Did he scheme to get Trump into power last year? Though I certainly didn’t trust him then either.Would you have said that one year ago?
Did he scheme to get Trump into power last year? Though I certainly didn’t trust him then either.Would you have said that one year ago?
If a Republican helped a Democrat win an election and then accepted a position in the new administration, would you change your opinion on what you expect that Republican to want to accomplish in government?Did he scheme to get Trump into power last year? Though I certainly didn’t trust him then either.
Depends. If a Maga activist or life long anti LGBTQ crusader starts scheming to put the dems in power and then accept a job from them, then it would see his previous conduct was just opportunism he dropped when something better came along.If a Republican helped a Democrat win an election and then accepted a position in the new administration, would you change your opinion on what you expect that Republican to want to accomplish in government?
Trump's first term didn't favor the ultra-wealthy. Real wages went up. The upward trend in the gini coefficient from the previous 50 years flattened out. Trump's personal net worth dropped. Have you considered the possibility that you are trying to support your preconceived expectations rather than seeing what's in front of you? I am a Republican, but I didn't expect anything good from a Trump presidency, I did not vote for him in 2016. His first term proved me wrong. Not only the US, but the world overall got better when he was president (except for covid, but I don't think you'd suggest Trump made covid happen to benefit the ultra wealthy).But a government all about favoring the ultra wealthy and a politician claiming he wants to protect the health of what the later considers to be filthy plebs don't combine well. If the later joins the former it cannot be to protect the health of the common citizenry, because the ultra rich don't want to give up profit to see that done.
His beliefs on certain things are immovable within the FDA/Department of Health.You are, in essence, arguing that RFK Jr's beliefs on disease and medicine will not affect the policies of the Department he will control, which oversees those exact areas.
So when RFK said the "department of nutrition needs to go", you're suggesting he... just didn't know what he was talking about?
And yet it's what he's saying he'll do.
RFK Jr is actually passionate about health and nutrition.RFK WANTS a corporate far right government. Ergo no matter what he ever said and did public health isn’t high on the agenda. What? You think Trump and Elon will allow corporate profit to slip just to protect the plebs? No one, including mister brain worm expects that of them.
Tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation all seem firmly upper class hobbies. Not working class ones. I'd certainly not say Trump made Covid. Just that he refused to do his duties because doing so might risk his demagogic credentials.Trump's first term didn't favor the ultra-wealthy. Real wages went up. The upward trend in the gini coefficient from the previous 50 years flattened out. Trump's personal net worth dropped. Have you considered the possibility that you are trying to support your preconceived expectations rather than seeing what's in front of you? I am a Republican, but I didn't expect anything good from a Trump presidency, I did not vote for him in 2016. His first term proved me wrong. Not only the US, but the world overall got better when he was president (except for covid, but I don't think you'd suggest Trump made covid happen to benefit the ultra wealthy).
K. Even though policies on these things have changed frequently in the past? Now they're somehow set in stone, and the department's own secretary cannot change them?His beliefs on certain things are immovable within the FDA/Department of Health.
I'd really like to know an interpretation of the sentence "there are entire departments, like the nutrition department of the FDA, that have to go" that doesn't involve getting rid of the nutritional work of the FDA.There's no specifics on what the said. You guys just jump to conclusions (aka the worst possible scenario).
Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, then invaded the rest of Ukraine in 2022. Putin didn't invade during Trump's term. It is a bold claim to suggest Trump's presence prevented Putin from invading further during his term in office, but there is a correlation. It is pure delusion to suggest that Trump's presence encouraged Putin to invade.Tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation all seem firmly upper class hobbies. Not working class ones. I'd certainly not say Trump made Covid. Just that he refused to do his duties because doing so might risk his demagogic credentials.
Considering Trump helped shape the environment that where Bibi and Putin got emboldened I'd highly doubt the suggestion the world got better under Trump. Would Putin still have invaded if Trump hadn't spend so long putting the axe to the alliance with Europe, or if he hadn't assumed Trump would roll out the red carpet for a Ukraine invasion in his second term. Who knows. Maybe Putin would have started preparations even without a fan in the white house. But either way he must have thought the times were with him when prepping his invasion, and that Trump played a large part in this.
Biden did more to influence vaccines within the FDA than RFK Jr will ever do. Funny how you never criticize that.K. Even though policies on these things have changed frequently in the past? Now they're somehow set in stone, and the department's own secretary cannot change them?
The thing is, I find it quite feasible that they won't change. Not because he lacks the power, and not because he didn't say he would. But because the rest of the gov will recognise its politically toxic and he'll mostly be an aimless, confused figurehead.
I'd really like to know an interpretation of the sentence "there are entire departments, like the nutrition department of the FDA, that have to go" that doesn't involve getting rid of the nutritional work of the FDA.
