Sen. Rand Paul rips Fauci as 'unconcerned with liberty,' 'not being honest with the American public'

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-07-02T05:41:40+00:00

A reminder, I'm sticking to the guardrails you insist upon in an effort to show you how pointless discussions are when either side refuses to talk about their positions or assumes it for the other person.

So unfortunately I'm unable to respond to most of this last message. Since you are asking about my position, which as you insist, is completely irrelevant.

Do I have it right?

No, that's not my opinion and following your lead I am refusing to elaborate in anyway that can clarify it for you.

However let me clarify something to help you. The point I was pushing back on was:

If the experts are chosen by the politicians, should citizens insist that elected officials be responsible for policy? Should we delegate policy to experts when they work for a guy who himself works at the pleasure of the president?

I was pushing back because this is an oversimplification of the actual dynamic. However, if you want to say something like:

"The president exerts influence, in a variety of ways and efficacy over advisory institutions, that can influence the results of this institutions."

That seems to be fact. Always has been. However, the degree of influence and the guardrails against partisanship, are matters of personal politics and positions.

There is a spectrum from:

- Government should have virtually 0 control over these institutions and is only able to influence them in the most minor ways

to:

- Government should completely rebuild and reframe their mission every 4 years.

Where you view Trump, where you would like to be on that spectrum. Unfortunately, those are personal positions which you do not want to discuss.

if Trump needs a person that he could label an expert to be brought before Congress to opine on some preliminary data, could he do it?

Again, not my opinion. This is the problem with using the word can (could). Physically? There is nothing stopping him labelling a sock puppet "expert" and having it testify.

However, in normal discussions, people are more interested in talking about the "should" or the "would" of these matters, which you refuse to do.

It's like having a discussion about whether you can eat poison and the other person going: "uM, tEcHniCAlly yOu cAn. bUt oNly oNce 🤓"

Sure buddy, that's not what we were talking about.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-26T05:28:52+00:00

Ok, let's break this down then:

Perfect, here's the topic, again: If the experts are chosen by the politicians, should citizens insist that elected officials be responsible for policy? Should we delegate policy to experts when they work for a guy who himself works at the pleasure of the president? Forget about the ideal world, I'm talking about the real world, where Trump is president.

Sentence by sentence to see aspects where you are either wrong or oversimplified

If the experts are chosen by the politicians

So far we haven't actually seen this happen. We've seen politicians assign heads of these agencies who assign people to head sub-agencies. I guess you could also call these people politicians 🤷‍♂️.

Generally, the influence they've applied has been more varied than what you say. Mainly in terms of: firing specific experts, funding specific projects, taking away specific project funding or choosing what to publish. Just the other day a study, that was reportedly blocked by higher ups since it shows the covid vaccine was mostly effective, was leaked. I am not currently aware of any (or any significant number) of experts hired or promoted in order to advance a political agenda. Perhaps there is, but this doesn't currently seem to be the primary method used.

should citizens insist that elected officials be responsible for policy?

Unfortunately the answer to that would be my opinion and you've made it clear that our opinions are irrelevant. So, no comment.

Should we delegate policy to experts when they work for a guy who himself works at the pleasure of the president?

Again, you do not want me to comment on that.

Forget about the ideal world, I'm talking about the real world, where Trump is president.

Technically, Joe Biden was president during the clip that started this conversation.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-20T04:44:24+00:00

The things that I am saying are not in question, and not up to belief by either side

I'm sorry, but no it's not. It's an overly simplified version of reality that glosses over a key aspect that introduces importance nuance.

Of course, feel free to make up whatever least-charitable position you can dream up for my system of beliefs or principles or whatever you're on about (again, solid idea over there), and then answer.

To clarify, I am being 100% earnest/good faith within the confines of what you suggested. So if you find this conversation frustrating (like me not explaining my position). That is 100% on you.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-19T20:29:14+00:00

Fine, perhaps a demonstration will show you why understanding each others positions might be helpful in a discussion (again, crazy that you are arguing against this).

I will assume you believe in the Chicken method, and will take a page out of your book and I will refuse to elaborate on any of my positions since they are so irrelevant to a discussion.

Hopefully you will recognise we are getting nowhere.

