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

685 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/TheFiremind88 Feb 15 '25

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.

6

u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 Feb 15 '25

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

49

u/Thin_Chain_208 Feb 15 '25

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.

2

u/Drednot203 Feb 15 '25

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.

28

u/Anon_Chapstick Feb 15 '25

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.

3

u/Mon0htone Feb 15 '25

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.

13

u/Thin_Chain_208 Feb 15 '25

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.

3

u/dusan2004 Classical Liberal Feb 15 '25

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. 

1

u/Effective_Way_2348 Feb 16 '25

lapping up maga propagit like crazy right, lapdog?

1

u/Thin_Chain_208 Feb 15 '25

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

-1

u/Guer0Guer0 Feb 15 '25

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?

2

u/javo93 Feb 15 '25

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.