Well, because Biden hasn't been spreading dangerous lies about vaccines causing autism and HIV not causing AIDS.Biden did more to influence vaccines within the FDA than RFK Jr will ever do. Funny how you never criticize that.
I don't know, but that's what he's calling for.Why would RFK Jr want to not have any nutritional oversight when his goal is to get people to eat healthy again?
Because he's not going to fix a damn thing. And as I told you before, if you and the FDA disagree on something, it inclines me to respect the FDA more. Food and drink with high fat content shouldn't be able to put "healthy" on the label in the middle of an obesity epidemic.Can't you see why someone would say something like that when the FDA says whole milk cannot be considered a healthy food? This is why that department is useless, they tell people to literally eat worse. Why do you not have problems with how horrible the government's nutrition guidance is yet will criticize someone wanting to fix that?
Biden forced the FDA to approve things that the science said shouldn't be approved. Why don't you criticize that?Well, because Biden hasn't been spreading dangerous lies about vaccines causing autism and HIV not causing AIDS.
If you're suggesting that the President will put the dampener on the Secretary of Health, then let me remind you Trump said he would "let RFK go wild" on food and drug policy.
I don't know, but that's what he's calling for.
The likeliest possibility is corruption. He's one of the many people who will compromise his principles for money or power, like Trump and Musk. Hence why a man who used to rail against corporatism would jump into bed with the most shameless corporatists.
Because he's not going to fix a damn thing. And as I told you before, if you and the FDA disagree on something, it inclines me to respect the FDA more. Food and drink with high fat content shouldn't be able to put "healthy" on the label in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
Regarding milk: all RFK has said on that topic is... that he only drinks raw milk. So we can expect him to deregulate disease-ridden produce. Great!
A. Because it's whataboutism; B. Because it's either a falsehood or at most a half-truth.Biden forced the FDA to approve things that the science said shouldn't be approved. Why don't you criticize that?
Difficult to see how getting rid of the regulator will increase regulations.He's not, he's calling for more regulations like Europe.
Again, I have no respect for your opinions on these topics, and consider you to be talking bollocks.Whole milk is objectively the healthiest milk. Fat in foods does not make people fat.
No, Biden actually did something against the science and pushed vaccines through the FDA. Ask Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause about that. RFK Jr has literally done nothing and said he's going to do nothing with vaccines but you'll be all up in arms about that? But when Biden actually did something, you don't care about that?A. Because it's whataboutism; B. Because it's either a falsehood or at most a half-truth.
Difficult to see how getting rid of the regulator will increase regulations.
Again, I have no respect for your opinions on these topics, and consider you to be talking bollocks.
Do you have anything to say about what RFK actually believes about milk, which is that disease-ridden milk is the best?
Half-truth, then; he did something that some in the medical community disagreed with, while others agreed with it.No, Biden actually did something against the science and pushed vaccines through the FDA. Ask Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause about that.
Yes, when his lies about vaccine safety became controversial, he said he wouldn't "take them away". That's vague, especially from someone so slippery and dishonest-- from someone who railed against corporatists right up until they offered him a wage, then sang their praises.RFK Jr has literally done nothing and said he's going to do nothing with vaccines but you'll be all up in arms about that?
Has he separately spoken about keeping the nutrition work of the FDA?You're focusing on a single thing he said that could've been misspoken and ignoring like 99.9% of everything else he said.
No, I'm arguing against you, because you tend to cherry pick or misrepresent what these experts have actually said.So you think Tim Spector is talking bollocks? How many times do I have to tell you everything I say was said by an expert? You're not arguing against me, you're arguing against experts in the field.
Nope, the rest of the world didn't agree either.Half-truth, then; he did something that some in the medical community disagreed with, while others agreed with it.
Yes, when his lies about vaccine safety became controversial, he said he wouldn't "take them away". That's vague, especially from someone so slippery and dishonest-- from someone who railed against corporatists right up until they offered him a wage, then sang their praises.
Even if he doesn't push for legislation against, he could still spread the dangerous misinformation he's been spreading for his entire life, or appoint dangerous whackjobs.
Has he separately spoken about keeping the nutrition work of the FDA?
No, I'm arguing against you, because you tend to cherry pick or misrepresent what these experts have actually said.
Tim Spector, for example, is not some massive advocate for the health benefits of full-fat milk. His current position is that there's very little health difference between skimmed and full-fat milk, but that we should be drinking it in very small quantities whichever we pick. He used to recommend people drink milk, and he's made a point that he doesn't make that recommendation any more. He's also a fan of oat milk (which I agree with him on, I prefer it in coffee).
You're now talking about policies you didn't like, not science.Nope, the rest of the world didn't agree either.