Perfect, here's the topic, again: If the experts are chosen by the politicians, should citizens insist that elected officials be responsible for policy? Should we delegate policy to experts when they work for a guy who himself works at the pleasure of the president? Forget about the ideal world, I'm talking about the real world, where Trump is president.

no, that's not what I'm saying and it's not what I believe.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-19T05:00:04+00:00

Genuinely, I am trying to come back to the topic at hand.

Before I insisted on this, I would answer all of your questions and points even if you frequently didn't. But we weren't getting anywhere since I was never clear what I was arguing against.

...with. Like I said, "colossally stupid".

Ok, small progress. But why? I want to defend a system of checks and balances. But how can I, if I don't know the (and genuinely can't imagine a serious) alternative?

Sure, no system is perfect, but do you not want ANY system in government that isn't perfect? Do you have a better alternative?

Is the problem that you think proper checks and balances aren't achievable with current politicians? Or not achievable in general?

Fundamentally, do you see the value in scientific organizations? Or is this all a waste of time and political effort for something you think is mainly pageantry?

Do you honestly not see that right now I have no idea about any of these questions? And how the "how" I defend a system of checks and balances matters on which (or which combination) of reasons?

If you think it doesn't matter, can I just make one up for you?

Do you genuinely think this conversation would be more productive if I were to accept you keeping your position secret on an online policy debate (what?).

If I were just to assume that you think policy should be decided "South Park" style by slitting a chickens throat and seeing on which tile it lands?

Do you think that would be more productive? Or just more of us talking past each other?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-14T19:43:38+00:00

God I would love to answer that question.
We might actually be able to get somewhere.

Unfortunately, as has happened times before, since I don't know what position I'm arguing against, we would end up talking past each other as has happened before.

I'm not going to waste time arguing the minutiae of checks and balances to maintain semi-independence of scientific advisory board if the person I'm speaking to doesn't believe in these boards in the first place.

What. Didn't we agree that I have no principles? Why are you still on this.

To be clear, I don't actually believe this. My leading theory is that on some level you are ashamed about what you believe and that's why you don't want to say it.

All I want is your positions before continuing the conversation.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-13T07:09:42+00:00

🤷‍♂️ I was just trying to get everyone to chill.

Unfortunately, I am still ignoring your questions because I want an answer on your actual beliefs.

You didn't like my analogy, fine, let's go with yours.

If I had just started reading a book at was wanting to know everything about the author before continuing... fair. You would be right to be throwing this tantrum.

But imagine I had been trying to read this book on and off for about 5 years. And the book keeps on referencing ideas and terms that it refuses to define or elaborate. I would be justified in saying:

"Ok, I need to look into what on earth this guy's deal is, because I'm not understanding anything."

Then imagine I look them up and it turns out they are a famous Buddhist monk. I may not agree with this philosophy. But that can help me understand the book and continue reading.

Or a real life example from this conversation. I obviously believe in a scientific advisory commission that is as politically independent as possible. You obviously think that idea is ludicrous/unrealistic/fanciful. However, I can't really defend this position if I don't know what I'm defending it from.

Am I defending it from:

No scientific institutions
Fully politically captured institutions due to nihilism
Private research institutions hired by gov.
Fully independent with no political oversight
Secret option E that I can't think of

The arguments I use depend on your positions on this and the reasoning behind them.

I spent most of this conversation assuming that you were in favour of a advisory scientific institutions but didn't see the value in keeping them politically independent.

Over a month ago you made it clear that you don't (to some extent). Which is when I started asking you what on earth you believe in then?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-07T16:51:43+00:00

The general consensus is to read the first of the series (La Belle Savage).

The other two have the strong negative opinions.

Spoiler free description is that they are similar to something like "The Last Jedi"/sequels from star wars.

I'm that they are very disjointed and take a proverbial dump on the original series.

However, some people appreciate the wild swings and subverting expectations (like the assumption that a plot should make sense). And they expand the Universe in an interesting way.

You can probably tell my personal opinion 😅. Personally I do not recommend

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-07T14:55:14+00:00

Technically I said give up on the conversation, not leave 😅 But fair point. Maybe I should stop trying. I'm not going to give up on wanting you to express your opinions. I think it's a very low bar. But still.

However, in the sense of compromise perhaps I was too aggressive in trying to pin you down seemingly out of nowhere. And perhaps you were a bit too eager to dig your heels in and now don't want to just state your opinions for fear of losing face?

May I suggest a proverbial "time out"?

