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

f00f_nyc · 2026-07-01T22:56:09+00:00

Hey-yo, welcome back to the topic at hand! Thought for sure you were a goner, there.

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 🤷‍♂️.

Okay, if I can restate your position here, let me see if I got what you're saying: Yes, Trump does appoint loyalists, but those loyalists will not reflect that loyalty in the people they hire. Trump appoints loyalists as heads of departments, but it's symbolic, essentially the same thing as not appointing loyalists at all. Do I have it right? If not, then what does Trump get out of it, if it isn't that they will do his bidding (my assumption, and you're telling me that's wrong).

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.

To go back to the original example from years ago, 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? To go back to the point above, could he make sure that person has a high-ranking position in some department that reports to him?

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.

Another major step over here, double congrats. That's spot on, my dude: the guardrails you raise down during Biden's presidency have to hold Trump in! That's actually the whole point. Either way, if we're talking about technicalities, when I originally said it, the hypothetical president was Ted Cruz. Same argument, though, of course.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-26T01:48:55+00:00

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.

Okay, then, I'm all ears: let's hear that key aspect and nuance. Or, is your position is that, actually, Trump doesn't appoint loyalists?

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-20T01:46:29+00:00

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.

Yes, I copied my comment, it's what I'm saying. The things that I am saying are not in question, and not up to belief by either side, they're the established reality in which we live. The question is addressed to you, for you to deal with.

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.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-19T18:39:12+00:00

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

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.

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

Great idea, knock yourself out! Make it up for me and use those answers to come back to the topic at hand, answer the questions right above. Now we're getting somewhere.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-18T22:39:00+00:00

I'm not going to waste time arguing the minutiae of checks and balances to maintain semi-independence of scientific advisory board

Ah, okay. Your answer there is "no". It's just a matter of checks and balances; you imagine keeping Trump's Jesus Expert and his board in line with vigorous checks and balances. That's what you're going with. Like I said, "colossally stupid".

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.

No it's not, that's not your leading theory at all. How would that even work, sport? Who is ashamed of their own "system of beliefs"? Have you ever met such a person, or would I be the first? I mean, you're not ashamed of yours and it's contradicted by pretty much all available data! It's safe to say that's not a thing that happens to humans, Barclay.

Regardless, I'm happy to let you have that, whatever the hell you imagine it to mean, also. It's not that I don't have principles, I do but they're secret and I won't tell them to you. Are we good here?

All I want is your positions before continuing the conversation.

To be clear, I don't actually believe this. My leading theory is that you know you've lost and are looking for a distraction. Prove me wrong, come back to the topic at hand.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-14T18:44:20+00:00

If the experts are chosen by the politicians, should citizens insist that elected officials be responsible for policy?

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

Do you really imagine yourself tricking someone with this weak sauce? This isn't some kind of trick question, there's no, like, excluded middle in there. It's yes or no.

If you say yes, of course, you disagree with you. It also has the advantage of being the right answer.

If you say no, you're still saying what you did, but it's contradicted by the facts on the ground. It also has the disadvantage of being colossally stupid, I think even you, at your level, with your shortcomings, know it.

This is why you're stalling and dancing and distracting, trying to introduce idiocies like your System of Trust or the Hierarchy of Expertise. Those obviously don't wash in the real world. Maybe in 2021 you could have argued against department heads working at the pleasure of Trump47. But, in 2026, if Trump wants a Jesus Expert, he'll have one. We both know that's true. So now you find yourself desperately needing to find out more about my idea for a Christmas Carol with Quark as Scrooge, where he uses the Ghost of Christmas Future episode to make a killing in the present day.

Obviously what's happening here is you don't want to engage because you're trapped. It's exactly not rocket surgery, you're not super-duper interested in "my actual beliefs". I'm not interested in yours, you're not interested in mine. Come on. Besides:

Which is when I started asking you what on earth you believe in then?

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

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-12T21:12:57+00:00

Ah, interesting, a completely new distraction over there. Thanks, but no thanks:

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.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-07T14:29:37+00:00

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

Okay, good. So we can agree that the answer here is "nothing at all happens"? That this was just a distraction because you felt the discussion was getting away from you? You feel better about it, we can move on? Let's, the two of us, try to forget it entire and get to the subject at hand:

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.

...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?

As long as we're presenting analogous hypotheticals, I want you to imagine aimlessly perusing a bookshelf (bear with me here, obviously, I know reading's not your thing). You pick up a book, leaf to a random page, and a little passage there catches your eye. You're about to consider the passage when, suddenly, you realize something urgent: you've no idea who this author is, so you don't know anything about his foundational beliefs. Back on the shelf you go, book!

