Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
Yeah... this headache isn't going away. Wanted to do something more detailed, but this is going to be light so that I can at least get some initial thoughts out.
It seems like most of this sus on Pie stems from his reasoning for sussing Banana and his decision to hold off on giving his information. I get why this back and forth is aggravating to a number of people, particularly Mharman, but it's not like Pie hasn't done any of this before as town. I'm not fond of his reasoning either, but it would be a first among all the games we've had for Pie to be this intransigent as scum this early. As for pushing back, it's kind of what he does, particularly when he feels he has something like the piece of information he keeps teasing in his back pocket. None of this makes him town - in fact, all of it just makes me null read him and that's likely the way I'll stay until we get further info from him - but it also doesn't stand out as particularly scummy.
So, for now at least, Pie's in my null pile. Most of my other null reads come from either their participation being pretty basic so far or their just largely being absent. That includes Barney, Joe, Austin, Savant and Earth.
Behaviorally, I'm townreading Casey especially, who seems genuinely uncertain of how to view Pie. Owen comes off as a light townread, which has more to do with why he's coming down against Pie than anything (he does really seem focused on behavior and engaging on the reasoning - it's new for him, but it comes off as trying to participate whereas I think he'd be more likely to take less clear stances as scum). Vader's similarly a townlean, though in his case, it's because of both how he's engaging with his FoSs (it's a departure from others putting Luna and Mharman in that boat and I can at least understand his reasoning) and his defense of Pie, the latter of which seems to come from previous games with him. Couple that with his initial softclaim and he's a stronger townlean.
And yes, I still townread Banana for reasons I've already mentioned. I do not buy that she took at look at her Discord and came back with this response about receiving a certain number of PMs. I've already said my peace on GP (nothing's really changed there - the unknown Crab God claim still swings null).
I do want to reread a lot of these exchanges between Pie and Mharman when I can better focus, but since this comes off as very town vs. town behavior (honestly, don't think I've ever seen Mharman this combative with another player this early, though I'll have to do some research to check).
As for Luna, I'd like to see what he's getting at waiting for Banana's response. I don't like the logic against Banana, but I don't know if it comes off more as just frustration with lazy play or an active scumread.
Anyway, that's all I've got for tonight. Gonna go lie down.
Created:
Posted in:
I've been developing a slow but now persistent headache over the course of the evening, which has made this difficult to read and process (don't take that as a referendum on how they're written, though this is a lot of back-and-forth, so that doesn't help). I'm caught up, but I think staring at the screen is making this worse and my thoughts don't type so good, so I'm going to take a break for a bit and come back after the Tylenol's taken effect.
Created:
Posted in:
I’m behind after a couple of meetings in a row and some extensive housework. I’ll catch up and post thoughts on the last few pages soon enough, sorry for the delay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Him giving reads right away is kinda odd. I don’t think he’s ever done that before. I distinctly remember me needing to tell him to give reads cause he “town read” everyonez
It’s a shift in behavior. Given that it’s been a while since he’s been in one of these games and how a lack of clarity on his reads has affected games in the past, it’s a welcome change, even if it’s off brand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I am also wondering if we should play with DP times a bit. Perhaps and i wouldn't jump right to this but a 7 days DP makes a lot of sense to accommodate some people who are less active nd perhaps have real lifes that interfere with posting too much. It could be the difference between a person who posts twice in a dp and 10 times
Not opposed to a longer DP, particularly if activity is low for a handful of players. That mainly just puts the end of the DP in our hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yep. It's anytime that I get 3 votes.
Cool. We’ll see how this plays out then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I didn't announce it yet but that was the plan. So probably around 48 hours remain after this point. So it ends Tuesday at 6:30PM Eastern time
Much obliged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
uhhh well I said I wasn't going to be an /in until Sunday in the signups thread for a reasoncurrently on a trip, will be back tmrw night
Yeah, you did mention it in the sign-ups. Since WyIted was aware of that, maybe we could get an extension on DP1 to ensure you can participate.
my role is confirmable, doesn't exactly confirm my affiliation as well but it kinda does in the sense that it would be baffling for it to be a scum role lol
More role confirmation. Interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
A few reads:
I'm not really reading anything into Banana telling us that she got a lot of posts. I'd be surprised if WyIted was less verbose describing scum characters, so it's not really about length. However, her choice to start by mentioning it comes off as townie. It's an odd place to start if you're scum, particularly since Banana would have likely been looking at a Discord post and not a set of PMs.
As for GP's claim, I buy that it's real because I just straight up cannot see GP fake claiming a term like carcinization and a role like Crab God with an unknown effect. I'm inclined to townread it as well, though nothing about the role indicates affiliation and GP proved last game that he's just as likely to claim his role (at least in part) as scum as he is as town. I don't get why he VTL'd Banana and he didn't explain, but impulsive votes are often his bread and butter.
Vader's partial reveal of his role in an effort to activate it comes off as townie. Confirming his role may or may not indicate his affiliation (the non-traditional nature of it suggests it won't be that clear), but at least for now, I'm reading the effort as more likely to be town than scum. His responses so far haven't shaken that.
