The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed" • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by JeremyNT » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 5:22 PM UTC

psyklic wrote: post #206

arp242 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only" 58% oppose the pardons according to [1]. I mean, it's a majority, but it's not what I'd call "wildly unpopular". It was always going to be opposed by a vast majority of Democrat voters, so relatively few Republican voters oppose it. I find it rather concerning. Back in the day much was said about Bush's "historically low" approval ratings too. It was somewhat satisfying to see, but in the end it didn't really…

As of Feb 18, WaPo says merely 14% of US adults overall support pardoning people convicted of violent crimes (and only 32% of Republicans). For nonviolent pardons, 42% overall support it (and 76% of Republicans). [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/20/trump-pol...

There's the abstract, and the concrete.

If you ask those same Republicans if they would pardon a violent offender who committed crimes in an attempt to defend Trump's claims of victory on January 6, you would get a very different answer.

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

#282

Post by giardini » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 5:22 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #147

seattle_spring wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His actions were outlined in Project 2025 throughout his candidacy. Surprised all it took was a simple statement of ignorance for people to completely dismiss what was plainly written what was going to happen (and currently is).

"I love the poorly-educated!" was not empty rhetoric. Only a country that gives slow-witted people the same political power as those on the right side of the IQ bell curve could elect a Trump democratically.

So would you would take the vote away from " those on the right side of the IQ bell curve"? (That has been done before, you know. You might be somewhat uncomfortable sitting with those who once did it, however).

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

#283

Post by intermerda » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #278

alabastervlog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. Not sure if those related to NIH are, but if they’ve been firing people, odds are good, since they’ve been doing that wrong most of the time it seems like. Congress could change the laws, but they haven’t. Lots of this junk is simply against the law. The courts are moving relatively fast, as such things go, but it takes time. Congress is supposed to control spend…

alabastervlog says "Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. " Not to pick on albastervlog specifically but HN is filling with posts like the one above, stating " this is illegal, that is illegal", posted by non-lawyers who have no idea whatsoever what is, and what is not, truly illegal. Why state something is illegal when the statement is false or ambiguous at best? What does it contribute? Why not ins…

You do realize that many of these actions have been deemed illegal by the courts, right?

> forgotten about manners

Why are you complaining about manners? Why not just say "I like that!" or "I agree with that!" and then get on with the rest of an argument? See where this is going?

> - forgotten about the logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

This isn't your high school debate club. But just to humor you, you are engaging in "fallacy fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

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

#284

Post by conicsl » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #261

Jimmc414 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t call Kamala extreme per se. The extreme position is the doubling down on positions that don’t resonate with the electorate and labeling the opposition racist or traitorous instead of working to find common ground. One example of an extreme position dichotomy would be the choice between an unnecessarily porous border without transparency and mass deportation when the people would likely all agree on a stead…

> allowing professional male combat athletes to unfairly dominate female participants Had this actually happened somewhere, or is it just a hypothetical? Like trans women assaulting cis women en masse in women's restrooms.

[dead]

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

#285

Post by wyager » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 5:56 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #147

seattle_spring wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His actions were outlined in Project 2025 throughout his candidacy. Surprised all it took was a simple statement of ignorance for people to completely dismiss what was plainly written what was going to happen (and currently is).

"I love the poorly-educated!" was not empty rhetoric. Only a country that gives slow-witted people the same political power as those on the right side of the IQ bell curve could elect a Trump democratically.

Both parties actually target a bimodal IQ distribution. The D distribution covers most of the left tail and the upper-mid, and the R distribution covers the lower-mid and most of the right tail. You generally expect interleaved affiliation like this; it's just a question of how many bands there are. R avg is actually slightly higher, although that doesn't tell the full story. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

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

#286

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #285

CamperBob2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I love the poorly-educated!" was not empty rhetoric. Only a country that gives slow-witted people the same political power as those on the right side of the IQ bell curve could elect a Trump democratically.

Both parties actually target a bimodal IQ distribution. The D distribution covers most of the left tail and the upper-mid, and the R distribution covers the lower-mid and most of the right tail. You generally expect interleaved affiliation like this; it's just a question of how many bands there are. R avg is actually slightly higher, although that doesn't tell the full story. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…

I don't think it's a partisan question, although it'd be interesting to repeat the survey today given how the makeup of the Republican party has changed since 2014. Keep in mind Trump could not have won re-election with the support of Republican constituencies alone.

You had to be genuinely gullible to vote for Trump this time, but that wasn't the case in 2016. I'm thinking of the blue-collar union members who voted for the Trump '24 ticket, for example, bitching to everybody who would listen about the price of eggs under Biden. In 2014 they would have been dragging down the Democrats' collective IQ, and now they've switched sides. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are still registered Democrats.

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

#287

Post by ModernMech » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

closewith wrote: post #242

throwaway48476 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you sure the legislative branch could physically remove this president from office? Given it's unlikely he'd accept any impeachment.

They wouldn't have to - the VP would become the President and therefore the CIC. He would instruct to military to remove the former president. If the VP does not oblige, he can be impeached as well and the Speaker of the House would become POTUS.

At that point, being the ones with all the guns, it would fall to the military to decide who they are loyal to: the Constitution, ex-POTUS, or themselves, and they will act accordingly.

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

#288

Post by giardini » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 6:11 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #268

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a wise man once said "it's the economy stupid." If their actions tank the economy, which seems a distinct possibility, things could change drastically.

Only if they don’t find a suitable scapegoat in time. I still hear people blaming Biden.

As they should!

Everything you see around you was provided by Biden. Trump is only starting to make changes.

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

#289

Post by ModernMech » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #176

LanceH wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of this junk is simply against the law. Perhaps. A lot of it is also the flip side of an executive order conjuring more government into existence. The escalation of executive order from administration to administration, and the reliance on courts to make law results in what we have going on today. Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine wit…

> Everyone was perfectly fine with the President doing whatever he wanted a couple months ago. Everyone was fine with the president doing whatever he wanted a couple of months ago because he didn't abuse his power like the new guy is. When you have someone with self control and the best interests of the country in mind, you don't actually need to reign in presidential power like you suggest, and we just haven't had a…

> This is impossible given the threshold for a constitutional convention.

Well, it's also just not true that Democrats didn't reign in the power of the presidency when they had control.

They passed a bill and Biden signed it which makes it even more explicitly illegal for President to impound money like Trump tried last term, and is again doing now. That's why we can emphatically say what he's doing is illegal, because he's breaking a law that was passed to curb exactly what he's doing.

Moreover, when Trump argued in court he had broad presidential immunity, Biden argued against that position, thus arguing to limit his own power.

It's hard to claim both sides abuse power when one side claiming total presidential immunity to use the military to kill his political opponents, and the other side says no. The difference couldn't be more stark.

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

#290

Post by alabastervlog » Sun, Mar 02, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #278

alabastervlog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. Not sure if those related to NIH are, but if they’ve been firing people, odds are good, since they’ve been doing that wrong most of the time it seems like. Congress could change the laws, but they haven’t. Lots of this junk is simply against the law. The courts are moving relatively fast, as such things go, but it takes time. Congress is supposed to control spend…

alabastervlog says "Many actions the administration has taken are illegal. " Not to pick on albastervlog specifically but HN is filling with posts like the one above, stating " this is illegal, that is illegal", posted by non-lawyers who have no idea whatsoever what is, and what is not, truly illegal. Why state something is illegal when the statement is false or ambiguous at best? What does it contribute? Why not ins…

When there are things like laws that say "Inspectors general can only be fired after 30 days notice to Congress, and for-cause, which reason must be provided to Congress" it's not exactly a leap to say it's illegal when a president summarily fires a whole bunch of them effective immediately for vague reasons with no notice to Congress. For example.

[EDIT] Bluntly, if you think that was some kind of slanted or out-there take, you aren't paying nearly enough attention.