President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BigFatMeanie]

YO, I wish I were as hopeful as you are about RFK Jr. I won't wade into the vaccination debate (although RFK's connection to the deaths of Samoan children and his debunked claims about thimerosal are troubling). I like that he'll apparently work on reducing chronic illness (including obesity) but I'm curious how he'll go about doing that. Pushing to reduce our intake of fructose would be a nice start, but I suspect Trump may not want to hurt our nation's corn farmers, just as Trump is gutless in rejecting automation in the shipping industry lest he hurt the longshoremen. Still, do what you can, Bobby.

I'm not nearly impressed as your are by his credentials as an environmental plaintiff's lawyer. From the time he began his career in that field, he has played the role of a zealous advocate (as he should), while ignoring the case to be made for the other side. Take, for example, his very one-sided view of fluoride as "poison" or "industrial waste." Consider the following facts: 1. EVERYTHING is poison, it merely depends on the dose. 2. Flouride at the appropriate level has been demonstrated to have net beneficial effects. 3. Too much fluoride can be harmful. I'm very open to solid studies on how much, if any, fluoride should be added--natural groundwater fluoride content varies significantly depending on location. But I'd rather those studies and ultimate decisions be made by unbiased scientists, not a zealous advocate for one side of the argument.

Perhaps beside the point, and I'm not sure anyone cares about moral purity anymore, but RFK's sexual indiscretions make Hegseth and even Trump seem like choir boys. If you're ever in the mood for some very sad gossip, read about the suicide of his ex after she discovered his journal boasting of his dozens of extramarital affairs during their marriage.

Aww, how cute. Reminds me when my kids used to believe in Santa Claus.

[Shaka]

Most dedicated Rogan listeners don’t. Who has time after a 4 hour podcast?

I'm not a dedicated Rogan listener. I've started to listen more after his interviews with Vance, Musk, Fetterman, and Zuckerberg. If I think the person on will be interesting I'll listen. Sometimes he's a little wacky but he's excellent in other ways and I find him to be fair.

[Shaka]

I hope you would. You didn't mention looking at the other side in your post.

Why would that be necessary? Maybe you shouldn't assume I just read things from one side.

[frank ryan]

Aww, how cute. Reminds me when my kids used to believe in Santa Claus.

When it comes to this type of stuff. That's actually a real thing

[YOhio]

YO, I wish I were as hopeful as you are about RFK Jr. I won't wade into the vaccination debate (although RFK's connection to the deaths of Samoan children and his debunked claims about thimerosal are troubling). I like that he'll apparently work on reducing chronic illness (including obesity) but I'm curious how he'll go about doing that. Pushing to reduce our intake of fructose would be a nice start, but I suspect Trump may not want to hurt our nation's corn farmers, just as Trump is gutless in rejecting automation in the shipping industry lest he hurt the longshoremen. Still, do what you can, Bobby.

I'm not nearly impressed as your are by his credentials as an environmental plaintiff's lawyer. From the time he began his career in that field, he has played the role of a zealous advocate (as he should), while ignoring the case to be made for the other side. Take, for example, his very one-sided view of fluoride as "poison" or "industrial waste." Consider the following facts: 1. EVERYTHING is poison, it merely depends on the dose. 2. Flouride at the appropriate level has been demonstrated to have net beneficial effects. 3. Too much fluoride can be harmful. I'm very open to solid studies on how much, if any, fluoride should be added--natural groundwater fluoride content varies significantly depending on location. But I'd rather those studies and ultimate decisions be made by unbiased scientists, not a zealous advocate for one side of the argument.

Perhaps beside the point, and I'm not sure anyone cares about moral purity anymore, but RFK's sexual indiscretions make Hegseth and even Trump seem like choir boys. If you're ever in the mood for some very sad gossip, read about the suicide of his ex after she discovered his journal boasting of his dozens of extramarital affairs during their marriage.

Thanks, PAC. To clarify, it's not that I'm impressed with his credentials just as an environmental plaintiff's lawyer, rather that I think his achievements as such do seem worthy of consideration. Your point is a good one, though. One that I haven't considered or expressed in criticisms of him (which I've read, falafel!). He's been trained to be wildly one-sided and knows how to make a strong case, even at the expense of full representation of the other side.

And before any of this discussion continues, we should all agree that the current situation in American healthcare and health outcomes Is dreadful. Neither party or ideology can claim significant or any success on this issue. Most of us couldn't name two prior HHS secretaries. Even though the work they've done has, in part, led to this place where we've seen dramatic increases in auto-immune disease, chronic disease, diabetes, obesity, autism, childhood obesity, pcos, food allergies, alzheimer's, depression, and a host of other conditions. So we should all have a little humility when offering an opinion on the subject, even if we're certain that Kennedy is joyously ushering in the next smallpox epidemic.

One of the things that's been a bit frustrating to me about the Kennedy debate is how the response to him rarely addresses the substance of what he says his objectives are as Sec of HHS and what the alternative *should* be.. In his speeches since receiving the nomination he's been quite focused on attempting to reverse the rapid increases in the conditions previously described. Opponents have loads of criticisms about him (of which there are many!), but I haven't seen any articulated alternative. Autism is a great example. There's been a crazy rise in the diagnosis over the past 50 years. From 1 in 2,500 in the 70's to 1 in 36 in 2023. The anti-vaxxers blame the vax. The response is that it's not the vax. Okay. Then what is it? Sure changes in treatment or diagnostic criteria. But there has to be something else, right? Because a 6,844% increase is meaningful and I'd like to know more than just insults about Anti-vaxxers. Same with any of the other topics. Show me anyone passionate about these issues with the visibility of Kennedy and I'll give them my support. And it's not that I want him to be right. I really don't care about his particular policies. It's that I want these issues at the forefront of the national debate. These issues are so important and, even though he's an imperfect delivery vessel, he's leading the charge. As important, I want an opposition who is willing to offer something of substance without the usual insults. Someone on the left or right, I don't care. But take up that mantle. The last thing we need here is another game manager.

[YOhio]

I'm not a dedicated Rogan listener. I've started to listen more after his interviews with Vance, Musk, Fetterman, and Zuckerberg. If I think the person on will be interesting I'll listen. Sometimes he's a little wacky but he's excellent in other ways and I find him to be fair.

He's great. One of the most fair interviewers out there, IMO. He tends to kiss up to his guests, which I think is helpful. The only time I've heard him get really contentious was with Matt Walsh on gay marriage and Sanjay Gupta on how CNN edited his instagram post about having COVID by applying a green filter to make him look more sick. I know a lot of people give him shit for having long podcasts, but I think that's what makes it good. The mask has to come off over the course of a discussion and you get a much better idea of the person interviewed.

[BlueK]

My wife has a brother and a sister who are attorneys currently working for the DOJ. One is a prosecutor and the other works on civil cases involving the federal government. They're seeing the Trump admin working to push out a lot of people who are not any kind of executive level and who are supposed to be protected by the current civil service laws. They're both expecting it to come to them eventually. Her brother already got a letter essentially saying he's not fired but...more or less he's on the watch list or whatever they're calling it.

their mom who is quite MAGA can't believe it when they tell her they're worried or are expecting the ax soon "Why would they do that?" Basically she doesn't believe the Trump admin would just fire people doing their jobs that aren't even political. If/when it happens it will be interesting what her reaction is when a stupid thing Trump does hits her close to home. I think maybe it knocks her faith a bit in MAGA but my wife says no, even that won't do it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have never had the time or patience to listen to a complete JR podcast. How frequently does he release them?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didn't listen to the NYT Daily podcast today but my wife did. She said that Steven Miller, et al. have worked with Trump to prep this tsunami of executive actions, knowing full well that many of them will not pass constitutional muster. However, by dropping them all at once the objective is to overwhelm your political opponents and they end up not putting up anywhere near as effective a resistance as they could if you dropped them one by one over time. Pretty brilliant (and diabolical) strategy, if you ask me.

[frank ryan]

I didn't listen to the NYT Daily podcast today but my wife did. She said that Steven Miller, et al. have worked with Trump to prep this tsunami of executive actions, knowing full well that many of them will not pass constitutional muster. However, by dropping them all at once the objective is to overwhelm your political opponents and they end up not putting up anywhere near as effective a resistance as they could if you dropped them one by one over time. Pretty brilliant (and diabolical) strategy, if you ask me.

Yeah, we were cautioned this was coming. There will be more. Miller is a truly terrible person. Bannon is a political and media savant, but he is a horrible person.


I believe he coined the term "alright." Some of the books I've read have had interviews with him have been fascinating. Between he and Roger Stone, you have a couple of guys whispering in Trump's ear who aren't inhibited by the most basic morals the rest of us have.

As BlueK asserted this isn't thoughtful reform with any layoffs, it's meant to strengthen Trump's hand.

[BlueK]

I didn't listen to the NYT Daily podcast today but my wife did. She said that Steven Miller, et al. have worked with Trump to prep this tsunami of executive actions, knowing full well that many of them will not pass constitutional muster. However, by dropping them all at once the objective is to overwhelm your political opponents and they end up not putting up anywhere near as effective a resistance as they could if you dropped them one by one over time. Pretty brilliant (and diabolical) strategy, if you ask me.