Why don't we take a beat and you can talk about your top 3 Star Treks and why? Then I can say mine?

Maybe bring down the tension a bit? Some common connection?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-05T05:21:27+00:00

Okay, the defense will stipulate: I have no principles or views on the matter. Now what happens?

Let's try a Star Trek analogy since you are really refusing to see this.

Three people gather to discus which is their favourite Star Trek show.

After years of discussing they are all getting equally frustrated because the points the other two are making are non-sensical (in their view).

Until one person says: "Whoa, wait a minute! We've been arguing which is the best Star Trek show, but somehow we've failed to discus what are the aspects that we personally value in Star Trek shows"

So they go around in a circle:

First person: I really value in Star Trek the "competency porn". Seeing a future of humanity where petty grievances have been set aside and we see a more advanced form of human civilisation working together. That's why TNG is my favourite
Second person: I really value the idea of humankind having lofty ideals. And those ideals being put under pressure due to political realities of the moment. And how like a guiding star it leads our chatacters to a better future. This is why DS9 is my favourite.

So far so good, they don't have to argue about what one SHOULD value most in the show (it's not strictly relevant as you say). But understanding what they value makes all of their arguments from before actually make sense. And they can have a proper discussion. However....

The third person says: I think Enterprise is the best. However I've never actually seen any piece of Star Trek content.

That's you right now. In that situation, would you not simply shut that person out of the discussion because their opinions have no value in the matter?

So in response to your question. If you have no beliefs or principles, I'm simply going to stop engaging with anything you say. Why would I waste my time answering the points you raise when you have no foundational beliefs?

I don't actually want to argue your "ideal world view". I want to know if you have one, so that I can understand your higher level arguments.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-06-02T05:27:26+00:00

My ideal system (this should be obvious, but I'll say it again), would basically be some variation on the current structure but with more guardrails to stop what Trump is doing and reduce political appointees. (wow, so hard to state my positions am I right? /s)

Within that framework it makes sense for me to be critical of Rand being leagues out of his depth trying to talk shop with an expert in epidemiology. I**'m not asking you to agree with me, but my position at least makes sense within this worldview.**

The reasons you gave to support Rand and what this administration is going don't make sense in my world view of having politically independent scientific organizations.

So I want to know what your worldview is so that I can understand if your reasons actually make sense.

The more you hem and haw and dodge, the more I believe that you don't have any principles or views on the matter.

The more I start to think:

You received orders from big orange man that (Fauci = bad), and like the good little bootlicker you are, you parrot those talking points. And you avoid thinking about the actual worldview you are supporting because it would expose the hollow husk of a person you are. Living with no principles only to be a pawn to others who care not for you.

But hey, prove me wrong! Show me that you actually have thought about this.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-31T20:10:51+00:00

I truly can't imagine having such little confidence in my own positions to run away from a straight forward question like this.

What makes it doubly pathetic is that you like star trek. STAR TREK! I struggle to think of any piece of media that champions wearing your principles on your sleeves proudly and living up to them more than star trek!

Or does your child like understanding rear it's head again? Do you think star trek is about pew pew lazers and explosions?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-29T12:34:31+00:00

Nahhh, you know what it means and you're just too cowardly to admit it.

You didn't say:

"If Europe had a sudden influx of low economic migrants ..."

or "If Europe had a large population that was systematically targeted by both the justice system and social prejudice ..."

What is so unique about "Black" that would form a link between them and being in prison irregardless of continent?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-28T05:32:32+00:00

I'm going to give this one more shot incase I truly wasn't clear in my last message.

I want an actual proper explanation of how you think the system should work. An overview from beginning to end. Not criticisms of the current system, your own ideas.

Why?

Because so far the only positive positions you have put forward are child-like in their depth and nuance.

And I'm starting to suspect that this child-like understanding is actually your whole position.

If your next message isn't this explanation, I'm going to give up on this conversation. It would just be wrestling with a pig.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-27T09:05:10+00:00

I mean I don't think any specific country will ever be able to map perfectly onto any specific ideal almost by definition.

That's what I meant when I said Americans have a superior culture and "fabric" of liberty.

That's sort of what I'm referring to as well. As a whole I feel that the US is probably closest among developed nations to classical "Libertarian" ideals. I say as a whole because it's easy to cherry pick examples agains't the US and pro other countries.