I'll provide more reads as the DP goes on, but I wanted to start somewhere.
Last thought for now:
There's been some discussion of how the roles are split between the themes of diary entries and heaven/hell. I'll say that my character covers something to which WyIted clearly applies his own views, which suggests a diary entry and does match my sign-up. Not sure if they necessarily have to match what you signed up as or if WyIted split the field up equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I am assuming it is at any point based on the wording of the PM. but I asked to clarify
Alright.
Also FYI, my role doesn't have a traditional name. I forgot to mention that too. But going off GP's claim and stuff I think it's safe to say this will be relatively common
I agree, this seems common, my role included.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@iamanabanana
I don't know that it is relevant. Its 14 pages of his thoughts on the hamas vs israel debate, and the role and how it functions is separate from the rest.
Damn, no wonder it's 14 posts if it's the Hamas vs. Israel debate. My experience discussing that particular topic with WyIted suggests he has a lot of thoughts on the matter. As long as you're clear on the character and especially the role, that should be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I’m not full on sussing you yet for this but I find it odd that I pointed out this line of logic out to you last game where you were town and you still suggested we gather some form of information. I find it extra peculiar because this theme seems so “out there” that it would provide an extra challenge to scum in solving it.
I think everyone will have a hard time putting information on the theme together given how odd the theme is. That's more of a problem for town this game than it is for scum, though. I doubt scum are going to have trouble faking their claims in a game with so many oddities in the character and role departments, so providing specific information on everyone's characters is only going to help scum more easily derive town roles.
If there's value in doing narrowing claims, it's not going to be found in giving too much information away this early.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll be active in fits and spurts today, handling filing our taxes early and a bunch of other small tasks. Just a heads up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Any ideas on how we could get the ball rolling? Perhaps we could give the opening sentence to our diary entries.
Going to push back on doing something this specific. For some people at least, doing this is bound to give away a number of characters, or at least make it a lot easier to narrow it down. Luna and I were scum a couple of games back and used far less to figure out almost everyone's character and roles.
We can go with something more generalized, but even giving something like categories to which our characters belong might be too specific for some. Will need to think on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@iamanabanana
Hello all. My Role PM was 14 messages long. I didn't read the whole thing, but I got the idea of it.
Worth reading it in full in case there's pertinent information. I received multiple messages as well and while it looks like a lot of it is just WyIted digging into the theme, you should be making sure that you fully understand how your role works and asking him relevant questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
Is it at any point in the day phase, or three votes sitting on you at the end?If unclear, when it gets to the end it might be nice to have the exact three in you to ensure it works.Also is it actually three, or three or more?
I got the impression from Vader's response that the condition was fulfilled as long as it happened at all, but it's worth confirming this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Fair enough. I'll let the results speak for themselves next DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Given my own role, I can say that that does appear to be the case. Wylted did say this game would be "less experimental" than the last game, which implies this one is still somewhat experimental.
Hard to say where that's going to land us on the experimental scale, especially given how far he took the last one (Time travel/Rants if I remember correctly). The fused themes made the split puzzling, and the role swap was pretty confounding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I just need 3 votes in this DP and I get a NP action that role confirms me
Alright then, that's different. We'll have to see how that turns out next DP, but I appreciate that you were specific about this being role confirmation rather than affiliation. Makes sense that you'd give this much away at least. Weird that it's 3 votes, but it seems like the roles in this game might trend towards the more unusual.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, the theme on this one is pretty baffling to me. Don't know if more claims will help with that, at least not based on my role and GP's claim.
Seriously, carcinization? And a hidden role to boot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’ll work through it, though I probably won’t be that active this game as a result. Just a heads up on that front.
Created:
Posted in:
Would have picked the diary btw, but looks like Heaven and Hell has it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, I’ll leave it up to you whether I’d be more useful up front or as a backup, based on whatever works better for the setup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I agree that we can all get behind eradicating fraud and abuse, but that statement is nothing but a distraction, the current process is specifically designed to increase fraud and abuse. Replacing the competent with loyalists is itself fraudulent and abusive, and it is a necessary preparation for more fraud and abuse.There is a full-frontal assault on the FBI and DOJ, especially anyone that has ever investigated members of the current regime for fraud or abuse, the message is clear, the intent is clear. This administration is not "eradicating", it is facilitating.
Entirely agreed. I’ve been giving a lot of these arguments the benefit of any doubt regarding their real aims vs. stated aims, but especially given how Elon Musk in particular has used dismantling USAID and CFPB to both end cases against him and pave the road forward for his own companies to make massive bank, it’s not even particularly well hidden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I see you conveniently left out the corrupt and inefficient modifiers. That's the kind of bad faith arguments people make by removing the modifier "illegal" from migrants.I really expected better.
Funny, I did say inefficient. But hey, I’m up for a second try at this.
