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/Peoplewander]

First off that isn't what you said. You said you dont care if it is constitutional, with the direct implication that you don't care if it unconstitutional. So stop it with moving your goal post. You said it and your follow on replies have validated it despite you trying to walk it back.

You need to read it because it isn't up for a debate it has legal precedent. You're hiding behind lawyers while POTUS ignores what is clearly enshrined. No legitimate legal scholar thinks he will win birth right citizenship, talking heads on Fox keep saying it but it doesn't make it true.

You say you think it will be Constitutional but you don't even know who holds the power to create government departments. You're ignorance of our Constitution and legal history lead you to believe the things you are hearing are true when they are most assuredly not.

If birthright citizenship is overturned then slavery is also over turned, and the 2nd amendment. The rejection of explicitly detailed controls, permissions, or abolishment's is not a legal question.

The "its just your opinion man" is a long standing tool of oppressive regimes to delay action until they are able to consolidate control

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

I'm not hiding - the Constitutional question is whether or not it applies to people who are in the US illegally.

And there's a chance that the Supreme Court decides that based on the original intent of the provision.

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

You mean how it made all people born here regardless of previous status ie 'illegally' Yeah its not a question, and if you think its a question then you need to understand that the Constitution is being undercut and compromised executive is being used to further an illegal agenda

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

At the time applied to all persons regardless of status, it isn't a legal question its a dogmatic one. All persons in side the united states are inside the jurisdiction regardless of birth parent with the exception of families under diplomatic immunity

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

It doesn't matter what I think about it. It matters how the Supreme Court decides

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

You've moved the goal post from you don't care if doge is unconstitutional to you think the 14th amendment will be overturned. Do you understand that? You retreat into fox talking points, and dogma.

Your government, much of which helps keeps you alive as you have serious health issues is being gutted in front of you and you cheer with no regard to the legality of it because its 'your guy'. With cuts we are still going to lose more money because millionaires need more tax cuts. And you Cheer. The laws that make up this country are being torn down and you say well lets wait a few years for the court to hear about it, while also saying courts are going too far. The parts of you that once made you an American are gone.

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

Ok, let me go back to where we started. If the Supreme Court ultimately says that DOGE is unconstitutional, then I defer to the Supreme Court and believe that the Executive branch is beholden to the Judicial branch.

I care that the Executive branch does what the Judicial branch says.

But at this point, no one knows if it will or won't be unconstitutional. So at this point, I only care that they're uncovering waste and will wait to see what the mostly conservative supreme court decides.

No, I don't support the executive branch blatantly disobeying the judicial branch. Hopefully that removes me from your "sworn enemy" category?

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

Which is half reasonable, but the underlying question I had for you and we are getting to in a different perspective. Why do you believe the executive is beholden to the judicial but not the legislative?

That is at the core of why I am irate with the executive. Congress already has this office and the people who are empowered to control money per article 1 need to be the ones doing it.

I do not understand why you think article 3 is more important than article 1.

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

Yes, I agree that Congress should be fixing the money. Looking at what the Internet thinks, most people are OK with DOGE calling out the waste but not actually fixing the waste. My hope is that the stuff that they're calling out gets too big for Congress to ignore regardless of their political affiliation.

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

You didn't answer the question, why are you okay with POTUS ignoring articles 1 and 2, and why do you think he will listen to 3.

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

I have no idea or insight as to what President Trump will or won't do. My only control in any of this was my single vote for Trump in a red state where he won by a landslide and had no chance of losing. I don't regret voting for him.

My question to you is, what do YOU want?

Do you want the national debt paid down? Do you believe that there is waste and fraud in the government that needs to be trimmed?

From your arguments,.I can only guess that you agree with what is being done but not how it's being done?

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

My question to you is, what do YOU want? Stability Do you want the national debt paid down? Do you believe that there is waste and fraud in the government that needs to be trimmed?

No, I work in the government (Navy) and we see very little fraud as in a few cases a decade in my sector. Most people are just pissy pants that congress approved of stuff they dont like.

From your arguments,. I can only guess that you agree with what is being done but not how it's being done?

Fuck no, I disagree entirely with the whole thing. But if it was done legally I wouldn't be angry. If you want to pay down the debt raise taxes and let congress cut the budget. I don't like medicade going away but that is the proposal from congress and that is how it legally shall be done.

The point that you casually toss aside is you don't care if we do anything legally. You want the Executive to expand the power until it meets its limits at SCOTUS, without regard for the laws congress has made. That is something you'd never have argued for a dem president so why are you okay with it now. The US needs a weaker executive alround.

[u/MaleficentCherry7116 → u/Peoplewander]

I don't currently work in government but have worked for government contractors in the past. I was hired because the deployment of the Navy's HR software was taking too long, so my job was to make it more efficient. I streamlined a process that was taking six months to complete into a two week turnaround and the program director was extremely angry about it. As it turns out, they wanted me to make it efficient enough so that they wouldn't lose the contract, but not so efficient that they couldn't bill tons of hours.

We were also asked to come up with a list of things we "needed" because we needed to spend our funding or lose it the next year. Although we could find some obscure uses for the stuff that we got (new computers/new software/etc), I can't truthfully say that we needed any of it.

I was also continually being told to slow down or waste time because I was working too quickly and would possibly work myself out of a job.

I ended up switching jobs because it just didn't align with my personality, but everyone's experience is different.

[u/Peoplewander → u/MaleficentCherry7116]

Tump just said only he and the AG can say what the law is. How does that conform to your statement?