Yeah, that makes sense. And it goes along with trying to push out thousands of federal employees right now that they aren't supposed to be able to fire legally, knowing that they'd lose the lawsuit but that most people wouldn't have the means or time or patience to fight it for possibly years. Diabolical it is.

[Moliere]

Yeah, we were cautioned this was coming. There will be more. Miller is a truly terrible person. Bannon is a political and media savant, but he is a horrible person.


I believe he coined the term "alright." Some of the books I've read have had interviews with him have been fascinating. Between he and Roger Stone, you have a couple of guys whispering in Trump's ear who aren't inhibited by the most basic morals the rest of us have.

As BlueK asserted this isn't thoughtful reform with any layoffs, it's meant to strengthen Trump's hand.

Agreed on Miller being a truly terrible person. He’s a racist and shouldn’t be anywhere near a presidential administration.

[frank ryan]

Yeah, that makes sense. And it goes along with trying to push out thousands of federal employees right now that they aren't supposed to be able to fire legally, knowing that they'd lose the lawsuit but that most people wouldn't have the means or time or patience to fight it for possibly years. Diabolical it is.

This was all anticipated. It's impossible to address when it's impossible to get consensus on. That can't be done when people have their information eco systems so silo'd off. This is where Musk and twitter complicated things. People are vulnerable to the kind of reputation and parasociality you get from social media. That's not science fiction, and we don't know quite the extent of it, but I worry actors like China with TikTok have the upper hand. People stay in self-imposed outrage feedback loops and never step outside of it.

With no agreed upon truth, there isn't a problem we can address.

[frank ryan]

Trump reclassified thousands of political hires, making them easier to fire. Russell Vought the primary guy for Project 2025 is his pick for White House Office of Management and Budget. He is axing what were apolitical hires.

This was a plank of project 2025, intended for him to install his apparatchiks. I asked CHATGPT about it.




Project 2025, which is a conservative initiative led by the Heritage Foundation aimed at reshaping the federal government under the next presidential administration, has emphasized the need for a more streamlined and efficient bureaucracy. One key element of this plan involves expanding the use of Schedule F employees in the federal workforce.

Schedule F is a category of federal employment that was introduced under the Trump administration in 2020, which allows the president to reclassify certain civil servants into a more politically appointed status. These employees, typically in policy-making or advisory positions, would lose the traditional civil service protections that make it difficult to fire them. Schedule F allows for greater flexibility in removing federal employees for political or ideological reasons, and it makes it easier to replace them with individuals more aligned with the president's agenda.

Project 2025 supports the idea of utilizing Schedule F more widely, arguing that it will help "drain the swamp" by making it easier to replace career bureaucrats with individuals who are more loyal to the president’s policies. The idea is that many federal employees, especially in agencies like the Department of Justice, the State Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency, are seen as resistant to certain conservative policies and need to be reformed.

The plan pushes for:

1. Expansion of Schedule F: Making more positions in the federal government eligible for reclassification under Schedule F, so that political appointees can replace career bureaucrats.
2. Reasserting executive control: Giving the president more direct control over the hiring, firing, and management of federal employees, particularly in departments that have a major influence on policy.
3. Reshaping the federal workforce: Removing what is seen as a permanent "deep state" that may be resistant to the president’s vision, especially when it comes to implementing conservative reforms.

Critics of Schedule F, however, argue that it could lead to politicization of the civil service, undermine job protections for federal employees, and result in a less neutral, less efficient government.

So, in short, Project 2025 sees the expansion of Schedule F as a major tool for reshaping the federal bureaucracy to ensure it aligns more closely with the administration’s goals. Would you want to dive deeper into the implications of this or hear about how it could be implemented?

[PaloAltoCougar]

YO, I strongly agree that many (most?) of RFK's goals about our health are laudable. It will be very interesting to see how he goes about trying to achieve them and whether he's effective. I'm pessimistic but I''d truly love to be pleasantly surprised. And I'm very wary about the widely shared view that autism cases are spiking. On the increase, perhaps, but most of the reported increase is, at least as I understand it, due to far greater scrutiny and diagnosing than was the case in the '70s. I don't think I had even heard of autism back then. Kids were just "slow", "weird," or the all-encompassing (and meanly pejorative) "retarded." Still, it's a condition certainly deserving of greater study.

On another note, the Evil Steves (Miller and Bannon) are truly awful humans. Trump's respect for them says a lot about Trump, none of it good.