Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

sensible-med.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 340 posts

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#181

Post by [deleted] »

afavour wrote: post #153
seattle_spring wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His words disavowed Project 2025, but his actions very obviously supported it. Reminds me of an apt quote: "I'm not a litigious man... that's why I have lawyers." -- Conrad "Skip" Meinhofer IV

It feels like we're bending over backwards to minimize a liar lying here. He did not campaign on enacting Project 2025. He literally stood on the stage at rallies and disavowed it. Yeah, he was lying and a lot of us knew it but that doesn't change what he campaigned on. If a politician tells a bold faced lie we shouldn't minimize it by saying "oh but everyone knew what he really meant". He lied to voters.

[deleted]

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#182

Post by seattle_spring »

afavour wrote: post #153
seattle_spring wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His words disavowed Project 2025, but his actions very obviously supported it. Reminds me of an apt quote: "I'm not a litigious man... that's why I have lawyers." -- Conrad "Skip" Meinhofer IV

It feels like we're bending over backwards to minimize a liar lying here. He did not campaign on enacting Project 2025. He literally stood on the stage at rallies and disavowed it. Yeah, he was lying and a lot of us knew it but that doesn't change what he campaigned on. If a politician tells a bold faced lie we shouldn't minimize it by saying "oh but everyone knew what he really meant". He lied to voters.

Pointing out that a liar's true intentions are obvious does not minimize the fact that they lied.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#183

Post by [deleted] »

energy123 wrote: post #118
ivraatiems wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I am not at all convinced any further elections in the US will be free or fair given who is currently in power and what they've openly said about elections and what they want to do to them. The only real functional way forward at this point is some form of mass protest or resistance, which I see as unlikely to occur (and which I am not necessarily advocating for here on HN). Barring that, the reality is that…

Protest will happen only if inflation goes up. We are in a techno-dystopia where control over attention bandwidth is the only thing that matters.

[deleted]

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#184

Post by dragonwriter »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #146
jmcgough wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> roughly half the country is ecstatic about what he is doing A number of his actions are wildly unpopular. The Jan 6th Pardons, and his pro-Putin agenda. His polling is historically poor for a month into a president's term, and there are large protests around the country. In another month, his polling will be completely underwater.

> His polling is historically poor for a month into a president's term You can hate the guy all you like, but this is 100% false.

> > His polling is historically poor for a month into a president's term

> You can hate the guy all you like, but this is 100% false.

It's absolutely true.

His second term started with the second lowest initial gross approval rating (47%) of a Presidential term back to 1953; the worst was his first term (at 45%). But his initial rating was also the worst net approval of any President (with 48% disapproval, for a net -1%, breaking the prior record set by his own first term with 45% disapproval for a net 0%, and having the unprecedented condition of not merely net disapproval but majority disapproval this early in a term.)

AT mid-February, his gross approval had dropped to 45% (and remained the second worst since 1953, again the only worse being his own first term), and his net approval had dropped to -6% on 51% disapproval. As well as having less approval than any term other than his first, Trump is faced with the historically-unusual fact that the not-approving numbers early on aren't mostly neutral, but disapproving.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#185

Post by lazide »

jghn wrote: post #165
lazide wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those states would never have signed onto the constitution without the senate. It’s not ‘artificial’. It’s a core part of why the USA came to be.

Why do you seem to believe anything I'm talking about involves the Senate mattering? I've discussed how the House had its membership artificially capped roughly 150 years into this country's history

Because the senate does matter.

The system is setup to balance out two competing interests - the large cities (with large, concentrated populations) and the states (most of which are not so heavily populated, but have most of the land and resources).

It’s a compromise. And necessary for the Union to be balanced - unless Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, etc. should now just become (defacto) vassals to Los Angeles. Which they definitely didn’t sign up for.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#186

Post by tastyfreeze »

jachee wrote: post #155
closewith wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that the rule of law in the US is strong enough to avert a dictatorship?

If the military upholds their oath to the Constitution, we should never have a dictatorship.

And that military action would be called a coup despite being the expected outcome of an attempted dictator.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#187

Post by arp242 »

jachee wrote: post #155
closewith wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that the rule of law in the US is strong enough to avert a dictatorship?

If the military upholds their oath to the Constitution, we should never have a dictatorship.

The military getting involved is an absolute last resort type thing. And comes with risks of its own: military coups/juntas that started out as a legitimate dethroning of a dictator are not unheard of.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#188

Post by D13Fd »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #150
D13Fd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, through the pardon power combined with immunity from prosecution, the president can shield the entire executive branch from any obligation to execute on the laws that congress writes. It effectively neuters congress and prevents it from making any permanently effective law. Enforcement is instead left to the whims of the current congress and president at any time (who could be highly partisan Dem…

The constitutional remedy for abuse of pardon power is impeachment. In the model where any two branches can check the 3rd if two are of the same mind then there's nothing to do.

> The constitutional remedy for abuse of pardon power is impeachment.

It is not. The constitution allows impeachment for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors only.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#189

Post by afavour »

seattle_spring wrote: post #182
afavour wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like we're bending over backwards to minimize a liar lying here. He did not campaign on enacting Project 2025. He literally stood on the stage at rallies and disavowed it. Yeah, he was lying and a lot of us knew it but that doesn't change what he campaigned on. If a politician tells a bold faced lie we shouldn't minimize it by saying "oh but everyone knew what he really meant". He lied to voters.

Pointing out that a liar's true intentions are obvious does not minimize the fact that they lied.

Not obvious to all. I have relatives who get all their “news” from a Facebook feed that’s heavily filtered to confirm their priors. They told me time and time again that Trump had disavowed Project 2025. The obviousness of his lies were not apparent to them. Yes, they should be better informed (believe me, I know) but they’re far from alone.

So that’s why it bugs me when I see someone say “he’s doing exactly what he said he’d do!” and the story quickly pivots to “well yes of course he specifically said he wasn’t going to do that but it was obvious he was lying”. A lot of people are living in vastly different information ecosystems, which is why the words coming out of a candidate’s mouth matter.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#190

Post by throwaway48476 »

lazide wrote: post #185
jghn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you seem to believe anything I'm talking about involves the Senate mattering? I've discussed how the House had its membership artificially capped roughly 150 years into this country's history

Because the senate does matter. The system is setup to balance out two competing interests - the large cities (with large, concentrated populations) and the states (most of which are not so heavily populated, but have most of the land and resources). It’s a compromise. And necessary for the Union to be balanced - unless Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, etc. should now just become (defacto) vassals to Los Angeles…

The states had governed themselves for 150 years before the revolution (same age as USA in 1930s), they weren't going to give that up. Also overlooked is that the states had different religions and spoke different languages. We assume they were destined to unite only in retrospect and forget how improbable it actually was.
Post reply on HN