RFK Jr. as Health Secretary. Why not?

Author: IlDiavolo
Conspiracy Theory
deep state
RFK Jr
Health Secretary
nomination

Posts

Total: 78
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
Trump has next to no incentive to take what the Democrats in Congress say into account
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. Democrats are on the wrong side of the lobby issue here, and it's causing massive damage to their branding.
#32
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
 (and yes, I’d like to see that evidence, since simply pointing to a few cases like this isn’t much)

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 in his own partisan aisle like Mitch McConnell (who is as about pro-lobby as it gets)

Being anti-lobby used to be exclusively a progressive Democrat policy. It's really sad to see how deep that corruption has gone since the 90's.
#34
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
 (and yes, I’d like to see that evidence, since simply pointing to a few cases like this isn’t much)

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 in his own partisan aisle like Mitch McConnell (who is as about pro-lobby as it gets)
Trump has his MAGA base. He doesn’t care about the rest.
#35
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
Lol, Fetterman is far more disagreeable with Trump than agreeable. I can't accept your argument on him being a "Trumper"

Trump has always been a negotiator. 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.
#37
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Lol, Fetterman is far more disagreeable with Trump than agreeable. I can't accept your argument on him being a "Trumper"
Fetterman is not a Trumper!!
#38
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
He has no incentive to hear them out.

He heard Fetterman, but I guess the bar is set high here for whatever reason.
#40
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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?

#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
It most certainly had nothing to do with being an ultra-partisan. 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.
#42
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
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.
#44
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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?

#45
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
The same problem exists with limiting access to ultraprocessed foods. The regulations he is proposing tackle a symptom of the problem - that these foods are cheap and available and therefore easy to get - by removing them, but doesn’t replace them with a viable alternative.
So if he helps ban red dye 40 I think that would reduce costs to manufacture food. A lot of this stuff is to make food look prettier at the cost of our health and if we are using less ingredients than say the UK, is their food significantly more expensive?

I was looking at some of the ingredient list comparisons between the United States and other countries and it's sick to say the least.

For example it had to be a sick fuck to even have the ideal of ever putting aspartame in food.

This is an area where I would support more regulations, especially considering that 5 food companies control 80% of our food supply and these thousands of brands are really just smaller brands owned for example by conagra .

Granted we basically had the majority of our food from mom and pops prior to the existence of the FDA but seeing as how they caused this issue the least they can do is start banning products that have 75 ingredients in America but just 3 or 4 in the UK.
#46
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Check out the poison in America for the same brands as the UK

https://foodbabe.com/food-in-america-compared-to-the-u-k-why-is-it-so-different/
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
lets hope RFK treats the food lobby like he treats big pharma
#48
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I honestly think it's disgusting the vote came down to party lines. We already know RFK isn't touching vaccines with a 10 foot poll. So there isn't that excuse, besides his views are more nuanced then the media gives him credit for and the media lies and says he is opposed to all vaccines which is anyone who has read his books knows is bullshit.

They are really just anti trump for the sake of being anti trump and we are going to see the left shill for actual useless and addictive additives for food for the next 4 years. The fact Bernie Sanders literally agrees with every single measure RFK would take and still voted against him just shows the evil inside of these people to put party over country
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
yeah, that's the kind of partisan BS I was hoping to get away from. Much of this is common sense to get behind, and the public polls are not happy with the partisanship over common sense.
#50
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Their big issue with Tulsi was that she thinks Snowden should be Pardoned and she is critical of America's involvement in Ukraine.

She doesn't have pardon power and wouldn't create foreign policy. She also is objectively correct on those facts but neither are relevant to the job and whatever happened to the old democratic party I was a part of?

We were critical and distrustful of the military industrial complex and would have been thrilled to have somebody in who is so obviously concerned with stuff like how FISA warrants go too far.

Last I tlchecked FISA warrants have zero refusals from secret courts. Proving they are just rubber stamps and their is also just something very unamerican about the concept of a secret court anyhow.
#51
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#52
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Well he is for the childhood vaccine schedule as it currently is so what's left?
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
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
#54
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I am looking through various Biden confirmations and am struggling to find any dissenting Democrats while all of them get some Republican support
#55
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#56
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
#57
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Here is how each senator voted for confirmations. https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Biden_Cabinet_nominees,_2021

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.

It's especially suspicious when we have former and current Democrats being nominated.

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.

I know there was some support for example for her support of Snowden but the guy literally just exposed the government for doing evil shit. The proper way to avoid being accused of being evil is to refrain from doing evil things and instead the focus is on if he followed procedure by reporting the government to the government so they would punish themselves I guess.

This is just shit I go excited about as a Democrat. Things like Snowden or Assange sticking it to the national security apparatus.

Or talks by politicians about concerns for the military industrial complex.

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?
#58
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
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
#59
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.

#60
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
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.
Your the boss you just tell people what to do. Make orders.

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
The opposing party presidential candidate not party. This is a coalition government forming ideals we can all get behind like eradicating fraud and abuse.

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.
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.

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.