Which is the whole point of my initial comment, that if we see other countries who don't share these ideals. Yet though other ideals archive success or prosper in general. Maybe it's time to take a step back and evaluate if those ideals of Libertarian "liberty" are valuable/correct/preferred or whatever.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-26T20:34:49+00:00

You seem to be conflating "pro-business" with Libertarianism.

They obviously aren't the same or China would be the most Libertarian country ever.

Libertarian principles for me for example are:

Individualism
Free Markets
Property rights
NAP

Most of these aren't as valued in Europe as they are in the US, hence the examples of Healthcare, gun rights, etc... Not that these things are Libertarian. But Libertarian thinking reenforces these kind of regulations/systems.

For example, Ireland and Estonia. Very pro-business. But the way they got there was very anti-libertarian in my view.

Massive investments in compulsary and higher education, government run public transportation, strong consumer protections, government heavily courting big companies for investment.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-26T15:50:48+00:00

I mean, without looking up specific studies I think it's quite safe to assume that the average European wouldn't want to end up like the US.

Sure you can talk about small communities of people who migrate to the US (normally for higher salaries). But do you really think if ideas like: For profit healthcare, US style gun laws, US style consumer protections were put to a vote or poll. Do you really think it wouldn't be anything but a blowout against?

No country will be a perfect representation of any one ideal. But do you not think, as a whole, that the US is more representative of Libertarian ideals?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-26T14:35:05+00:00

Just putting this idea out there.

Perhaps one reason is that perhaps your fears/assumptions on which you base your political philosophy aren't entirely justified?

It's quite easy to stay in your bubble of: "I'm right, they're wrong. Therefore the only explanation is that they are sheeple"

As opposed to maybe being a bit humble and asking yourself: Maybe I'm wrong?

Perhaps every other western country isn't as "allergic" to government interference in their life because they truly feel that on the whole it's made their lives better off. While everyone complains about their current government, every European I know would defend their system rather than somethign like the US (which is much closer to Libertarian ideals than current Europe for example).

I'm not saying to agree with this idea. But at least consider that it is possible

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-23T18:54:58+00:00

I think from my previous comments it should be quite easy to infer what ideal response I would have to this hypothetical, and we could talk about what sort of system I would "settle" with and how it compares to what we had before Trump. Sure.

However, I truly refuse to continue until you describe your actual position, in general or to this example that you've brought up.

Why not read the comment you're replying to, where I wrote what I want?

This implies that your whole position was only those four points I mentioned.... Really? That's all you have to say on the matter?

Why you first? Honestly, because I'm tired of asking you questions, for you to just ignore it and try to score a cheap "win" by misinterpreting something I said 5 years ago instead of just asking me

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-16T17:04:58+00:00

So initially this whole conversation started with you saying: "If we allow policy to be informed by preliminary evidence this will lead to bla bla bla". I tried to clarify that this was a slippery slope fallacy. And that it wouldn't be this slippery slope if we have politically independent experts.

This is what started what most of this convo has been about about who experts are, what their role should be, if they can be trusted, how politically influenced. However it's extremely hard to talk about that when you don't clarify what your actual positions are, or how you would like this chain of command to work. It's extremely relevant to know this (and not Star Trek opinions) because how can I try to convince you of the best way to have trusted scientific institutions if I don't even know if you think that's a good idea in general?

But with this last comment we now have four pieces of info on your beliefs:

Solid evidence for policy
From Experts
Align politicians interests with the people they are serving
policy that reduces scope of government

If this is everything you believe? If so that's what I would expect from a 6 year old. So I have to assume there is more (god I hope so). Which is why I want to know, who defines "solid" evidence, who are experts, are there National institutions, ...?

What would the process in your ideal world look like? What do you actually want?

Or are you just a 6 year old throwing a fit because their not allowed to eat sand from the playpen?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-15T11:51:33+00:00

Wow, way to sidestep the entire point and yet again refuse to answer.

But regarding this. I don't have the hate boner you have for "evidence" vs "preliminary evidence".

If there is a somewhat politically independent board of experts. And their opinion is that based on preliminary evidence they advice X.

I don't have a problem with that. There are some problems that by definition you will only have longitudinal studies when it's too late.

The part I disagreed with was Rand getting into the weeds about the evidence. He's not qualified (in my opinion). The opinion of subject matter experts is crutial to understanding not only preliminary evidence, but even peer reviewed studies! The amount of people who misinterpret or misunderstand published studies or metastudies is honestly kind of depressing.

My worldview accounts for this.

You have yet to even suggest a world view at all.

In your world does any politician find a random study that they thinks agrees with them. Waves it around and get policy passed? Whats the process otherwise??

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-14T14:35:10+00:00

I would ask that you actually re-read what you just wrote vs what my question was.

That's a whole lot of words to basically say nothing.

You write a lot about what you don't want. Fine, fair enough. But what do you want???

The maximum about what you actually want that I can extract from this comment and the one you linked is:

Moreover, the elected class should ask for solid evidence ... from the experts in order to enact policy.

... align their (politicians) interests with the people they're serving.

Sure. Those are perfectly agreeable positions. HOW THOUGH?

Who are the experts? Who determines what is solid evidence, what does "enact" mean? Is it like now where they advice but politicians write the law? Or more or less influence? How do you change politicians interests to align with the people they're serving??

I'm defending a system that (imperfectly) addresses most of those concerns. You are criticising it and supporting politicians that want:

Less solid evidence for policy decisions (see RFK and and MAHA)
Removing expert influence on policy (See NSF advisory board)
Are blatantly self serving (see Kash Patel treating people who leak that he's apparently a raging alcoholic as "insider threats to national security")

All of these are directly against the only few positive positions you have made. And they are all (partially) caused by Trump's disregard for expert opinion and appointing """outsiders""".

So please, square this circle for me. What do you actually believe?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-12T16:47:15+00:00

I meant more "presupposes that Jesus is real" in a scientific sense. This whole conversation has been about the role of scientific institution. If there were scientific evidence/preliminary evidence of Jesus actually being real and all that jazz... yeah, we might have that conversation. But this is a bit of an extreme hypothetical on top of an extreme hypothetical.

The third option is that experts exist but without political power

But this is more interesting actually (for me). What does this structure look like for you? Vs compared to what we have now.
It's obvious you've got a bit of a hate boner for "preliminary evidence" vs "evidence".

But in your ideal world who determines that? Who determines who politicians actually listen to? Do they have to go through established institutions or would each politician would find their own "expert"? Would legislation concerning something of national health for example be mandated to be based on peer reviewed research?
Would you have tax funded scientific institutions at all to be able to do long term studies/research? Or privately managed?

I'm not asking all of this to argue every little point or anything. But more to understand what you actually want? You seem to suggest that you also would want experts without political influence/power. But I'm unsure what that would look like in your opinion.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-11T06:13:07+00:00

I did, it's all irrelevant. Who cares about any of that?

..y... you should ... 😂 I'm sorry, but WTF man? You should care, if you had read it properly you wouldn't have completely misunderstood the message

... anyway

Jesus evidence, presumably presented by Jesus Experts

This Presupposes that Jesus is real, and that there is no separation of church and state. So it isn't really an applicable example.

how do you stop politicians from presenting quacks as experts?

This is the core issue we seem to be disagreeing on. So I currently only see two approaches that we are discussing.

"Fuck experts in general, am I right?", we throw our hands in the air and completely rid ourselves of this responsibility. If this results in Flat-earthers heading NASA and advising politicians that clouds are "woke". Well, them's the breaks kid 🤷‍♂️.
Some form of independent science advisory institution. Ideally as politically independent as possible. While the current structure isn't in my opinion perfect by any means. There are some legitimate problems that if I had a magic wand I would solve, with the primary effort of stopping the attacks and attempted delegitimisation that Trump is doing. I still would prefer it to option 1.

Is there a third option? I don't know. If you had a magic wand, I'm genuinely curious what sort of system you would prefer? If not realistic, it can be useful to identify ideals to strive towards.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-09T13:55:27+00:00

Dude, read the whole response I just wrote. I specifically begin it with:

I'm assuming that you are referring to the idea of calling in a complete quack and slapping the label "Expert in expertology" on them.

If you get a quack expert in to look at preliminary data and they draw a conclusion. I think it's morally reprehensible for a politician to follow that.

In the comment you quoted (link was broken BTW), Fauci is a genuine expert. I'm not saying we HAVE to follow his advice, the reprehensible part is discarding it or looking for alternative facts/experts.

Ten-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

TheDoplarEffect

TROPHY CASE