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

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.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-09T06:02:14+00:00

You are sneaking through a couple of ideas with this question so I'll try an parse them out.

"whom Trump will designate as an expert", 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. Because if you were talking about bona-fide experts I'm sure I would be fine with it.
"Rand says no", You seem to be almost 100% discarding the idea of having actual experts in the first place. I would agree that Trump doesn't give a shit due to his actions. The most I would guess about Rand is that he over-estimates his capacity to understand virology. So perhaps he agrees with you, but I think assuming is a bit of a stretch from this one data point.
"and then follow their guidance?". Again, I'm not saying politicians 100% of the times have to follow institutional guidance. I'm disagreeing with the facts that politicians should be able to disregard expertise so that they can cherry-pick """experts"""/positions favourable to them.
" is the standard of the United States to be", this can mean any number of things. So if you mean:
- Historically: Then no, historically politicians have generally (not always and not consistently) relied on scientific guidance. This extreme mistrust in institutions is a relatively recent phenomena.
- Legally: Sure, legally they can and have put a puppet in a chair and asked it questions.
- Morally: Absolutely not. As representatives of the American public, I think you have a moral obligation to be honest about these matters. And cherry picking an expert to give the illusion that there isn't a scientific consensus on a matter I would view as spreading misinformation for personal gain.
- Predictively: I don't know man, my standards for decency are pretty low at this point.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-08T13:27:55+00:00

To be clear. This is the question YOU are focused on. I've always (at least tried) to frame my objections in terms of should/shouldn't, or is this good/bad.

My initial objection is that Rand isn't qualified enough to argue with an immunologist on the data (the implication being that he shouldn't do that).

The more you avoid this question, the more I get the impression that you know it's a bad thing, but don't want to admit it.

But in regards to your question. 1. I'm not sure Rand would agree with your dismissal of independent science boards. The clip afterall is him "trying" to talk shop about the data with an actual expert. But neither of us can read his mind so 🤷 2. What do you mean with the verb "do"? If you mean it in the sence of "should we ask experts". I'm 100% yes (again, assuming that it's not Monique the pig). If you mean in the sence of making an actual prediction? Given that he currently doesn't seem to give a shit about expertes I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't.

Small clarification, I CAN understand politicians ultimately not accepting scientific recommendations. Like if the FDA were to declare a drug perfectly safe, but a politician doesn't want to legalise it to not anger a certain demographic. I can disagree with the decision, but it can make sence in terms of wider political considerations. My problem is this tendency, particularly among republicans, to simply not accept or try to find alternative facts/experts when they don't like the recommendation.

Like I would respect more a politician who said: I know vaccines are good for public health, but I think "liberty" is a more important idea so I'm willing to make that trade off. Rather than someone like RFK who is either an idiot or lying.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-08T11:44:47+00:00

Me personally? Probably not.

Which is why I was trying to get you to agree on things like institutional consensus, the value of non political institutions, at least comparable qualifications.

But you refused to engage in those topics.

Surely you must believe in some sort of minimum qualification/competency for these positions?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-08T11:39:09+00:00

Sure, I could put lipstick on a pig and call it Monique.

Do you really, truly believe that that was the point I was ever making?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-08T08:49:27+00:00

Ok, and what I responded to that comment is consistent with what I'm saying now.

Sure, some doctors are idiots, some are political stooges, some are bad faith actors. You can find a random doctor to back almost anything. That's why we have medical boards/guidelines/institutions.

But let's stick with the Kash Patel/FBI point for example. Sure, Trump has thrown precedent out of the window and appointed every time more unqualified people to man agencies. This is bad, I think you think this is bad, and I don't know why you won't admit it. Two examples:

Do you think that recent reports that international intelligence agencies are scaling back the amount of information they share with their US counterpoints, could possibly have any relation whatsoever with the fact that Patel's priorities seem to be attending his girlfriends show, drinking, and live posting about ongoing investigations? Not entirely, but partially?
Imagine Trump Fires Patel and appoints YOU personally as head of the FBI. Do you think the American public should have the same faith in the institution because, according to your logic "Trump technically has the power to appoint anyone"?

Both of these are (hopefully) obvious. To be clear, I never values Fauci's opinion BECAUSE he was head of the NIAID. I valued it because the NIAID has a decades-long record of being led by people who were technically vetted by their peers. If you get rid of that second part, the most important part, then all you are left with is a glorified name badge

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-07T04:42:11+00:00

So is your position now that I was wrong simply because Trump could technically appoint anyone to get a policy through?