Your argument assumes corruption and inefficiency are both a permanent, unchangeable state of these agencies and the cause of every problem they face. Their lack of staffing can’t possibly be the result of reduced funding over the years and a now persistent effort by this administration to bleed them dry, but rather their own fault for existing as corrupt and inefficient agencies. And clearly, that corruption and inefficiency also makes anything they do functionally useless, so issues like not having enough inspectors to perform audits at food processing facilities or epidemiologists to track outbreaks are non-issues because what they are doing is functionally useless anyway, corrupt and inefficient as it is. Oh, and states can do it better for… reasons, I guess.
Did I capture your argument this time?
And that's not a commonly held belief, to hire more people in order to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, as the staff is often complicit in it all.
Also not a common belief that these agencies should be slowly bled of their staff until they are incapable of performing many of their most basic functions. I guess instances of waste, fraud and abuse are so pervasive that it’s better for them to cease to exist than persist.
Look, if this is seriously your argument, then this isn’t a discussion anymore. You’re welcome to your views on this issue, but when your response to me is that it’s better to burn it all down and hope something meaningful grows from the ashes, we’re clearly just too far apart on this. At that point, there’s so little that we agree on that we can’t even have a meaningful debate because we don’t agree on the most fundamental aspect of how regulatory agencies should function: I believe they should, you believe they shouldn’t. There is no overlap here, no middle ground for us to meet at, so why not just stop here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Same principle. A corrupt and inefficient enterprise will never be adequately staffed.
So essentially, your response to any dysfunction in these organizations is that it results entirely from being corrupt and inefficient, and thus it's a waste to ever give them resources and they should just be torn down and their financial support distributed to other sources. It's a wonder you support the existence of any organization with that mindset, since any inefficiencies become sufficient reason to just scrap them entirely and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if the naysayer pessimism were to bear full fruit, the logistics of the alphabet agency cuts can't have as an immediate effect as they claim. It's not as though if the FDA were to skip all inspections that meat companies will all of a sudden feel free to sell poisoned meat. There are a great many other checks for that other than the FDA.Much of what you see as "necessary" is not only inefficient and corrupt, but in most cases, redundant. And even if it took a few years for states to regain local control to repair the inefficiencies of central planning, it's not like you would notice anything different form a day to day basis. The changes would be near imperceptible, but the waste would be vastly diminished.
In other words, because some of the things these organizations do would likely still occur (at least in the short term) without them, they're basically dispensable, right?
So, tell me: what happens in an outbreak? Sure, that outbreak probably would have happened with or without FDA inspections in the short term, but that's not the issue. The issue is response. It's mapping the outbreak via the CDC, tracking the organism that did it and notifying local hospitals, tracing the source of the outbreak, recalling the item from store shelves, and issuing notice to both stores and the public at large that specific products are impacted. These are rapid responses that happen shortly after an outbreak occurs, several of which involve that alphabet soup. We can throw in instances of bird flu, which rope in the USDA, FDA and CDC as well.
Also, convenient choice to leave out the entire drug development side of this. If the FDA stops functioning as an organization, drug development stops cold. Anyone in the middle of preclinical or clinical trials stops cold, often billions of dollars down for their trouble. Companies rely on being able to get to market for a return on that massive investment, so they're effectively forced to shelve it and get the money back through other products of theirs already on the market. Meanwhile, the public loses out on whatever products are shelved during that span of time, delaying what could be essential treatments. You might not notice that because you wouldn't be aware that you're missing out on those treatments, but people who don't have access to them sure would be affected.
And listing all the alphabet agencies spending woes with no context of the waste and fraud isn't evidence of practical underfunding.We spend 3x per student per day for education compared to Japan and have much worse outcomes. All the money in the world can't fund that level of corruption and incompetence adequately.
What I listed was instances where these agencies are understaffed. The cause of that understaffing has no bearing on my point, since the reality of their understaffing and how that affects their day-to-day operations is what I was referencing. There can be multiple causes of that, many of which span beyond this administration, but the result is the same regardless: a the lack of both expertise and personnel required by people like RFK and Tulsi Gabbard, who necessarily will rely on their staff in order to effectively run these organizations due to their own lack of experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They aren't understaffed. Did you see Elon bringing up how employee retirements go because the process isn't automated?
So... because there are issues with how employees retire... they're not understaffed and current efforts to cull their ranks are having no effect whatsoever? Really?
CDC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/06/health-agencies-rank-probationary-employees/
NSF: https://www.rdworldonline.com/nsf-layoffs-in-2025-deep-budget-cuts-headed-for-u-s-research-sector/
Elon clearly lacks some facts.
Besides that. If we have an organization that sucks, I wouldn't think you need to know how it works. You need to know how it should work and make it work that way.
Even an organization that sucks still functions on some level. The notion that there's no need to understand how it works in order to change it is baffling to me, dude. They aren't starting from scratch and they shouldn't pretend that they are.
As somebody who shakes things up it's my experience that we are competent people. The leaders who are bad usually do not shake things up. Some are micro managers, most are just trying to do as little as they can get away with it but none seem to be those looking to make big sweeping changes.