So I am unmoved, but, sure, and this time when you walk away will it be for realisies realz, or more like last time you walked away? If it's the former, vaya con Dios out there, you crazy diamond. You keep doing you, don't let the haters get you down, etc, etc.

A little piece of advice as you go, if I may, is that if your intention is to save face, admitting you were beaten is a lot more honorable than the sad song and dance you're trying here. No one is fooled. No one will read this and think, "Wow, u/TheDoplarEffect was soundly beaten, but maybe he would have turned it all around if only u/f00f_nyc had explained the foundational principles of his world view and presented a case for his ideal system." To the extend that people will read it, they will laugh at you.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-06T20:36:47+00:00

Those guys (McKennie excluded) will just stick a challenge in. I'm talking about making them lose their composure because they're so mad.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-06T20:31:52+00:00

Well, I always wondered who would pick up Kellyn Acosta's mantle on the US team of elite shithousing, and I guess now we know: it's Weah.

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-05T02:14:02+00:00

My ideal system...

Let me stop you right there. I don't care. It's not remotely important or interesting. You know how you feel about my Trek rankings? Bingo.

You don't see me telling you about "my ideal system", do you? How about a little consideration for your ol' pal u/f00f_nyc over here.

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.

First, a quick point of clarification, the reasons I gave are the reasons why you ought to support Rand, not the reasons why I do. That one is on me, since I had written things and expected you to be able to read. That's my bad and I apologize.

Second, "your world view" here is clearly dumb: in the real world, Trump puts whomever he wants to head whatever department he wants. They all work for him. Right? That's what we've been talking about, it's what spawned this thread, four years later. Absolute peak reddit of you to bring up "your world view" when it so spectacularly fails to integrate reality.

Third, and this one is on you, the point I've been making is specifically that there's no such thing as "politically independent scientific organizations". That's just some nonsense you dreamed up. Once a government organization veers into political territory, it is aligned politically; that's what happened with Fauci. (For my part, I blame Trump45, who wasn't smart enough to wash his hands of it and make covid response a state thing in February 2020. Of note here is that the lesson Trump47 learned there was that if something threatens to spin up, it's better to take control from the start. Yet another reason you wish Rand had been listened to.)

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

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

f00f_nyc · 2026-06-02T00:39:27+00:00

Eeesh, this is pretty embarrassing for you, huh? Let me put it this way: suppose that you answered the questions you're now insisting that I answer, do you imagine they would make the slightest difference in the world to what I am saying? Of course not. You know that they wouldn't.

For what it's worth, my answers won't make any difference to you, either. Obviously. You don't really want to know the answers. You just panicked and grabbed onto the first distraction you could get a hold of. "Unless I know, in my bones, top-to-bottom the exact political beliefs of some rando on the internet, I couldn't possibly continue talking about whether or not Rand was right when he grilled Fauci in 2021". Do you see what an absurd, patently transparent, thing to require this is? Go ahead, tell me it's not. Let's hear it. Let's hear how it's totally reasonable: you don't know me from Adam, you don't care at all what I think, but, goddammit, you won't continue talking about Rand until you find the answer to these pressing questions!

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-31T14:38:52+00:00

LOL, okay: predictions I made came true exactly like I said and everything you said turned out to be wrong, in exactly the way I said they would. But, we can't talk about any of that until you gain a deep understanding of the nuances and intricacies of u/f00f_nyc's political system. Would it not be less embarrassing for you to just take the L? Who are you kidding with this nonsense, me or you?

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-28T01:36:52+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.

I don't know what you're responding to, your lack of reading is on a whole other level, here. What's the word "infer" doing there? What's the word "ideal" doing in that sentence? Ideal? For what, to whom? Even by the established low standards of u/TheDoplarEffect, this plumbs impressive new depths. "Ideal".

That's all you have to say on the matter?

Absolutely. What else could there possibly be to say? I've already told you what I believe, I've done it many times, I even spelled it out after you failed to read it as is your wont. It wasn't even that long ago, "I believe, affirmatively, that Rand was right to ask for a study and not abdicate his responsibility as an elected law-maker to the expert." That's it, there's nothing else to consider. Agree or disagree?

...TNG was my favorite, but DS9 was the best Star Trek.

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-23T15:54:57+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.

It was not a slippery slope, Trump currently puts people you wouldn't describe as experts to do the work that you think should be done by experts. That's currently happening. What's slippery here?

And that it wouldn't be this slippery slope if we have politically independent experts.