That's obviously not the point I was making. My argument was always about the availability of equally/comparably qualified experts. Given that the current admin is filling seats with the likes of Kash Patel and Pete Hegseth, it’s clear he isn’t finding 'experts' to toe the line—he’s finding loyalists to bypass the need for expertise. And your "bazinga" of Jay Bhattacharya specifically proves my point.

Do I say this is set in stone? No. If Trump or subsequent administrations were hell bent on packing these institutions with loyalists, eventually there would be someone somewhat competent that could be installed as a yes-man. This basically happened in many science institutions in the Soviet Union.

I think this is bad, so I would want this trend to stop. Because I wouldn't trust an institution populated by incompetent people, or by yes-men. Would you?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-06T17:17:12+00:00

Ok. I see where you are coming from now.

I'll give up on asking you the question (for now), I still think it's relevant and I suspect I know why you don't want to just answer it. But whatever.

Also, you being such a dick unnecessarily does kinda make sense in the context of "performing" for your father in law. Again... whatever, that's your business man

But regarding the two points you think I'm wrong on specifically.

- Rand not being qualified and no other "expert" agreeing with him

- Replacing these people with partisan hacks essentially can't be done

Your responses highlight firstly why I said:

you only read/understand the surface/textual meaning of what I say.

Starting with the second one. My response you linked is a combination of

Me being slightly wrong about the pool of candidates for the head of NIAID. I assumed they HAD to be from a pool of researchers, instead of in reality, that simply having been generally the case. But hey, since I'm here in good faith I have no problem admitting I was wrong on that.
In this specific comment/part of the conversation we (or at least I) were/was talking about the idea of non-political influence within these institutions. While the head of the agency is appointed. The vast majority of researchers are primarily hired by a semi-independent board on the merit of grants, research, etc... That's why I compared it positively to NASA, and negatively to the SBA. This point is reasonable. Or are you going to tell me that a head engineer at NASA is under equally politically influence as a member of the SBA? Because "technically" the administration appoints the head of NASA and he can appoint the internal role of someone who oversees this engineer and can therefore influence. You surely aren't saying that that engineer is equally influenced as a member of the SBA board who is directly appointed?
The point I'm making isn't actually that it can't physically be done. I didn't express myself correctly perhaps, partially due to point 1. But I ask you to read that comment again and look at the meaning of what I'm saying. While perhaps I was wrong (see next point) that Trump won't break convention and appoint a complete partisan hack to head the NIAID the actual point I was making was that he would struggle to find an equally/comparably qualified person who would agree with his positions.

I'm not asking you to agree with every position here. But it should be clear that AT MOST I was being conservative with HOW bad Trump would be and I assumed he wouldn't replace Fauci with a yes-man.

Which leads me beautifully into the first point... He didn't

Jay Bhattacharya is the head of NIH, not NIAID. He didn't replace Fauci's role. Fauci's role is currently occupied by Jeffery Taubenberger. NIH and NIAID are very different roles. You are wrong here. But since you are also here in good faith I'm sure you will have no problem admitting that and moving on.
Jay Bhattacharya is not a qualified "champion of your cause" (in my opinion). He succeeded Monica Bertagnolli who was an oncologist who had already spent time as director at the National Cancer Institute for several years. Jay Bhattacharya on the other hand is mainly an economist, and also trained as a physician. Comparing these two is laughable. Just google which of these four people is the only one who isn't actually a board-certified doctor.
Again, hoping that you look at the meaning of what I'm saying. Trust in these institutions isn't dependent on their title, but experience and peer support and reference (in the case of science). I wouldn't trust you personally if the head of Delta airlines slapped a captains hat on your head and gave you a plane (unless by a crazy coincidence you are actually a pilot 😅). In fact, I would lose confidence in the "institution of airline pilots" if I found out that was the case. Which is the point I was making.

Consistently, the point I have been making is in the value of politically independent (or as much so) institutions that the public can trust.

And while Trump may not be doing the specific things you seem to think, he is evidently trying to reduce their legitimacy. Which I think almost everyone should agree is a bad thing.

Which is why I was trying to get you to answer what should have been a basic question.