Someone who shakes things up isn't inherently competent just because they want to shake things up. This argument is pure confirmation bias. Just because I want to shake things up doesn't mean I could go into any random astrophysics lab and competently address issues they're facing or overhaul the lab in a positive direction.
Fair enough but I will say that when you read history books it's rarely the people who are satisfied with the status quo that go down as great leaders. I know to a certain extent you dismiss the great man theory of history but these history books seem to agree with the great man theory.
There are a lot of problems with the so-called "great man theory of history," but even if I fully bought into it, the implication you're making - that it's fine to put anyone into these positions so long as they want to shake things up sufficiently - doesn't follow. Not everyone who wants to shake things up will bring about positive developments or become great.
As far as scale whether billion dollar industry or some small club of 5 people, it's my beliefs that a correct philosophy should scale so what's true on very small scales should be replicable at large ones and visa versa.If you are good at selling to an audience of 1000 your pitch should work as well on an audience of one or visa versa.
As someone who has worked with bioreactors a fair number of times, I'm here to tell you that applying that mindset to scaling them is what results in mass failures in that industry. It's essential to recognize those ways in which sizes modify the way that things run, and that's true regardless of the industry. The notion that everything should scale perfectly simply by increasing the size does not match reality.
Also you kind of have to go on personal experience you don't technically know that anything outside of your personal experience is real.
On that basis, none of this matters. It's all outside of our personal experience, so if you subscribe to this, the whole argument is moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Your the boss you just tell people what to do. Make orders.
Considering just how many people in these departments are on the verge of either getting removed from them or taking a buy-out, the notion that they could just order someone to do it and see it done is already a little off kilter. Besides that, I just don't like the notion that you'd get someone in with virtually no knowledge of how their department works and just rely on the staff there to see to whatever whims they have. The boss should be competent enough to understand how their department works. If they don't, then they have no concept for how their orders will be implemented, which is something any boss should know before requiring a staff that is already overworked and understaffed to implement an idea they've never tried before.
This is a coalition government forming ideals we can all get behind like eradicating fraud and abuse.
I agree that we can get behind eradicating fraud and abuse, I don't agree with the use of the term "coalition government." There's no inter-party cooperation happening here. Just because some former Democrats have joined that government and some Democrats have agreed with policy aims of this government doesn't make it a coalition.
My reasoning is that I don't see many people better than her that will shake things up. If everything is shit than you know shaking things up is good.I always vote based on who will shake things up.
So by this logic, her desire to shake things up comes before any degree of competence to actually handle the position. Not how I see it, but at least I understand.
I shake things up and when I am in positions to run things I see few people who get better results than me and I have the numbers to prove it. Granted I am managing staffs of less than 50 people when I do it.I can only conclude that since I am the best at increasing profits and productivity and I shake things up, than others who shake things up are also supremely competent.I always had the best numbers in whatever district I was in and I shake things up.
I'm not particularly fond of comparing your workplace to, say, a department of the US government that oversees the usage of hundreds of billions or even trillions of taxpayer dollars. Doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Also, just because you're competent and shake things up doesn't mean that everyone who shakes things up is competent, nor that, even if they are competent at some things, their competence extends to this specific branch of government. Both of these are fallacious arguments based on your personal experience rather than anything about Tulsi Gabbard herself that demonstrates your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I guess the point is if we are looking at who puts part first and who puts country first, the best way to determine that is who crosses party lines most often.
Don't love the false dichotomy. There are plenty of reasons to vote to confirm that have nothing to do with putting either country or party first. Also, not a fan of the implication that voting across the aisle inherently puts country first. All it tells us is that the people who voted against their party line had a reason to do so that they viewed as more important. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's especially suspicious when we have former and current Democrats being nominated.
I don't see any current Democrats nominated. Especially given that the nominees who are former Democrats have made a point of aligning themselves with the opposing party, I don't see how this is suspicious. It's not like either RFK or Tulsi Gabbard have made any kind of effort to earn Democratic votes, either. So I don't understand what's suspicious.
Particularly unsettling is that the opposition to Tulsi who opposes things like FISA courts just being a rubber stamp. I think the biggest reason I was a Democrat was the opposition to the expanding national security state under Bush and a good way to keep them in check is appointing those antagonistic to them.
Figured we were sticking with RFK, but if we want to talk Gabbard too, that's fine. The issues with Tulsi Gabbard mostly have to do with a lack of qualifications on her part, as well as issues like her secret meeting in 2017 with then-President Bashar Assad and prior comments about Russia. I have problems with some of the other reasons against her as well. I don't think her opposition to FISA courts made her a good choice in and of itself, and aside from personal agreement with some of her aims, I don't see much reasoning from you for why she was a good candidate.
What happened to that portion of the party that was distrustful of the expanding national security state and poison in food like RFK is focused on?Did we all literally just become Republican?