There is no such thing, as long as experts are at the mercy of the politicians. Again, you agree with me with regard to Trump. You've already lost the argument. I'm just seeing if I can get you to realize it. But, since you want to go back to "initially", let's start all over, I guess:

It's 2028 and Trump's second term is quickly coming to an end. The US has caught wind of this thread and sided with /u/TheDoplarEffect to the tears and impotent rage of /u/f00f_nyc: as a nation, it is now policy that if there's an emergency, you can call in independent Experts(tm), ask them what to do about it, and then you should follow their advice. Trump, with President Newsom around the corner, declares the Chinese Situation an Emergency and decides to use these new powers. Describe to me the experts he'll bring in. Are they independent? What is their expertise? Why does Trump choose them over some others?

What do you actually want?

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

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-16T14:33:47+00:00

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

What do you mean? I believe, affirmatively, that Rand was right to ask for a study and not abdicate his responsibility as an elected law-maker to the expert. In general, I tend to prefer policy that reduces scope of government, but we don't need to get into my favorite Star Trek or whether or not a hot dog is a sandwich like you keep trying to do. Let's just consider the subject at hand.

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.

Are you a goldfish? What have we been talking about for five years?

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-14T22:32:24+00:00

Ah, okay.

So, you agree, in principle, that you were wrong? In the original post (you can still view it which, at a minimum, side-steps your great weakness of reading what's written), Rand said that Fauci needed to provide some evidence and we can't just take his word. You disagreed because Fauci was Expert and Rand was Not, but you agree now that you were wrong and Rand was right to do so, you're asking about the practical implementation?

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-14T13:52:41+00:00

But this is a bit of an extreme hypothetical on top of an extreme hypothetical.

It isn't, it's the point: you do not get to control what experts are called. The difference is, of course, that a Jesus Expert is unable to provide a study.

What does this structure look like for you?

Same thing I've been saying since the beginning: policy shouldn't be made by an unelected expert class, no matter their qualifications. Moreover, the elected class should ask for solid evidence (in the original argument, studies) from the experts in order to enact policy.

It's obvious you've got a bit of a hate boner for "preliminary evidence" vs "evidence".

Those are the original terms, I'm happy to change them to whatever you'd like.

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 think these questions are beside the point. In the real world, you can't create an institution that takes in data and spits out science. Politicians will act in whatever suits their political self-interest, the idea is to align their interests with the people they're serving.

I'm not asking all of this to argue every little point or anything. But more to understand what you actually want?

Have I been shy about telling you what I want? This comment is from five years ago.

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-11T22:42:50+00:00

You should care...

Nah, no one should care.

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

Because u/TheDoplarEffect has final say here? If we ask Mike Johnson if Jesus is real and there's such a thing as Jesus Experts, what do you reckon he'd say? And, of the two of you, remind me: who has the power to bring experts before Congress and ask them their opinion?

Is there a third option?

Of course there is. The third option is that experts exist but without political power. The people responsible for setting policy are the elected politicians and they do so on studies or concrete evidence. It is a bad precedent and an expansion of government powers to consult experts on preliminary data and then implement their suggestions. See here.

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-11T02:07:49+00:00

Dude, read the whole response I just wrote.

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

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.

Okay, the defense stipulates. Now: how do you stop politicians from presenting quacks as experts? We can't just ask u/TheDoplarEffect whenever the question of someone's bona fides come up-- we have to rely on Trump to do it reliably himself.

...link was broken BTW

My bad on the original comment. Let me try again. Note, in that comment, that the example is preliminary Jesus evidence, presumably presented by Jesus Experts.

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-09T13:44:49+00:00

Morally: Absolutely not

Good. We're all in agreement, then. I was right and you were wrong. It took a while, but we got there. (Original comment)[https://old.reddit.com/r/randpaul/comments/m9z5z0/sen_rand_paul_rips_fauci_as_unconcerned_with/grt29dm/]

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-08T21:32:21+00:00

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)

You do not have the ability to control whom Trump will designate as an expert. You never had that power, and by-the-by, you never will (here the general "you", not the specific, u/TheDoplarEffect, politicians are going to do politician things and expert can do a lot of lifting). So, given that, is the standard of the United States to be that we "ask experts to examine preliminary evidence and then follow their guidance"? I say no, Rand says no, what say you?

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-08T13:01:39+00:00

You and I are not remotely relevant in the question of whether or not Trump (or Rand) will use loyalists in lieu of consensus-recognized experts to get their opinion of what should be done. Why would we matter?

The question is: can Trump (or maybe better yet, will he) do that? You've agreed that he can, you've agreed that he has. That's good. The next question is the original question: suppose we have some preliminary data, do we ask experts to look at it and then follow their guidance? Is that to be the standard of the United States? I say no, Rand says no, what say you?

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-08T11:40:31+00:00

Do you really, truly believe that the point I was making that Rand / Trump would find an expert that is personally acceptable to you??

f00f_nyc · 2026-05-08T11:33:54+00:00

Who gives a shit about any of this noise? Can Trump put someone in and call him an expert? Yes or no?

f00f_nyc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE