Trump's NIH axed research grants even after a judge blocked the cuts(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Trump's NIH axed research grants even after a judge blocked the cuts
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-nih-cuts-transgender-research-grants
158 comments
>We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital.
We are: feeling horrible, knowing this is the only country where this happens, and also resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it.
We are: feeling horrible, knowing this is the only country where this happens, and also resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it.
Do you think the SNCC students who sat at the counter for the first time thought they would be completely safe? No they probably were afraid out of their minds that they would be lynched and their families would follow. But they had an integral part in the desegregation of the United States which led to a much freer and safer place for them and their children. They were individuals who made choices that they knew could lead to suffering because they thought it might make their world a slightly better place. There are plenty of ways to make the world a better place.
As individuals: group up. Start figuring out your local, state and federal political people you need to support. Build community is probably your best bet as individuals. Even if you donate a few hours here and there, or a small donation here and there, it can make the difference.
This last election was mostly decided by the people who didn’t vote. The apathetic, the cynics and so on.
This last election was mostly decided by the people who didn’t vote. The apathetic, the cynics and so on.
An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.
> If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.
States would need to increase taxes to fund more research, which would cause some of the wealthiest residents to flee to low-tax states. This would result in the pro-research states losing tax revenue and eventually cutting their research funding. The decline in research funding would result in the U.S. experiencing brain drain similar to what has been experienced in red states[1] for decades.
Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=red+state+brain+drain
States would need to increase taxes to fund more research, which would cause some of the wealthiest residents to flee to low-tax states. This would result in the pro-research states losing tax revenue and eventually cutting their research funding. The decline in research funding would result in the U.S. experiencing brain drain similar to what has been experienced in red states[1] for decades.
Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=red+state+brain+drain
> States would need to increase taxes to fund more research, which would cause some of the wealthiest residents to flee to low-tax states.
The people who actually pay most of the taxes aren't the billionaires (both because there aren't that many of them and because they already engage in sophisticated tax avoidance), they're the likes of senior partners at law firms, cardiologists, successful small business owners, etc. But these people are not only not going to move to Wyoming for lower taxes, because they can't operate the businesses that them that amount of money there, a lot of the reason Wyoming has lower taxes is because they're large net recipients of federal funds. If they had to fund their own stuff that would make it more attractive to live in the states that are currently doing the funding.
Moreover, research funding has always been a small proportion of government spending, e.g. the NIH is ~0.7% of the federal budget. This does not require a large change in tax revenues to move somewhere else.
> Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
The first search result from your link is an article saying that isn't actually happening:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/tenure/20...
The people who actually pay most of the taxes aren't the billionaires (both because there aren't that many of them and because they already engage in sophisticated tax avoidance), they're the likes of senior partners at law firms, cardiologists, successful small business owners, etc. But these people are not only not going to move to Wyoming for lower taxes, because they can't operate the businesses that them that amount of money there, a lot of the reason Wyoming has lower taxes is because they're large net recipients of federal funds. If they had to fund their own stuff that would make it more attractive to live in the states that are currently doing the funding.
Moreover, research funding has always been a small proportion of government spending, e.g. the NIH is ~0.7% of the federal budget. This does not require a large change in tax revenues to move somewhere else.
> Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
The first search result from your link is an article saying that isn't actually happening:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/tenure/20...
Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden. California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.
> Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden.
Isn't this the counterargument? Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China?
The answer, of course, is that other governments do also fund some research, but each government decides how much they want to spend and on what. Which applies as much to each individual state as it does to the federal government.
> California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.
It sounds like you're arguing that cutting federal programs would benefit California, because then they would have that money to appropriate as they choose for themselves.
Isn't this the counterargument? Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China?
The answer, of course, is that other governments do also fund some research, but each government decides how much they want to spend and on what. Which applies as much to each individual state as it does to the federal government.
> California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.
It sounds like you're arguing that cutting federal programs would benefit California, because then they would have that money to appropriate as they choose for themselves.
Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China?
What a loaded question. Could it possibly be that the US does so because it disproportionately benefits from said research?
What a loaded question. Could it possibly be that the US does so because it disproportionately benefits from said research?
Not if it isn't accompanied by an according reduction in federal taxes overall.
> An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants.
This can work, but only in an alternate universe where the federal government doesn't get nearly all the tax income. If we abolished federal tax and increased state taxes proportionally, this would totally work. But not the world as it exists today.
This can work, but only in an alternate universe where the federal government doesn't get nearly all the tax income. If we abolished federal tax and increased state taxes proportionally, this would totally work. But not the world as it exists today.
Excuse me? Of course you can do a lot of things. Talk to your neigbor, share gov't f-ups on social media, learn to argue for democracy and against common MAGA narratives, join protests, donate to good causes, make your political preference visible, spark dialogues.
We (Eastern Europeans) could not do neither of those things without risking jail time and we still managed to topple dictatorships.
We (Eastern Europeans) could not do neither of those things without risking jail time and we still managed to topple dictatorships.
> We (Eastern Europeans) could not do neither of those things without risking jail time and we still managed to topple dictatorships.
Jail time (and now deportation) has been a risk for protesting for quite a while in the US. I can see why someone that doesn’t live here would see America’s longstanding reputation of being a cool place to protest in and assume that that is still the case, but that is outdated information. Heck, quite a few Americans insist that is still the case, but the ones that insist that there is no risk are mostly folks that “protest” through tweets
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/08/columbia-university-protest...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/ucla-students-arrest...
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
Jail time (and now deportation) has been a risk for protesting for quite a while in the US. I can see why someone that doesn’t live here would see America’s longstanding reputation of being a cool place to protest in and assume that that is still the case, but that is outdated information. Heck, quite a few Americans insist that is still the case, but the ones that insist that there is no risk are mostly folks that “protest” through tweets
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/08/columbia-university-protest...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/ucla-students-arrest...
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
> We (Eastern Europeans) could not do neither of those things without risking jail time and we still managed to topple dictatorships.
As someone who was born and grew up in post-Communist Yugoslavia, there are a few things I can offer as an observation here. Please don't take these as a disagreement or a criticism. It's just additional context I would like to offer to everyone who happens to read this.
One is that people are perfectly fine with a dictatorship as long as the life is good enough for the majority. That's why no one toppled Tito, but they got rid of Milošević in the end, after all the wars, sanctions, and bombings.
Another is that all those things that you said Americans can do without risking jail time aren't the things that toppled dictatorships. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're worthless. On the contrary, things like talking to your neighbor, protesting, and sparking dialogues are all indispensable ingredients for overthrowing a dictator, but they're not the endgame. They're just the stepping stones.
Which brings me to my final observation: the only way to overthrow a dictatorship is through a revolution. It doesn't have to be a violent revolution, but it does have to be a revolution and not just a bunch of limited, scattered, uncoordinated protests.