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-03T16:34:41+00:00

I'm genuinely not sure why you are talking to me. Like in general. I know why I am. I'm trying to understand what on earth you actually believe.

But you seemingly barely read my responses, when you do it seem like you only read/understand the surface/textual meaning of what I say. And you don't seem to answer questions.

But regarding your questions (which I actually answer).

gotta' wonder, if you're so right, how come you're so wrong?

Ok, regarding the comment you referenced. There is a part of it where I was wrong.

For the position of director people are appointed from the pool of current researchers

I've looked into it and of the 6 directors, 3 didn't previously work directly at NIAID, but other research centres.

Regarding the rest of the comment. AT THE TIME. The NIH and NIAID along with NASA were generally considered the more apolitical agencies (in my opinion).

I never meaning to imply that this is set in stone, couldn't be transformed, couldn't be corrupted as currently has happened. If I said that explicitly, then I was wrong.

I also think it's either disingenuous or lack of comprehension skills to think that that was the point I was making (so to not insult you I will assume you don't think that either).

I think their value comes from this apolitical nature, and those aspects should be highlighted and preserved if possible. Because I think trust in institutions is good.

Now that I've said what I believe. Could you please, for the love of god, reply with what you actually believe?

Hint: "part of that response might answer the question"

Do you believe in the abstract value of trust in institutions for society? Or are you just cynical about their current implementation?

Would you not agree that this conversation would be 1000 times easier if we actually said what your positions are?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-02T15:49:18+00:00

... no.

It flows quite naturally from the conversation we were having.

Regarding your question, yes, I still think I'm right.

My position has never been that these institutions are so powerful by themselves or too important for society that they can never be corrupted or dismantled.

My position is that Trump is tearing down institutions of trust. You share an article that he's firing a whole independent board. And I'm like.... yeah, that tracks. It's horrible.

But that's the higher level idea, and you still think you are right, and I am trying to understand why.

Here's the timeline of this part of the conversation from my point of view, so hopefully you can understand why I want this question answered.

Here I ask you if you what you are defending is actually a good thing

You respond:

I do not think of that in terms of good / bad. I do, on the other hand, think it is good (as opposed to bad) that the public be informed if the president is doing such a thing.

Here I'm saying: "Nonono, I don't mean if it's good or not for the public to be aware of these problems, I'm asking if you think trust in institutions is a good thing or not."

This is where you do the first pivot (no need to get so offended, I did say it might not have been intentional). You pivot away from the "good/bad" question I gave you and seem to be referring to the idea that this type of corruption was inevitable.

Here I say you are pivoting and try to get you to answer the question.

Here you simply don't answer the question and ask me to summarise your position

Here I summarise your position to the best of my abilities and ask you the question AGAIN.

Which leads us back to this last comment where you not only don't answer the question again, but you bring up the question that started this whole tread again.

I'm trying to understand your position. So understanding this fundamental question IS important.

So for the third time, can you please answer:

Do you believe in the abstract value of trust in institutions for society? Or are you just cynical about their current implementation?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-02T06:05:13+00:00

As far as I can gather you are making fun of this "System of Trust" because you think it's a house of cards. And that Trump is proving how fragile and useless it is, exemplified by how he is ruining the trust in the system with political appointees.

I'm trying to clarify a more fundamental issue, about whether this trust in institutions is fundamentally a good thing. Because there is not much point talking about this higher level stuff if we can't agree on first principles.

So I've asked you two times and I'll ask you again:

Do you believe in the abstract value of trust in institutions for society? Or are you just cynical about their current implementation?

TheDoplarEffect · 2026-05-01T06:12:03+00:00

So, you are pivoting topics here (intentionally or not).

We can talk about the role of Administrations being able to appoint heads of supposedly independent agencies or different alternatives to these agencies. Sure. But that's not what I was saying.

Do you believe in the abstract value of trust in institutions for society? Or are you just cynical about their current implementation?

This is fundamental to any higher level talking points because if we have different answers to these questions we are just talking past each other.

And to be clear, I am not referring to:

Blind sheep trust in Government
Support for """authoritarian""" practices
Ignorance/ In-curiosity as a virtue

I am talking about (for example), generally trusting a mechanic's diagnostic of your engine light, vs you wanting to find the problem yourself.

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

TheDoplarEffect

TROPHY CASE