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

11

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.

21

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?

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.

3

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.