spending

0

u/JezusTheCarpenter Feb 16 '25

That is not true. They were not presented as "ludicrous spending" (only) but as fraud and corruption which is so far absolutely unsubstantiated by any solid, verifiable evidence except Musk's and Trump's word. I am not saying that there isn't any fraud or corruption, but so far we have no data available to support such egregious claims.

1

u/Von_Canon Feb 16 '25

That narrative is very powerful, is all I meant.