I have lots of problems with the existing Democratic Party and its priorities. That, however, does not mean that any barely qualified candidate who espouses some positive ideas is automatically a great choice for the associated role. If your mentality is that qualifications are actually bad for some reason, putting people into these roles who have decent ideas but little idea of how to effectuate the changes they want to see and the consequences of doing it, then sure, I guess I can see your perspective as long as they're doing what you want them to do.
Who do you as a liberal trust more to stick it to the man?Outsider rebels like Gabbard and RFK who are led by ideology or uncontroversial beurocrats
Assuming that sticking it to the man is my priority, I'd want someone who knows the ins and outs of their department, someone who can utilize that apparatus to its fullest. That doesn't mean they should be uncontroversial, but an "outsider rebel" is likely to break quite a bit in their efforts to fix things the way they see fit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I am looking through various Biden confirmations and am struggling to find any dissenting Democrats while all of them get some Republican support
Yes, it’s not surprising that the party of the President also supports their nominees in the vast majority of instances in the Senate. It’s also not surprising that qualified candidates that both sides agree are very qualified get some bipartisan support. I’m not sure why this is important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Well he is for the childhood vaccine schedule as it currently is so what's left?
First off, his statements about not taking vaccines off the market are at least a little suspect given his statements about his commitment to safety and his stated positions on many of those vaccines.
Second, it’s not just about vaccines currently on the market, but how he’ll staff up for approval of future vaccines, something his FDA is likely to do much slower and less often based on his skepticism regarding the existing process for approval.
Here is the roll call for Antony blinken in comparison. It seemed like no Democrats opposed the confirmation and a good chunk of Republicans supported it . https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00007.htm
…OK. What’s your point? That Democrats supported a candidate elevated by Obama and that some Republicans at the time supported him too? It’s an apples and oranges comparison, very different nominees for very different offices with very different qualifications and aims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I appreciate that you’ve at least laid out a case against specific food additives, though I’ll note that that’s far more than we’ve gotten from our how confirmed HHS Secretary.
As for the vote coming down mostly along party lines, frankly, I’d say that speaks more to the willingness of most Republicans to fall in line with Trump and avoid incurring the wrath of people like Nicole Shanahan who actively threatened efforts to oust anyone who voted against him. I think the case against RFK was clear, and frankly, no, I don’t think he’ll refuse to touch vaccines. As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned, I looked at the statement he put out, and while he agrees on some of RFK’s ideas, it’s hardly all of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is simply that Trump won't turn people away simply because there is a (D) by their name. That's a vast improvement over what usually happens.
...I'm just baffled by this statement. Virtually every previous administration has included people of the opposing party in their administration somewhere. Every previous administration has both discussed with and negotiated with the opposition party. What is your standard for "a vast improvement" here? Where is the improvement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It most certainly had nothing to do with being an ultra-partisan.
So no, then. The great negotiator hasn't negotiated once with his opposition, and I guess the fact that some current and former Democrats are talking to Trump just automatically makes him non-partisan because partisanship is solely defined by whether you speak with the other side or not, which literally every president does. Every president has also, on at least some level, actually negotiated with that opposition, including Trump during his first administration. No sign of it now.
There's actually a lot of internal rumblings among Democrats with the hard line their leaders have drawn defending big lobbies at all costs. That was not always a position associated with the Democrat brand.
...and your point is? Again, I'm not defending the Democrats, so I don't know why you keep bringing up failings with the party and their perceived brand. I agree, there are many. I even agree that this is one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He heard Fetterman, but I guess the bar is set high here for whatever reason.
I guess I have to repeat myself again: where has he heard out someone who actively disagreed with him on policy where they actively disagreed and negotiated a change to his policy as a result? He "heard" Fetterman agreeing with him. Did he change policy as a result of that discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Fetterman is far more disagreeable with Trump than agreeable. I can't accept your argument on him being a "Trumper"
I don’t know how you keep misinterpreting the same set of words. I never said Fetterman was a Trumper. I said he agrees with some of his policies.
Trump has always been a negotiator.
Give me any evidence that Trump has negotiated with Democrats during this administration (note: negotiation requires some disagreement and an effort to resolve that disagreement in a way that satisfies both parties). Evidence that he’s open to negotiation from Democrats. Evidence that he’s even open to disagreement from them, or has shown a willingness to consider their arguments when it comes to his nominations or policy direction. I’d sincerely like to know where he’s done any of this because, at best, he’s feigned a willingness to do it without ever actually acting upon it.
To frame him as being a hard-line partisan makes a terrible mistake that loses the popular support. Democrats have every opportunity to reshape a future free from lobbies. The sad fact is that they can't because their house is just too dirty, and it shows with the lack of leadership and direction.
Trump is making no bones whatsoever of his partisanship and has actively dismissed the Democrats as meaningful participants in the political process. If he’s legitimately giving Democrats “every opportunity to reshape” policy, I’d love to see evidence of that. He’s giving them opportunities to jump onboard his bandwagon. That’s it. You can call the Democrats out for a lot of bad policy choices, but it is just plain silly to pretend that they have any power whatsoever to shape policy given the current power structure under Trump. He has no incentive to hear them out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, it's not just taking in former and listening to present Democrats (Fetterman isn't a former Democrat)He also isn't lockstep with people like Mitch McConnell (who is as about prop lobby as it gets)
I said either former Democrats or Democrats who actively side with him. Fetterman is one of the latter.