Because none of the supposed 'misinformation' is anywhere near as lethal as the idea that AIDS doesn't come from HIV, or that vaccines cause autism, or that we should be drinking disease-ridden milk.There's ton of misinformation on government websites already, why do you brush that stuff away but care so much about RFK Jr?
I suspect he hasn't really thought about it, because he's not terribly bright. People like him find it far more attractive (and easier) to tear down than to build up.How would someone transform America's eating habits without putting out eating guidelines? Either he will just get rid of the current people in the department and restaff or swift that responsibility to another department/agency.
He said it's a very marginal difference, and that we should drink very little of it. This is absolutely not someone saying whole milk is far healthier. You're simply misrepresenting and cherry picking statements you like the sound of, which is all you ever manage to do on scientific topics.Tim Spector has said whole milk is better than skim milk.
Nope, talking about the science, that's why 2 top FDA directors quit is because the science said "this" and Biden said "that". Also, why the rest of the world did the opposite. If this happened under Trump, you guys would still be talking about it.You're now talking about policies you didn't like, not science.
Because none of the supposed 'misinformation' is anywhere near as lethal as the idea that AIDS doesn't come from HIV, or that vaccines cause autism, or that we should be drinking disease-ridden milk.
I suspect he hasn't really thought about it, because he's not terribly bright. People like him find it far more attractive (and easier) to tear down than to build up.
He said it's a very marginal difference, and that we should drink very little of it. This is absolutely not someone saying whole milk is far healthier. You're simply misrepresenting and cherry picking statements you like the sound of, which is all you ever manage to do on scientific topics.
All the rest of the post is waffle and blah.
No, that's not what happened. Gruber and Krause resigned because the FDA hadn't been given the chance to sign off on the booster campaign. There was no scientific disagreement they cited at all; the agency hadn't taken a position yet. That was exactly what they were frustrated by.Nope, talking about the science, that's why 2 top FDA directors quit is because the science said "this" and Biden said "that". Also, why the rest of the world did the opposite. If this happened under Trump, you guys would still be talking about it.
Uhrm, disease-ridden produce is an issue whoever peddles it. I've never given "hippies" a free pass. But "hippies" aren't about to be made the Secretary of the Department of Health, with federal power over policy dealing directly with it.Again, I should be concerned about 2 things that definitely won't happen and a third thing that liberal hippies were all about (funny how when liberals do it, it's not some big deal)? And raw milk isn't gonna gain traction because even if people were convinced raw milk was better overall, it's highly inconvenient and won't really go past the extreme foodie sphere (that it's already in). A legit actual movement to get people to eat healthier is far more beneficial 2 things that won't happen and one thing that has basically already happened as much as it will happen.
OK, so you're just assuming he didn't mean the words he said. That seems to be a common feature of defences for the incoming Republican administration. Trump didn't mean what he said. RFK didn't mean what he said. We're just supposed to judge these people on.... uhrm, vibes, rather than the statements they make about their own priorities and beliefs.Or he just misused one single word in one interview, it's a very common thing that everyone does. I will go by what he has repeated over and over again vs one thing that he said that would negate everything else he said.
OK, so let's see if you actually agree with him or not. Do you agree with the statement that there's very little difference between skim and whole milk, and that we should consume very little of either?I said whole milk is the healthiest milk and that's what Tim Spector also said.
During the pandemic, politics overruled science at the government institutions entrusted with protecting public health.No, that's not what happened. Gruber and Krause resigned because the FDA hadn't been given the chance to sign off on the booster campaign. There was no scientific disagreement they cited at all; the agency hadn't taken a position yet. That was exactly what they were frustrated by.
On a side-note, it's very funny that now you value FDA oversight. I guess it's just when it's convenient for your current argument, eh?
Uhrm, disease-ridden produce is an issue whoever peddles it. I've never given "hippies" a free pass. But "hippies" aren't about to be made the Secretary of the Department of Health, with federal power over policy dealing directly with it.
OK, so you're just assuming he didn't mean the words he said. That seems to be a common feature of defences for the incoming Republican administration. Trump didn't mean what he said. RFK didn't mean what he said. We're just supposed to judge these people on.... uhrm, vibes, rather than the statements they make about their own priorities and beliefs.
OK, so let's see if you actually agree with him or not. Do you agree with the statement that there's very little difference between skim and whole milk, and that we should consume very little of either?
Oh, that's just the old one-two combo Republican apologists rely on.OK, so you're just assuming he didn't mean the words he said. That seems to be a common feature of defences for the incoming Republican administration. Trump didn't mean what he said. RFK didn't mean what he said. We're just supposed to judge these people on.... uhrm, vibes, rather than the statements they make about their own priorities and beliefs.