Whether Trump's administration is a dictatorship or not is not something I'm interested in discussing on HN, but the fact remains that the sentiment GP expressed -- that they're "resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it" -- indicates that the people who are trying to resist the erosion of democracy in the US lack organization and coordination. The things you listed could help them with that, but I don't think that will happen until there's a critical mass of people willing to take risks, and we're still not in the situation where things are bad enough for that to happen.
As someone who was born and grew up in post-Communist Yugoslavia, there are a few things I can offer as an observation here. Please don't take these as a disagreement or a criticism. It's just additional context I would like to offer to everyone who happens to read this.
One is that people are perfectly fine with a dictatorship as long as the life is good enough for the majority. That's why no one toppled Tito, but they got rid of Milošević in the end, after all the wars, sanctions, and bombings.
Another is that all those things that you said Americans can do without risking jail time aren't the things that toppled dictatorships. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're worthless. On the contrary, things like talking to your neighbor, protesting, and sparking dialogues are all indispensable ingredients for overthrowing a dictator, but they're not the endgame. They're just the stepping stones.
Which brings me to my final observation: the only way to overthrow a dictatorship is through a revolution. It doesn't have to be a violent revolution, but it does have to be a revolution and not just a bunch of limited, scattered, uncoordinated protests.
Whether Trump's administration is a dictatorship or not is not something I'm interested in discussing on HN, but the fact remains that the sentiment GP expressed -- that they're "resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it" -- indicates that the people who are trying to resist the erosion of democracy in the US lack organization and coordination. The things you listed could help them with that, but I don't think that will happen until there's a critical mass of people willing to take risks, and we're still not in the situation where things are bad enough for that to happen.
[deleted]
> the only way to overthrow a dictatorship is through a revolution.
No. E.g. quite many monarchies have been reformed without revolutions.
No. E.g. quite many monarchies have been reformed without revolutions.
Can you speak more about which ones and how that happened? The main one that comes to my mind is the British monarchy (to the extent that they don't really have much power), and my general impression (not a historian) is that that's a bit of a fluke. Looking at the French and American Revolutions, they sort of realized that their necks might stay better attached if they gave some ground. I'm not sure the monarchy being a participant in it's own reform is really applicable.
> The main one that comes to my mind is the British monarchy (to the extent that they don't really have much power)
They don't have much power due to _many, many revolutions_; they may not generally get called that, but the wars leading up to the Magna Carta, and later the English Civil War, were clearly revolutions against the monarchy, and successfully limited its power.
They don't have much power due to _many, many revolutions_; they may not generally get called that, but the wars leading up to the Magna Carta, and later the English Civil War, were clearly revolutions against the monarchy, and successfully limited its power.
There are more Western European countries with (constitutional) monarchies (The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway), that have become less powerful/more ceremonial over the past decades or even centuries.
There are few if any examples of a major absolute monarchy going non-absolute without _some_ sort of revolution (often a kind of limited aristocratic one which may not get _called_ a revolution).
Going from non-absolute to purely ceremonial or non-existent is easier, but generally breaking the power of the monarch in the first place does require some sort of revolution.
Going from non-absolute to purely ceremonial or non-existent is easier, but generally breaking the power of the monarch in the first place does require some sort of revolution.
That's interesting and sounds like a hole in my knowledge of history. I'm curious, were those monarchies actually dictatorships? The UK still has a monarch, but it's not a dictatorship.
There are basically two kinds of monarchies, absolutist - the monarch has absolute power, so it is actually a hereditary dictatorship - and constitutional monarchy, which is mostly what you see today in the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain etc.
Going further back in the history, some feudal monarchies were actually not absolutist in the sense the king had to manage various factions of landowners, clergy, etc (so-called Estates) or even share power with them. So it all depended on the relative power of the monarch and others in the society.
Going further back in the history, some feudal monarchies were actually not absolutist in the sense the king had to manage various factions of landowners, clergy, etc (so-called Estates) or even share power with them. So it all depended on the relative power of the monarch and others in the society.
Then they weren't dictatorships.
Not being able to do those things probably nudged you towards revolution.
Voting feels like you've done something. Cast a vote between the lady rammed through without even a primary, or the other oh so fabulous option. Go home and pat yourself on the back, you did something, you tried, and hey it is democracy so you deserve what you get. Now you can relax and mission accomplished.
People under eastern europe 'communist' dictators didn't have any of that. Just whisper in the shadows, and then suddenly Ceaușescu is swiss cheese, because there was literally no other option than to reject the whole system dominating them rather than exhausting their energies squabbling on twitter.
Voting feels like you've done something. Cast a vote between the lady rammed through without even a primary, or the other oh so fabulous option. Go home and pat yourself on the back, you did something, you tried, and hey it is democracy so you deserve what you get. Now you can relax and mission accomplished.
People under eastern europe 'communist' dictators didn't have any of that. Just whisper in the shadows, and then suddenly Ceaușescu is swiss cheese, because there was literally no other option than to reject the whole system dominating them rather than exhausting their energies squabbling on twitter.
Are you seriously saying that to get people interested in their own fate, it's better to have a brutal dictator than voting for the vice president who would have been second in line if you voted for the guy anyway? Well guess what, you have a fascist dictatorship on your hand. You just haven't figured it out yet.
> Voting feels like you've done something. Cast a vote between the lady rammed through without even a primary, or the other oh so fabulous option. Go home and pat yourself on the back, you did something, you tried, and hey it is democracy so you deserve what you get. Now you can relax and mission accomplished.
It's worse than that. It's possible to have a democracy where some of the options are better, e.g. switch to score voting so there can be arbitrarily many parties and candidates instead of major party insiders filtering out every decent candidate before you get to the election.
But the party insiders want that control, so they set up a narrative where every problem is caused by the other team, instead of the problem being caused by there only being two teams.
It's worse than that. It's possible to have a democracy where some of the options are better, e.g. switch to score voting so there can be arbitrarily many parties and candidates instead of major party insiders filtering out every decent candidate before you get to the election.
But the party insiders want that control, so they set up a narrative where every problem is caused by the other team, instead of the problem being caused by there only being two teams.
Had the Democratic Party's nomination won the election the worst outcomes of the second Trump presidency would have been prevented. You can blame the campaign and the primary voters and the party or whatever, but ultimately the general election voters could have chosen a normal politician who would have at least been a competent, law-abiding administrator and instead voters chose this. The two party system and the lack of ranked-choice voting are no excuse.
The Democratic Party nominated a poor candidate who proceeded to lose the election. Because there are only two viable parties, that means the other party wins, even when the other party nominated Donald Trump.
If you use a cardinal voting system (note: not ranked-choice voting), there are more than two viable candidates, and then putting Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on the ballet only causes them both to lose because they're both undesirable candidates and less undesirable candidates would score higher with the voters than either of them. And then you don't get Donald Trump. (Or Kamala Harris.)