Having some minimal, inconsequential disagreement (McConnell has not managed anything aside from a “no” vote on a couple of confirmation hearings that still went through) is not what I would call strong evidence of non-partisanship on Trump’s part, but sure, Republicans aren’t lockstep behind him on literally everything he does. Find me a president whose entire party continuously followed their lead with so few dissenting votes in Congress in recent memory. Honestly, I’m curious if one exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Excluding Tulsi, RFK, Fetterman, and a few others....Again, Trump used to be a Democrat. He would certainly allow across the aisle action. I'd actually claim with evidence that Trump is the least hard-line partisan in modern presidencies.
So people who have either left the Democratic Party or actively side with him on multiple occasions get some appreciation. So as long as they agree with him and actively champion what he’s doing, sure, they get… what he wants. He may not be what you’d consider “hard-line partisan,” (and yes, I’d like to see that evidence, since simply pointing to a few cases like this isn’t much) but the notion that he’s ready and willing to listen to opinions that are in any way opposed to his policy direction is verifiably false. The only direction they could take policy under Trump is his direction.
Democrats are on the wrong side of the lobby issue here, and it's causing massive damage to their branding.
Again, not defending Democrats, but their having clear issues with their branding doesn’t mean they would be helped by hitching themselves to Trump’s wagon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess we will find out when those agencies are rendered useless to the lobbies and the money is returned to the states either through block grants, or more efficient and accountable local taxation over federal waste. Lord knows the propaganda machine is in full force explaining how the world will end if we return to the time where things ran....a lot better actually without all the centralized planning.
I sincerely admire your optimism and would love to find out that my cynicism regarding how this would play out is misplaced.
Democrats could work across the aisle and help shape this dismantling in a practical (and popular) way, but there are not enough uncompromised leaders ATM in their Congress.
This is one of your more baffling takes, GP. Trump has next to no incentive to take what the Democrats in Congress say into account. He hasn’t even had to bring any ideas about how to handle the various executive agencies under his purview to Congress at all, choosing instead to either dismantle them through executive action, DOGE and Elon Musk, or both. So working with Trump, who has shown absolutely no interest in reaching across the aisle and has claimed that the legislative branch as no say in overriding him anyway, or with Republicans in Congress, who seem all too eager to cede any power they have to Trump and also show no interest in hearing what Democrats have to say, is both utterly pointless and counter productive to a political party that recognizes the value of these agencies. Just because you can’t see the value in keeping them doesn’t mean no one legitimately can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, I was unaware he was being paid money to support the same big lobbies he regularly hauls into court for malfeasance. That would indeed be quite the hat-trick.
Again, not what I said. He receives financial support from people who have a vested interest in seeing certain policies come to pass. We can go through the list if you want, but that's lobbying, just from different groups for different reasons. The notion that he's somehow free of influence simply because he doesn't take money from some corporations is just baffling.
Unlikely if the alphabet agencies those big lobbies launder influence through like the FDA are dismantled. When regulatory power returns to the states, it will be far harder to purchase influence without getting caught, even in New York and California.
...Is ...is this supposed to be a positive? Because you're not convincing me. The FDA has a lot of problems, but it serves vital purposes that cannot easily be replaced.
And no, I don't get how putting regulatory power in the hands of the states is an improvement. It just spreads out the sites of influence, requires each state to figure out its own regulations, found their own agencies, staff them, and enforce their policies. At every level, that can be influenced, especially when building all that requires funds these states do not have readily available. I highly doubt that Trump would distribute funds to the states to get them started or sustain that funding to ensure they could effectively run these state-run agencies, and all that is setting aside the fact that there would be serious issues with setting up and running new regulatory frameworks for everything from food to medicine to cosmetics, each of which would likely have drastic consequences for anyone living in those states.
What price would be acceptable? 70 more years of the same? That's an unsustainable solution.
Compared with what? I'm not defending the status quo, but the notion that issues that exist now somehow demand we tear everything down and start fresh when doing so will clearly cause a great deal of pain to anyone reliant on things like food and medication in this country is just beyond me.
The people have figured out the game by now that all ultra-wealthy lobby actions reduce popular influence. Trump got more support with RFK, not less.
This isn't responsive to my point. My point was and remains that putting RFK in as a figurehead won't resolve the issues with their influence. His being placed in this position would give the appearance that it's been or at least is being resolved, but would not itself resolve it. That masks that influence. I'm sure people will love believing that the health industry is free of that influence, just too bad it won't be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it very unlikely people will think RFK is "biased" when he says a drug is safe over the "pronouncement" of a massive beneficiary of big lobby subsidies. It's why RFK seems popular with the anti-lobby crowd.Quite the opposite, for better or worse. His opinion won't be purchased by the ones making and selling the drugs.
My point wasn't that people would see him as biased, though I certainly do. If the goal is just to get someone into office that people who have mistrusted the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. will now believe, then sure, his taking office could be a positive development in that regard. Maybe it will engender trust, but my point is and remains that that trust is misplaced.
He is biased (financial incentives aren't the only way someone's opinion can be twisted, though the notion that he's somehow immune to financial incentives that might impact his decisions, or that the funding he received for his campaign doesn't sway his views at all, is absurd), his pronouncements of safety would likely either not be based on real data or simply affirm what the experts would already say, and, at best, his efforts to affirm that safety will likely take essential medications off the market for long spans of time just to confirm that safety, while, at worst, he could deny people access to those medications for the next 4 years, viewing them as too dangerous to leave on the market.
I understand if you and others see the financial pressures placed on HHS by big pharma, specifically, as very problematic and worth getting rid of at almost any cost, though a) I don't think the price we will pay will be worth it, and b) big pharma and its influences aren't going anywhere. Big business will always have a dramatically outsized influence on government, and if simply placing RFK into this position will make people think that their influence is reduced, then that's masking the problem rather than solving it.
Created:
Posted in:
Was considering taking a break. I'll be in backup for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a good argument that Trump blindly follows the advice of advisors. He did not seem to question Fauci much in 2020.However, most people agree a 2025 Trump is quite a bit different in this area.
Maybe so, though I think when Trump has stated that he wants RFK Jr. to "go wild" on health care, that's not a great indicator for Trump's willingness to rein him in.
An additional benefit of having RFK as an advisor is that if and when RFK says something medical is safe, he will be far more trusted than someone in the pocket of big pharma. That opinion will seem very genuine, even if Trump rejects his opinion.
I'm not understanding this one. I'm sure some people will trust RFK's pronouncements more than they would other people, but when the entire basis for that is that he's not biased by money coming from big pharma, I find the reason for it pretty weak. RFK clearly has his his own biases on what is and isn't safe and, frankly, I haven't seen any reason to believe that his views on that are strongly evidence-based. They're much more often based on the existence of side-effects than they are on any meaningful evaluation of the scientific data. So people may have more reason to believe him due to the lack of financial incentive coming to him, but that doesn't make him more likely to be right about safety data, nor does it mean that when he inevitably takes certain medications off the market for the purpose of further evaluating their safety far beyond any reasonable doubt, he won't be doing tremendous harm to people who rely on those medications.
Did I mention RFK was a Democrat for most of his life? (along with Trump)
Not a point in either of their favors. They've both made very clear that their current stances are very distinct from their previous stances.
Many of those ideas (the old Democrat ideas, not the new garbage) still remain. There was a time when the Democrat brand meant against government abuse, against the CIA, against fraud, against big lobbies, against War. Most of the people making up hypotheticals during the hearings were massive beneficiaries from big lobby money.
I'm not defending Democrats, but none of this indicates anything positive about RFK. Those "hypotheticals" were based on statements RFK has made and either refused to address or outright continues to believe. It's reasonable to hold him to his words and expect him to make clear his current stance, which he spent the hearings dancing around. As for that list of what the Democratic brand used to be against, it wouldn't take much effort to show that the Republican brand has turned its back on basically all of this, or that Trump himself in just this past month has shown a willingness to embrace many of these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Dude, you should ask this to RFK Jr. How could I know? From what I understand, he has to outline firstly the goals of his term. Once he's designated as health secretary, he should present a thorough plan to achieve his proposals. Though I don't know how that works, I can be wrong.
He has been asked. He has refused to give specific answers. That’s my point: for all that his ideas may sound good in the abstract, they have little clarity with regard to implementation. This isn’t the kind of thing we should be waiting until after he’s confirmed to see, since by then, the only person he’s accountable to is the President.
I found an interview with him in 2017 and in the last question he says he's totally for the vaccine. Link to interview
So he used to be for it, changed his mind over the next three years, and has held to that view ever since. I appreciate the timeline, but it doesn’t change what his current views are.
I understand his concern, there is a lot of corruption in the health industry so he's very careful of what scientists say about the medication they produce. We shouldn't trust them because scientists are at the end humans as all of us, they can make mistakes or even worse get corrupted. So we should question them at every moment we find something obscure on their work.
I get that scientists shouldn’t just be inherently trusted, but again, the issue here is the how. People can all be corrupt, so you need to put in effective checks to prevent that and fully evaluate vaccines, which is going to require more scientists doing more work. That’s positive so long as there is a clear set of standards and they’re not ridiculously overbearing (i.e. expensive or time consuming) to the point that it prevents good research. The problem is that I don’t think he has a standard. He has a feeling that the existing standard isn’t good enough, but no clear idea of what standard would be.
Besides, the reason why he opposes to children vaccines is because he found some cases of serious side effects. Eventhough they were few cases, almost nothing compared to all the vaccinated population, he is very concerned about this minority.