If you use a cardinal voting system (note: not ranked-choice voting), there are more than two viable candidates, and then putting Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on the ballet only causes them both to lose because they're both undesirable candidates and less undesirable candidates would score higher with the voters than either of them. And then you don't get Donald Trump. (Or Kamala Harris.)
I don't know what third candidate you think could have beaten both Trump and Harris in a three way race. "Someone else" is always a popular choice until the someone else turns out to be RFK Jr. or Vivek Ramaswamy or Kanye West. And that's beside the point. Voters had a choice between Harris, who would have been a capable defender of the health research funding that the article discusses, and Trump. They chose Trump. That was a bad choice and it was clearly a bad choice at the time. If the general election is between Pinochet and Marco Rubio you can bet I'll vote for Marco Rubio.
> I don't know what third candidate you think could have beaten both Trump and Harris in a three way race. "Someone else" is always a popular choice until the someone else turns out to be RFK Jr. or Vivek Ramaswamy or Kanye West.
Under the existing system, a three way race between Trump, Harris and Marco Rubio causes Harris to win because Trump and Rubio split the Republican vote. So the Republicans, in order to prevent this, only run one candidate. When that candidate is Trump and the Democrats choose Harris, oops.
Score voting is the thing they use in the Olympics. Voters rate every candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, highest average wins. Now if you add Rubio to the ballot, it only affects Trump's chances to the extent that Rubio could score higher than Trump. So there are no more primaries, every party just runs all their candidates in the general election.
Meanwhile Rubio will score higher than Trump among Democrats and not much if at all lower among Republicans, so Rubio defeats Trump. And if you put some Democrat the likes of Jared Polis on a general election ballot, he plausibly scores higher than Harris. If you had to flip a coin between Jared Polis and Marco Rubio, how is that not better than it being Harris and Trump?
Under the existing system, a three way race between Trump, Harris and Marco Rubio causes Harris to win because Trump and Rubio split the Republican vote. So the Republicans, in order to prevent this, only run one candidate. When that candidate is Trump and the Democrats choose Harris, oops.
Score voting is the thing they use in the Olympics. Voters rate every candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, highest average wins. Now if you add Rubio to the ballot, it only affects Trump's chances to the extent that Rubio could score higher than Trump. So there are no more primaries, every party just runs all their candidates in the general election.
Meanwhile Rubio will score higher than Trump among Democrats and not much if at all lower among Republicans, so Rubio defeats Trump. And if you put some Democrat the likes of Jared Polis on a general election ballot, he plausibly scores higher than Harris. If you had to flip a coin between Jared Polis and Marco Rubio, how is that not better than it being Harris and Trump?
> If you had to flip a coin between Jared Polis and Marco Rubio, how is that not better than it being Harris and Trump?
Without detracting from your explanation about score voting, I would hope that Jared Polis will recalibrate his judgement about other people's medical opinions prior to running for president [1]:
> He has supported Donald Trump's decision to nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the secretary of Health and Human Services.[114]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis#Vaccines
Without detracting from your explanation about score voting, I would hope that Jared Polis will recalibrate his judgement about other people's medical opinions prior to running for president [1]:
> He has supported Donald Trump's decision to nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the secretary of Health and Human Services.[114]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis#Vaccines
> The Democratic Party nominated a poor candidate who proceeded to lose the election. Because there are only two viable parties, that means the other party wins, even when the other party nominated Donald Trump.
You had a choice between Trump again and not Trump. You can't keep blaming others for your choices.
You had a choice between Trump again and not Trump. You can't keep blaming others for your choices.
AnthonyMouse(2)
score voting is the key.
https://asitoughttobemagazine.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
https://asitoughttobemagazine.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
> knowing this is the only country where this happens
So, in this case, it is actually _not_; you have a blueprint. Quite a few democratic countries have gone down the personality-cult-authoritarianism rabbit hole in the last few decades; Russia, Turkey, Hungary would be obvious developed-world examples. Some have pulled back from the brink (arguably Poland, for instance).
So, in this case, it is actually _not_; you have a blueprint. Quite a few democratic countries have gone down the personality-cult-authoritarianism rabbit hole in the last few decades; Russia, Turkey, Hungary would be obvious developed-world examples. Some have pulled back from the brink (arguably Poland, for instance).
With "the only country where this happens", GP was referring to shootings at schools and hospitals. GP might have been alluding to the recurring The Onion headline `'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens` [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
Yup, I realise, but they were suggesting Trumpism was another such thing, whereas it really isn't.
Thought it may be hard, you can do something as long as there are reasonably fair elections.
To everyone who condemned Russians who "just sat and did nothing" as Putin invaded Ukraine...
(I'm not a saint, a friend of mine goes out to protest against the ongoing genocide every week, I sit around and do nothing...).
(I'm not a saint, a friend of mine goes out to protest against the ongoing genocide every week, I sit around and do nothing...).
> There's an excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered.
Why do you believe that? They're not defunding research in these areas.
Why do you believe that? They're not defunding research in these areas.
It looks like they are seeing exactly that:
> A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding
> A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding
They're withholding funding from certain institutions, but that doesn't change the amount of money Congress appropriated, so doesn't that just mean the grants go to some other institution and the research happens there?
> that doesn't change the amount of money Congress appropriated, so doesn't that just mean the grants go to some other institution and the research happens there?
They’re ignoring the law. What the Congress appropriated, what contracts the U.S. has signed, what courts say is irrelevant to these folks.
They’re ignoring the law. What the Congress appropriated, what contracts the U.S. has signed, what courts say is irrelevant to these folks.
There is a lot of narrative pressure right now to cast anything they do as illegal. So they issue an executive order saying to deny grants for "gender ideology" and plaintiffs do some forum shopping to find a lower court willing to issue an injunction against it. Then the grants would have to be reevaluated, but some of them that were denied based on the executive order would still have been denied based on other criteria anyway, only now there is a document saying they were denied based on the executive order. Then plaintiffs go to court based on the document and the administration claims they also had other reasons and the case makes its way through the courts and appeals etc., which hasn't happened yet so we don't know how it's going to turn out.
But none of that is really relevant to the question: If there is money for cancer research, and the administration objects to Harvard but not to cancer research, then they still issue the grants just not to Harvard, right?
But none of that is really relevant to the question: If there is money for cancer research, and the administration objects to Harvard but not to cancer research, then they still issue the grants just not to Harvard, right?
I am at Johns Hopkins and as far as I know all medical research funding is in free fall. We are not Harvard (although why “I am mad at Harvard” makes anything ok, I don’t know.) This research isn’t some favor the Federal government does for Universities. We, as a nation, decided to run medical research by funding it through grants to Universities, and now that’s all being turned off.
Presumably the motivation is some combination of “slash funding so we can give tax cuts” and “kill the Universities as an independent center of smart people who oppose us” but the actual effect is someone you love will die when they could have lived. It’s fucked.
Presumably the motivation is some combination of “slash funding so we can give tax cuts” and “kill the Universities as an independent center of smart people who oppose us” but the actual effect is someone you love will die when they could have lived. It’s fucked.
> If there is money for cancer research, and the administration objects to Harvard but not to cancer research, then they still issue the grants just not to Harvard, right?
No. USAID funding for AIDS research wasn’t given to another organisation. Similarly, right now, actual research is being halted [1].
[1] https://www.aamc.org/news/whats-stake-when-clinical-trials-r...
No. USAID funding for AIDS research wasn’t given to another organisation. Similarly, right now, actual research is being halted [1].
[1] https://www.aamc.org/news/whats-stake-when-clinical-trials-r...
> USAID funding for AIDS research wasn’t given to another organisation.
USAID isn't clinical trials, it's treatment subsidies in foreign countries and studies on the administrative efficiency of foreign healthcare bureaucracies.
> Similarly, right now, actual research is being halted
Obviously if you reallocate funding from trial A to trial B, trial A loses its funding. Whether this is a net cost or benefit depends on how they compare with each other.
It also depends on how institutions respond. If Harvard is doing trials A and C and that funding moves to trials B and D somewhere else, and as a result trial A gets canceled but Harvard chooses to continue to fund trial C out of its endowment, you now have three trials going instead of two. Maybe that's better. I doubt they were doing that on purpose, but if that's the result, it isn't necessarily bad.
USAID isn't clinical trials, it's treatment subsidies in foreign countries and studies on the administrative efficiency of foreign healthcare bureaucracies.
> Similarly, right now, actual research is being halted
Obviously if you reallocate funding from trial A to trial B, trial A loses its funding. Whether this is a net cost or benefit depends on how they compare with each other.
It also depends on how institutions respond. If Harvard is doing trials A and C and that funding moves to trials B and D somewhere else, and as a result trial A gets canceled but Harvard chooses to continue to fund trial C out of its endowment, you now have three trials going instead of two. Maybe that's better. I doubt they were doing that on purpose, but if that's the result, it isn't necessarily bad.
> Obviously if you reallocate funding from trial A to trial B, trial A loses its funding
If this is happening, what organization are they relocating funding to?
If this is happening, what organization are they relocating funding to?
The money is being cut, it is not being reallocated. Even if it was (and again, it is not!) you can’t magically re-create the staff doing cancer research at Johns Hopkins by writing bigger checks to U. of Florida. Those projects just die.
> USAID isn't clinical trials, it's treatment subsidies in foreign countries and studies on the administrative efficiency of foreign healthcare bureaucracies.
That’s not completely accurate.
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/interviews/usaid-sponsor...
Established in 1961, USAID is used to fund various projects including clinical trials for vaccines and therapeutics in lower-middle-income countries, as well as elsewhere worldwide. The organisation has been used to find research into human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, among other diseases and research efforts. The sudden pull of funding has meant trials have been suspended until trial sponsors seek alternative methods of funding to restart studies.
That’s not completely accurate.
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/interviews/usaid-sponsor...
Established in 1961, USAID is used to fund various projects including clinical trials for vaccines and therapeutics in lower-middle-income countries, as well as elsewhere worldwide. The organisation has been used to find research into human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, among other diseases and research efforts. The sudden pull of funding has meant trials have been suspended until trial sponsors seek alternative methods of funding to restart studies.
I guess I should say it's predominantly not clinical trials.
From what I’ve seen, NIH funding has been withheld across a massive number of grants. This isn’t even a “stop work order” situation: the checks just aren’t being written. It’s absolutely going to kill everything from ongoing work to trials to hiring of research assistants. It’s already affecting PhD acceptance and hiring. The money is piling up and I’ve read rumors that the plan is to try to retroactively “rescission” it by having Congress vote to throw it back into the budget pool, when they pass their big tax cut budget.
No, it doesn't seem like the funding is going to go elsewhere. It looks like it will go unspent, or possibly clawed back.
> doesn't change the amount of money Congress appropriated
they cut tons of money that Congress had appropriated; USAID is just one example of many
so yes, it's illegal and Congress could call them on it, but the GOP won't.
the Admin is also counting on the allocation changing with the next budget, coming up, at which point it is "no longer allocated"
they cut tons of money that Congress had appropriated; USAID is just one example of many
so yes, it's illegal and Congress could call them on it, but the GOP won't.
the Admin is also counting on the allocation changing with the next budget, coming up, at which point it is "no longer allocated"
nope. they're not giving the remainder of terminated grants to other institutions. they're also blatantly impounding Congressionally authorized funding, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act (e.g. with all the USAID grants.)
You're conflating two different things.
The administration's argument is that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, i.e. Congress has the power to prevent the executive from doing something by not funding it, but not the power to force the executive to do something just by appropriating money for it.
But the administration objects to USAID, not cancer research, so what's stopping them from issuing the cancer research grants to other institutions? Nothing, right?
The administration's argument is that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, i.e. Congress has the power to prevent the executive from doing something by not funding it, but not the power to force the executive to do something just by appropriating money for it.
But the administration objects to USAID, not cancer research, so what's stopping them from issuing the cancer research grants to other institutions? Nothing, right?
You’ve written something like five comments implying they’re moving the money. They’re not. Then you say they could move the money. In fact they can’t because the research teams and labs to do this work just don’t exist in other places, and it would take years to rebuild them there even if the money was being sent somewhere else. But even if they could re-allocate the funds somewhere else, they’re not doing that. The money is just piling up and being unspent. You seem very determined to find some explanation for this that isn’t as terrible as the actual reality, and I’m sympathetic! But there isn’t one. It’s just a disaster in every sense.
> the administration objects to USAID, not cancer research
Are you sure about that?
This administration's HHS Secretary has deep doubts about the efficacy of the scientific method, which underpins all of medical research in general and cancer research in particular. It seem more likely to me that the money impounded from cancer research will instead be redirected to organizations that use non-scientific methods to study the effects of nutritional supplements, water flouridation, and non-ionizing 5G radiation.
https://www.stopbreastcancer.org/national-breast-cancer-coal...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/13/abortions-cancer-in...
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-cancer-institute...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-spreading-misinformation-a...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a63559859/rfk-jr-cance...
Are you sure about that?
This administration's HHS Secretary has deep doubts about the efficacy of the scientific method, which underpins all of medical research in general and cancer research in particular. It seem more likely to me that the money impounded from cancer research will instead be redirected to organizations that use non-scientific methods to study the effects of nutritional supplements, water flouridation, and non-ionizing 5G radiation.
https://www.stopbreastcancer.org/national-breast-cancer-coal...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/13/abortions-cancer-in...
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-cancer-institute...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-spreading-misinformation-a...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a63559859/rfk-jr-cance...
They are. The dementia-riddled orange man has already had a few childish temper tantrums and is illegally withholding congressionally appropriated funds to entire university's research programs. The Republicans are the only ones supporting this criminal by the way. It's important to get your facts straight here.
Why do you believe that? Do you think that this isn’t research that Harvard or Cornell do? Or that other blanket funding cancellations at the NIH don’t affect biology research?
> Why do you believe that? They're not defunding research in these areas.
If you mean that the administration is not defunding cancer research more than it is defunding other medical research, then you might be right. If you mean that the administration is keeping cancer funding the same while defunding other medical research areas, then you are probably wrong [1]:
> Separately, on Feb. 7, 2025, the NIH issued new guidance on indirect costs for grants. Published late on a Friday, the guidance capped such costs to 15% of the amount of the grants. According to a congressional research paper, "indirect costs represent expenses that are not specific to a research project and that maintain the infrastructure and administrative support for federally funded research." Effective the following Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, this cost cap would apply to all new grants, and also to all existing grants.
Tangentially, the administration is cutting employees at the National Cancer Institute [2]:
> Among the cuts on Friday were around 50 employees at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, or NCI. They had worked in the institute's Office of Communications and Public Liaison overseeing programs like the Cancer Information Service, which provides answers to doctors and patients about cancer, and updates to databases summarizing cancer information for healthcare providers.
...
> While several communications offices at the NIH's institutes had been gutted during an initial round of layoffs on April 1, NCI's team was spared. Around 150 staff at NCI had been laid off last month, two people said. The institute's contracting and training staff were eliminated, and there were deep cuts to its human resources team.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/01/28/trump-nih-cancer-rese...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nih-lays-off-hundreds-more-staf...
If you mean that the administration is not defunding cancer research more than it is defunding other medical research, then you might be right. If you mean that the administration is keeping cancer funding the same while defunding other medical research areas, then you are probably wrong [1]:
> Separately, on Feb. 7, 2025, the NIH issued new guidance on indirect costs for grants. Published late on a Friday, the guidance capped such costs to 15% of the amount of the grants. According to a congressional research paper, "indirect costs represent expenses that are not specific to a research project and that maintain the infrastructure and administrative support for federally funded research." Effective the following Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, this cost cap would apply to all new grants, and also to all existing grants.
Tangentially, the administration is cutting employees at the National Cancer Institute [2]:
> Among the cuts on Friday were around 50 employees at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, or NCI. They had worked in the institute's Office of Communications and Public Liaison overseeing programs like the Cancer Information Service, which provides answers to doctors and patients about cancer, and updates to databases summarizing cancer information for healthcare providers.
...
> While several communications offices at the NIH's institutes had been gutted during an initial round of layoffs on April 1, NCI's team was spared. Around 150 staff at NCI had been laid off last month, two people said. The institute's contracting and training staff were eliminated, and there were deep cuts to its human resources team.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/01/28/trump-nih-cancer-rese...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nih-lays-off-hundreds-more-staf...
If that’s what you were told, you were lied to.
> We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but we, as in the USA, don't do anything (besides offering the standard Thoughts And Prayers™) when someone shoots up a school.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but we, as in the USA, don't do anything (besides offering the standard Thoughts And Prayers™) when someone shoots up a school.
Nah we do something. We threaten to break the probation of anyone going in to save their children, beat up parents trying to get in, then scroll on our cell phones and furiously maintain hand hygiene with sanitizer while standing outside the door.
The lesson is clear. Fight your way in to get your kids or die trying. No one is coming to help.
The lesson is clear. Fight your way in to get your kids or die trying. No one is coming to help.
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. This is a literal description of the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, TX.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
This example (Uvalde) is probably the worst handled mass shooting in the history of police work.
GP is being downvoted because it's a hyperbolic strawman.
GP is being downvoted because it's a hyperbolic strawman.
when something actually happens it ceases to be a strawman. it might not be a representative sample (though the SRO running away and then going to court to fight for his right to run away after the parkland shooting does lend some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't expect help from the police, as does the police fighting in court to assert that they have no duty to protect people in the wake of that subway stabbing), but it is within the realm of possibility.
Okay, then whatever the fallacy is of picking the absolute goddamn worst example possible and saying it is somehow representative.
I was able to provide two more examples off the top of my head. Maybe cherrypicking isn't as wrong when you're in a cherry tree.
Except you gave a completely unrelated example and just repeated your first one. Maybe if you were in a cherry tree you wouldn't need the worst examples for propaganda purposes.
The first example was Uvalde, where police waited outside. The second example was Parkland, where a cop on campus left during the shooting, was sued for leaving and successfully defended in court his right to abandon the children he was hired to protect. The third is Lozito v NYC, in which police were sued for hiding from an attacker and, again, argued successfully in court that they have no duty to defend anyone from anything at any time. These all relate back to the original comment, that police aren't going to help in times of mass violence. Lozito and Parkland also undercut the argument that these were exceptions, mishandled incidents. In each case, the police actually went to court to establish a legal right to abandon citizens in times of danger. That's the difference between a one-off outlier and a systemic problem: instead of accountability, there has actually been institutional support for police that ignore their responsibilities.
"Strawman" means it is a fabricated argument. Whereas this is an account of what literally happened. Basically the exact opposite of strawman.
Not necessarily. "Strawman" can also mean taking the most absurd example of something and propping it up as representative because it's easier to tear down.
You are confusing a specific situation (a particular school shooting) for the general problem (the cultural and legal circumstances that give rose to school shootings).
> A more serious political observation is that this administration operates on the theory that possession is 9/10ths of the law.
It's just wild to me that people aren't simply arrested when this kind of thing occurs. It's not Trump's money. It's not Republican money. He has a narrowly defined role and anything outside of that is illegal.
It's not exactly surprising, though, given half the government is run by the weakest and most deranged major political party in American history. The simple fact that the GOP has been steamrolled by this guy is the best evidence of the fact that since the 1970s they've been on a steep downward slide to become a party completely devoid of political talent, governing philosophy, or spine.
Even if this gang of dipshits were trying to do good, they don't have the capacity to be able to understand complex situations and make accurate and nuanced choices. An example of this situation being RFK Jr.
Normal people need to be screaming this from the hills. A healthy country in a competitive world cannot be run by grifters and morons. There's no "both sides" here.
It's just wild to me that people aren't simply arrested when this kind of thing occurs. It's not Trump's money. It's not Republican money. He has a narrowly defined role and anything outside of that is illegal.
It's not exactly surprising, though, given half the government is run by the weakest and most deranged major political party in American history. The simple fact that the GOP has been steamrolled by this guy is the best evidence of the fact that since the 1970s they've been on a steep downward slide to become a party completely devoid of political talent, governing philosophy, or spine.
Even if this gang of dipshits were trying to do good, they don't have the capacity to be able to understand complex situations and make accurate and nuanced choices. An example of this situation being RFK Jr.
Normal people need to be screaming this from the hills. A healthy country in a competitive world cannot be run by grifters and morons. There's no "both sides" here.
If Democrsts take the House in 2026, the lives of these people will become living hell. And if a Dem takes the presidency in 2028 while these precedents stand, I really hope they use them to gut funding to moronic right-wing priorities.
What fantasy world do you live in where you expect the 2026 elections to be both fair and a resounding win for the democrats?
Voters have given republicans a crazy double standard since reconstruction.
Believing that any of this will result in a precedent for any future democrats means you haven't been paying attention.
Only democrats have to follow the rules. Republicans voters support them even through blatantly unconstitutional acts like "take the guns first, due process second" and forcing schools to display christian symbols. Republican voters do not give a shit that Trump's family has taken billions of American dollars. Trump voters don't even care that they paid Steve Bannon millions to build a wall he never intended to build, and still voted for a Trump admin with Steve Bannon!
These people believe anything is acceptable to topple the democrats because the democrats forced desegregation onto the southern states.
Believing that any of this will result in a precedent for any future democrats means you haven't been paying attention.
Only democrats have to follow the rules. Republicans voters support them even through blatantly unconstitutional acts like "take the guns first, due process second" and forcing schools to display christian symbols. Republican voters do not give a shit that Trump's family has taken billions of American dollars. Trump voters don't even care that they paid Steve Bannon millions to build a wall he never intended to build, and still voted for a Trump admin with Steve Bannon!
These people believe anything is acceptable to topple the democrats because the democrats forced desegregation onto the southern states.
> Believing that any of this will result in a precedent for any future democrats means you haven't been paying attention
I’m arguing a Democrats who fights with the tools they’ve been given will be popular. Like, want to cancel student loans? Fuck process. Just declare them cancelled and shred the loan records before anyone can get to court.
This is a stupid endgame. But the system doesn’t work if one side constrains itself by rules the other doesn’t follow, because that means only one side will ever affect policy.
I’m arguing a Democrats who fights with the tools they’ve been given will be popular. Like, want to cancel student loans? Fuck process. Just declare them cancelled and shred the loan records before anyone can get to court.
This is a stupid endgame. But the system doesn’t work if one side constrains itself by rules the other doesn’t follow, because that means only one side will ever affect policy.
This is a little too much fear mongering:
"excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered."
Why is this an excellent chance?
"excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered."
Why is this an excellent chance?
Because it was already an excellent chance, and now the most successful biomedical research program in the world is being decimated?
Seems like the bare minimum fear to me.
Seems like the bare minimum fear to me.
provide more facts and details.
Okay, 50% of men will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. That means if it's not me, it's you.
If we defund that research, that means a lot more people will die. We won't know how many, because we never invented the stuff that would have saved them.
If we defund that research, that means a lot more people will die. We won't know how many, because we never invented the stuff that would have saved them.
you are assuming that all cancer research has been defunded altogether. And that if the government takes away some money, any ongoing research will come to a halt and we are doomed. And why are we so dependent on government dollars to begin with?
Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
I'm not assuming that, I'm saying SOME of the research is being slashed. Because it is.
We don't need to completely burn it all down to make the situation worse. Well, the situation is worse so...
> Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
If you don't know what you're talking about it's best to keep quite.
We already know how to prevent cancer. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat red meat, don't eat processed meats. That covers 99% of the top two categories of carcinogens. And then exercise or something.
The biggest hurdle to prevention isn't medicine, it's culture and anthropology.
We don't need to completely burn it all down to make the situation worse. Well, the situation is worse so...
> Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
If you don't know what you're talking about it's best to keep quite.
We already know how to prevent cancer. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat red meat, don't eat processed meats. That covers 99% of the top two categories of carcinogens. And then exercise or something.
The biggest hurdle to prevention isn't medicine, it's culture and anthropology.
Most people die from treatable diseases/conditions where treatment has improved over the last few decades due to research.
About half of deaths in the US are due to cancer or heart disease, for a start, and this will absolutely hit research into both.
About half of deaths in the US are due to cancer or heart disease, for a start, and this will absolutely hit research into both.
you are assuming that all cancer research has been defunded altogether. And that if the government takes away some money, any ongoing research will come to a halt and we are doomed.
Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
What is the administration's reason for cutting transgender research? Is it just "trans bad"?
What's peculiar was that a bunch of the research was about whether things like hormonal transition are safe, what kind of side-effects or lasting harm there may be, et c.
You know, the stuff they claim to be really worried about.
You know, the stuff they claim to be really worried about.
They're not interested in facts or outcomes, they just want to ban transness and gender non-conformity in general.
Similar to the abortion policy; see the Pulitzer winning article https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-wins-pulitzer-... . Sure, it might kill some women, but they're never going to pay attention to that.
Similar to the abortion policy; see the Pulitzer winning article https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-wins-pulitzer-... . Sure, it might kill some women, but they're never going to pay attention to that.
No; they want to have a distraction for their voters to latch their attention on to while they do other shit that is terrible.
Previously: communists / abortion
George Bush II: terrorists / LGBTQ+ / abortion
Trump: immigrants / LGBTQ+ / educators / liberals / terrorists / gangs / etc
Previously: communists / abortion
George Bush II: terrorists / LGBTQ+ / abortion
Trump: immigrants / LGBTQ+ / educators / liberals / terrorists / gangs / etc
This isn't a purely American thing, either. For quite a while, the British right's thing was Brexit. When Brexit actually happened, this kind of evaporated as a motivator, and they very visibly tried to pivot to transphobia as a primary voter motivator (it didn't really work, but it was remarkably blatant).
BTQ+ only. Peter is gay so they don't hunt gays anymore.
> while they do other shit that is terrible
Namely, blow out the deficit to fund tax cuts and engage in massive grift.
Namely, blow out the deficit to fund tax cuts and engage in massive grift.
It's not peculiar at all because obviously those things are harmless, and that conclusion is harmful to the administration's political agenda, so why even research it when a foregone conclusion is readily available?
Nothing about those doses of hormones are harmless. If someone is transitioning, either they or their doctors considered it worth the risk - but the risks are serious.
This thread perfectly demonstrates the issue.
People have already made up their minds and it's inherently politicized, so if the research is funded by Republicans then it will be a study designed to emphasize the risks and harms and if it's funded by Democrats the opposite. Which means it's a waste of money to study because the outcome is decided by the political inclinations of the party that initially funded it, whereas the purpose of actual research is to study a question whose answer isn't known from the outset.
People have already made up their minds and it's inherently politicized, so if the research is funded by Republicans then it will be a study designed to emphasize the risks and harms and if it's funded by Democrats the opposite. Which means it's a waste of money to study because the outcome is decided by the political inclinations of the party that initially funded it, whereas the purpose of actual research is to study a question whose answer isn't known from the outset.
These hormones have been studied, both for this use, and in the general population for other uses, for literally decades. At this point actually more like 50 years.
While i’m sure there would be some additional data/value from an additional study, it’s not like any of this stuff is new or novel in any way.
I’m not sure how or if that agrees with or contradicts your comment, or same with whatever political BS is going on, but this stuff is pretty well understood at this point.
While i’m sure there would be some additional data/value from an additional study, it’s not like any of this stuff is new or novel in any way.
I’m not sure how or if that agrees with or contradicts your comment, or same with whatever political BS is going on, but this stuff is pretty well understood at this point.
Just like GMO, something like that alters our biology to such significant level, there ought to be some inter generational studies carried out before trying it on human.
GMOs don't alter our biology. Like... at all. It's not like taking a medicine.
> obviously those things are harmless
I am not a transphobe but how in the world is that obvious?
I am not a transphobe but how in the world is that obvious?
It's not just transgender research it's also if an organization boycotts a certain foreign country (note: boycotting any other country is still OK): https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/news/nih-prohibits-dei-pr...
Reason? The reason is it is an issue that tested well with focus groups and they are an easy target that makes people uncomfortable.
They can demonize them as an enemy while doing horrible but harder to understand things like hollowing out election oversight.
They can demonize them as an enemy while doing horrible but harder to understand things like hollowing out election oversight.
That and “witches, 21st century edition”
To be fair "witches" were the culture war / moral panic of their time.
An interesting fact I learned from this [1] youtube video was that the 'Malleus Maleficarum' (The Hammer of Witches) book was very concerned (among other things) with witches casting spells that caused male genitalia to vanish.
1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIdcjeeYjaE
1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIdcjeeYjaE
Fear of penis-stealing witches is apparently a thing among African Christian communities as well. It's probably a constant in any culture that believes in some form of witchcraft or sorcery.
Someone in the administration read the Cass Report from Britain, would be my guess.
It's kind of odd that one of the main talking points on the right is that there isn't enough evidence to determine e.g. the long-term safety of puberty blockers, but then they want to defund all research investigating this question?
Maintaining uncertainty has always been the goal of these ideological movements. That’s also why they’re so eager to slash NOAA and climate science. If you can’t see it coming, then you can’t vote to stop it.
This is really insightful and I hadn't realized it, but I can see where to some people there is value in being sure and wrong and that these conmen take advantage of the comforting nature of certainty regardless of correctness.
No it isn't, when you understand that they're starting from the answer.
Not when you want to preserve it as a wedge issue.
Guess what the political biases of the people reviewing NIH proposals for funding are.
Yes.
Pretty much.
Well, a straight answer that you may not like is that voters want different priorities:
- reduce spending.
- emphasize key public health priorities, like the chronic disease epidemic.
- de-emphasize studies on gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, diversity, equity, and inclusion, climate change projects.
They’re increasing spending. And they are not funding any of the research you listed.
Please don’t lie about what the Republicans are doing. They have no desire to help Americans. Their goal is to destroy things that serve the public so that their billionaire masters can capture these services and charge Americans 10x what it used to cost them (their taxes).
Please don’t lie about what the Republicans are doing. They have no desire to help Americans. Their goal is to destroy things that serve the public so that their billionaire masters can capture these services and charge Americans 10x what it used to cost them (their taxes).
well, you accuse me of lying, while you spew out nefarious theories.
I simply stated what the NIH director has publicly said. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/jay-bhattachar...)
RE: they'are increasing spending. - can you provide some evidence?
RE: their goal is to destroy things that serve the public... - you must be a genius to see through their goals. Has it occured to you that maybe they simply reflect that desire of the people you disagree with.
I simply stated what the NIH director has publicly said. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/jay-bhattachar...)
RE: they'are increasing spending. - can you provide some evidence?
RE: their goal is to destroy things that serve the public... - you must be a genius to see through their goals. Has it occured to you that maybe they simply reflect that desire of the people you disagree with.
[deleted]
Is the US still a democracy?
Leader is democratically elected so I guess yes.
…but the three branches of government system has clearly collapsed
Leader is democratically elected so I guess yes.
…but the three branches of government system has clearly collapsed
Democracy only works if people want it to. Republicans do not want democracy to work. This has been obvious for at least 20 years.
The US seems to be behaving more like a parliamentary system than the Republic intended by the founders. Prime ministers in parliaments usually have control of the (effectively single) legislative branch, as well as the executive branch, so they can operate almost like short-term dictatorships (albeit they can be toppled on most given Fridays).
You have a very uninformed view of parliamentary systems if you think the US is in any way close to that.
- in parliamentary systems, minister posts are assigned to elected representatives. There is no prime minister that can just gift their buddies a ministerial post if they weren't elected into parliament.
- most parliaments have an upper and lower house, and prime ministers usually only control the lower.
- the prime minister itself is not directly elected into that post, which means they have no greater authority than any other member of parliament save for the authority granted by their peers. That puts a big damper on many dictatorial aspirations.
- in parliamentary systems, minister posts are assigned to elected representatives. There is no prime minister that can just gift their buddies a ministerial post if they weren't elected into parliament.
- most parliaments have an upper and lower house, and prime ministers usually only control the lower.
- the prime minister itself is not directly elected into that post, which means they have no greater authority than any other member of parliament save for the authority granted by their peers. That puts a big damper on many dictatorial aspirations.
You’re the one who is uninformed; in most (Anglo-sphere) parliamentary systems, the ministers do not need to be in the house of commons (elected), and often do not even have to be parliamentarians. Lord Halifax was eligible to be prime minister of England, despite being unelected, and Canadian prime ministers who lose their riding usually remain prime minister.
Not sure what you mean for parliaments. Coalition governments are possible and sometimes almost the default in a lot of countries in recent history. If an opposition party in the coaltion withdraws its support, the government can collapse.
Strongmen in (initially) parlimentary systems did the same thing Trump is doing. Expand executive power, reduce the legislative branch to a rubberstamping function and stack the courts with yesmen.
Strongmen in (initially) parlimentary systems did the same thing Trump is doing. Expand executive power, reduce the legislative branch to a rubberstamping function and stack the courts with yesmen.
Many parliamentary governments tend only to be stable when there is a majority, see Canada and the UK (arguably) for examples of this. There are definitely counter-examples, but they're generally less similar to the US (culturally and legally).
When there are majority governments, there is essentially no difference between executive and legislative power.
When there are majority governments, there is essentially no difference between executive and legislative power.
I assume you're replying in good faith, but it's difficult to not be incredulous when you're ignoring the highest GDP country in the world after China -- i.e Germany -- which has had coaltion governments since in the 60s. Sweden since the 70s, Netherlands since the 1800s.
You're needlessly conflating the topic of stability and democracy, which muddles the discussion. Autocrats have come into power by championing "stability" at the expense of democracy since time immemorial. This is texbook by now.
You're needlessly conflating the topic of stability and democracy, which muddles the discussion. Autocrats have come into power by championing "stability" at the expense of democracy since time immemorial. This is texbook by now.
My point was simply just that the USA was behaving democratically, but more like a parliamentary democracy (with a majority) than a republic. I agree that parliamentary coalitions are possible, they just don't seem very popular or stable in the anglo-sphere.
Italy and Israel also manage relatively stable minority parliaments! It's not impossible, but for some reason, the common-law countries seem to struggle with it. Autocrats often do champion stability (Putin/Xi) or change (Pinochet/Castro), but so do many democratic leaders (like prime ministers in Canada/UK).
Italy and Israel also manage relatively stable minority parliaments! It's not impossible, but for some reason, the common-law countries seem to struggle with it. Autocrats often do champion stability (Putin/Xi) or change (Pinochet/Castro), but so do many democratic leaders (like prime ministers in Canada/UK).
The US was never a democracy in the strict sense of the word. Even the popular vote for the president can be overturned by the electoral college.
The founders knew that people are, by and large, dumb. And they accounted for that with the representative system that we have.
The founders knew that people are, by and large, dumb. And they accounted for that with the representative system that we have.
Hitler and Putin were also democratically elected (there are many other examples).
If you get elected and then dismantle the democracy, then you no longer have a democracy.
If you get elected and then dismantle the democracy, then you no longer have a democracy.
American medicine is also going to suffer from the brain-drain due to other crimes by the administration, as it goes after foreign students and would-be citizens. (Both capriciously, and also in First-Amendment-breaking retaliation.)
https://xkcd.com/3081/
https://xkcd.com/3081/
To me, ignoring the courts means impeachment and conviction. But the US Gov is full of cowards who are only there to extort money from their campaign donors.
It’s kind of tough when you see 70M of your countrymen vote for a traitor and another 70M implicitly allowing it by not voting.
He proved he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it, so that someone could be whatever government employee tries to go after him (already evidenced using the purse strings and lawyers of the government rather than a bullet).
And congressional reps have seen others lose elections for going after Trump. The root problem is the voters, and that’s a tough one to fix.
He proved he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it, so that someone could be whatever government employee tries to go after him (already evidenced using the purse strings and lawyers of the government rather than a bullet).
And congressional reps have seen others lose elections for going after Trump. The root problem is the voters, and that’s a tough one to fix.
> The root problem is the voters, and that’s a tough one to fix.
I'll add that the system itself is also very broken.
A better system would give you more than two realistic choices in an election and it wouldn't give all power to one side.
I'll add that the system itself is also very broken.
A better system would give you more than two realistic choices in an election and it wouldn't give all power to one side.
The controlled opposition party makes dang sure that the only other option in major elections is "more of the same". (i.e. Democrats generally fail to clean up whatever mess the last Republican administration made, continue funneling money to Israel, yaddah yaddah, and don't to a whole lot to help the working class.)
A lot of people are completely fed up with "more of the same", so they voted for the clown or didn't bother to show up.
Don't blame the voters when they were never given a real choice.
A lot of people are completely fed up with "more of the same", so they voted for the clown or didn't bother to show up.
Don't blame the voters when they were never given a real choice.
> 70M implicitly allowing it by not voting.
> The root problem is the voters
The root problem is that we do not have an actual opposition party. The so-called Democrats are a right-wing, corporate/oligarch controlled party that engages in activities like enabling genocide. The Republicans are a right-wing, corporate/oligarch controlled party that engages in activities like enabling genocide.
I hope the so-called Democratic party completely implodes so we can, possibly, get a left-of-center party that will actually do things that the so-called Democrats only provide lip-service to, and that, only when the so-called Democrats are guaranteed to be unable to enact such legislation due to not having majorities needed.
I'd prefer that people withholding their votes from either lesser or greater evil right-wing corporate/oligarch, genocidal monster parties would instead vote 3rd party/independent, but I would not fault anyone for not voting for the so-called Democrats or Republicans.
As to blame for the current situation, remember, it was the so-called Democrats who did everything they could to make Trump the Republican presidential candidate, as they thought they would have a better chance against him with their extremely unpopular candidate, Clinton. And, that the so-called Democrats would rather lose elections than allow a non-corporate/oligarch controlled genocidal monster to be elected-- see how they treated Sanders.
* 'so-called' Democrats because they repeatedly engage in voter suppression during primaries to ensure their chosen right-wing pro-corporate/oligarch candidate will win. And, they repeatedly sue to remove from state ballots any candidates running on the left whether Greens, Peace and Freedom, or independent. In the last election, the Greens spent half of their campaign funds fighting these lawsuits so they could maintain ballot access. It was also the so-called Democrats with the Republicans who barred access to presidential debates of candidates who would challenge their right-wing, pro-corporate/oligarch, genocidal positions.
> The root problem is the voters
The root problem is that we do not have an actual opposition party. The so-called Democrats are a right-wing, corporate/oligarch controlled party that engages in activities like enabling genocide. The Republicans are a right-wing, corporate/oligarch controlled party that engages in activities like enabling genocide.
I hope the so-called Democratic party completely implodes so we can, possibly, get a left-of-center party that will actually do things that the so-called Democrats only provide lip-service to, and that, only when the so-called Democrats are guaranteed to be unable to enact such legislation due to not having majorities needed.
I'd prefer that people withholding their votes from either lesser or greater evil right-wing corporate/oligarch, genocidal monster parties would instead vote 3rd party/independent, but I would not fault anyone for not voting for the so-called Democrats or Republicans.
As to blame for the current situation, remember, it was the so-called Democrats who did everything they could to make Trump the Republican presidential candidate, as they thought they would have a better chance against him with their extremely unpopular candidate, Clinton. And, that the so-called Democrats would rather lose elections than allow a non-corporate/oligarch controlled genocidal monster to be elected-- see how they treated Sanders.
* 'so-called' Democrats because they repeatedly engage in voter suppression during primaries to ensure their chosen right-wing pro-corporate/oligarch candidate will win. And, they repeatedly sue to remove from state ballots any candidates running on the left whether Greens, Peace and Freedom, or independent. In the last election, the Greens spent half of their campaign funds fighting these lawsuits so they could maintain ballot access. It was also the so-called Democrats with the Republicans who barred access to presidential debates of candidates who would challenge their right-wing, pro-corporate/oligarch, genocidal positions.
Republicans are cowards. It’s not the US government. Democrats would impeach. They did already twice.
Republicans do not have a monopoly on cowardice. To take a recent example from memory, Chuck Schumer is equally spineless, and people closer to US politics can probably name more compromised democrats.
Are we sure they’re not giving the donors exactly what they want?
They are. And that should be a bigger problem to more Americans than it seems to be.
The full title is:
> Trump's NIH Axed Research Grants Even After a Judge Blocked the Cuts, Internal Records Show
> Trump's NIH Axed Research Grants Even After a Judge Blocked the Cuts, Internal Records Show
The flip side is that in other areas their powers are much more limited. Revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status? That’ll filter through the courts and years from now Harvard might actually have to make a tax payment (I expect they won’t.)
From a societal perspective, however, we’re in deep shit. There’s an excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered. We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding to industry funding, but she is one of the lucky ones.