This is a vague argument. All vaccines have some amount of side effects, some of them serious. If instances of serious side effects make a given drug or vaccine dangerous enough that it should be pulled from the market or dramatically reevaluated, then there are scant few that will meet this standard. As always, those side effects also have to be weighed against the benefits of keeping these on the market. So his opposition presents as a threat to the health and well-being of future generations as epidemics that have largely been under control in the population will likely surge. I don’t see that as an even trade with a very low incidence of serious side effects.
I think there is no reason to deny him the job. There are lots of critics on him but at the end it's just part of the political game. There is nothing to be afraid of.
I very much disagree for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. It’s not hyperbolic to point out that his perspective, if implemented meaningfully, would cause a great deal of harm. It’s not a political game to mention that his lack of specifics on his plans means we cannot even evaluate any likelihood of success for his policy goals before he gets confirmed. Criticism is warranted. Denying him the job for all this is warranted. Sadly, I know he’ll get it anyway on a party line vote because supporting Trump’s pick comes before any meaningful consideration of his candidates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No one ever protects me
In this case, you were the protection, just couldn’t protect yourself. For what it’s worth, I absolutely would have if I could.
Created:
Posted in:
Well done to both WyIted and Luna. I had a solid gut read against Casey by the end of DP3 and I told Pie that they would have been my lynch going into DP4 after Vader’s flip. Well played by Casey just the same, lasted a long while and almost solo carried.
Created:
Posted in:
Can one of you do me a favor and change the thread title to “Gunplay Mafia DP4”
*speaking from beyond the grave* IT HAS BEEN DONE! *retreats to the ether*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The corruption is on the lobby of the health and food companies so I guess he's going to regulate that. We're going to see how powerful these big companies are, I heard they are part of the deep state and are in everyplace there is a politician. This is important because the health deparment deals with more money than any other federal agency.
That's not enough detail for me, and the lack of detail is the problem here. What is he going to require of them? How is he going to enforce it? How is he going to change the regulatory apparatus at his agency? You can talk about how corrupt these companies are and the so-called "deep state," but I'm not interested in a breakdown of all the problems with corporations and politicians generally. They exist, as do their harms. We're talking about putting RFK Jr. in a position to address them, so I'm interested in the solutions and changes he would use to address them, both of which we've heard scant little about.
Well, from what I heard in his presentation in the Congress, he seems to accept the vaccines. He may still think that vaccines are not good but he is now almost the secretary of health department so he can't act based on his opinions. He just wants to inform correctly about vaccines so that people can take a well-informed decision. Getting a vaccine shouldn't be forced
I'm unclear. What words did he say precisely that showcase his willingness to "accept the vaccines"? I saw a lot of hedging and a lot of statements about reaching some unknown, arbitrary threshold for what suffices as a "strong scientific basis" for believing in the safety and efficacy of vaccines. That doesn't sound like acceptance and it certainly doesn't sound like support. It sounds like a basis for challenging existing vaccines on the market. It's fine if you don't like mandatory vaccines, but that doesn't mean it would be better to place someone in charge who has a clear and demonstrated bias against vaccines and their current standards.
As for the idea that he's suddenly going to shift his perspective because he's going to be in a powerful role, I beg to differ. He has every reason to portray himself that way when he's interviewing for the position in front of Congress, which makes any statements he makes in front of them inherently more likely to either bend or eschew the truth entirely just to get their stamp of approval. He lacks that reason the moment he assumes the role, especially as Trump has made clear that he likes and supports what RFK Jr. has previously espoused.
even more now that we know the covid vaccine had a lot of serious side effects.I heard there was a covid vaccine for children but it was very risky for them so I agree with him.
You keep bringing up COVID vaccination. If you want to discuss that in detail, we can, because the take-aways you're giving me so far I find are a little off. I'd rather avoid that for the sake of this discussion since we're talking about RFK Jr. and his views in general, not just his views on the COVID vaccine, but if we can't avoid it, I'll cover it here.
As for your response on childhood vaccines, I'll note that he has stated opposition to all vaccines in children, not just COVID. He's now said it multiple times and, to my knowledge, has not reversed that view. I'd like to know why you think that's a valid position or why you're fine with the likely soon-to-be Secretary of HHS holding and espousing these views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
But his children got all the vaccines that a child should get. I think people are misinterpreting his words because he's not an expert in the matter.
These are RFK Jr.'s words:
So he got them vaccinated and since then, decided that it was such a devastatingly bad decision that, if given the chance to go back in time and undo it, he would. Unless he's made a marked shift since 2020 on this front (believe me, he hasn't), this is his stance on childhood vaccination.
My impression is that he's only against the covid vaccines. I am against it too because people were forced to get it and as RFk said, there was little information about it. Now we know that some vaccines cause some rare illnesses in the heart and the brain, there are papers about it.
Two years ago, he advised all parents not to vaccinate their children.
He has also actively emboldened anti-vaxx sentiment here and abroad, most notably in Samoa and, in that case, specifically against Measles.
His case against the COVID vaccines was and remains overblown, but I'm going to set that aside since that is likely to overtake this conversation if we get into it.
Created: