If Trump truly has an aversion to war he really needs to stop setting the stage for multiple long term conflicts on multiple fronts. In the past month he has alienated multiple allies with tariffs, insults and threats to sovereignty and cozied up to two world powers who would are much more likely to turn against America whereas the former allies would never even consider it. I understand if America makes decisions, in their own interests, that unfortunately hurt allies financially or strategically. It’s the gleeful insults, the threats to sovereignty (including openly musing about military force against Greenland and Panama) that are causing the irreparable damage to the relationship with former allies, not the actual decisions. It’s seems like the insults, threats and alienating former allies is a feature not a bug
If you’re the leader of a country that lives under the protection of America’s nuclear deterrent and you think Trump might fail to honor our commitments or explicitly abandon them, what would you do? I suspect more than a few such leaders will look at the last 80 years and decide that the only way they can truly guarantee their security is to have nuclear weapons of their own. If Trump continues down this road we may see major nuclear proliferation, which would be tragically ironic given the number of his supporters (and non-supporters like Kmele) who openly worry a lot about the threat of nuclear war vis a vis escalation in Ukraine.
Friedrich Merz, who will very likely gain the necessary majority after tomorrows federal elections to become Germany's next chancellor very recently suggested starting a discussion between UK, France and Germany regarding a nuclear sharing program. Certainly would not have happened without Trump.
Best Moynihan advice ever: Always read The Red Hand Files (quoted in this episode by Matt) and everything else Nick Cave writes for that matter. Cheaper than therapy and less proselytizing than a sermon, it's unceasingly gentle, wise & beautifully written❤️
Michael almost got there on the reasoning for using the “mandate” speak. It was used by Mussolini in 1924 after his election win, it was used by Hitler in 1932/1933 after his electoral wins, it was used by other authoritarians after elections and upon attempts to seize greater powers. It’s intentional to justify their push for executive power.
MAGA NPCs refused to say that the US was a democracy just a few months ago (“it’s a republic”). Now they parrot Elon with the “mandate” speak paired with the “we’re a democracy and the people have spoken” and “we must fulfill the will of the people” and “if the president can’t enact the will of the people then we’re not a democracy”.
Again Michael gets it right by calling it out… but calls it a weird/childish/stupid/learning on the fly by Elon/others. But it’s not. It’s intentional. There’s nothing but signs of intelligent intent. He knows exactly what he’s saying/doing and why he’s doing it.
Republicans have been saying the "it's not a Democracy, it's a constitutional Republic" for my entire life. Similarly, both parties have been talking about their political mandates for my entire life. Neither of these things are new to MAGA or relegated to dictatorships.
When FDR, LBJ, Obama, Biden, etc… hell I’ll throw Reagan/Bush/etc in there… they spoke of mandates in terms of to push for a legislative agenda. This admin is leaving the legislature at the door and saying this to justify their executive actions and to criticize the judicial checks that are occurring against those executive actions. Context matters and the comparison to authoritarians is based on this context/intent not general use of the word.
And you missed the point entirely on MAGA parroting “we’re a republic” in response to talk of democracy being on the ballot (and it sounding like Democrat lmfao). Republicans may have been saying this all their life but MAGA had this talking point in overdrive/on repeat. And then they pulled a 180 when they won the popular vote and heard dear leader, Elon, etc start with the mandate talk and how if the executive can’t execute the will of the people we’re not a democracy speak.
The points didn't go over my head, nor I did I miss them, because you didn't make them until now. I can't read your mind to know the unspoken nuances you were apparently implying, man. If there's context you want people to consider, you should add it to your comment.
Literally noted that it was in relation to seizure of executive power as well as the switch by maga from use of republic to democracy parrot points. They were my central points. You just jumped on the “oh well I’ve heard these words used before” and “well actually those words have been used all my life” ignoring the context. I then had to provide in detail context so you understood what you missed. That’s fine but the point were both there.
I see where you said the grab for executive power now that you've pointed it out, but making it the last point in your paragraph makes it read like an afterthought, not the central point. Not sure why you needed to be a dick about it, but admittedly I responded in kind, so shame on both of us I suppose.
Just speaking plainly. Understand not everyone likes that style but yeah you get back what you throw out. If I thought you read my points in good faith and still didn’t understand that would be one thing but when your response is a “well actually this is the same as it’s always been/nothing new to see here” it’s generally going to get a harsher response.
In relation to the authority to exert executive power and as a criticism of judicial blocks on executive power? That’s the necessary context. That’s how it’s being used by Elon/Trump. Yes the term mandate gets used for legislation in pretty much every election. The specific use for executive power implementation and justification is what differentiates this instance and aligns it with the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, and other authoritarian dictators throughout history.
i don’t think this is really specific to trump and hitler lol.
“What’s becoming clear each hour is that a record number of Americans of all races, faiths and religions, chose change over more of the same,” Biden said. “They’ve given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism. They made it clear they want the country to come together not continue to pull apart.”
biden issued many executive orders on all of these issues.
• EO 14008 Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
• EO 13990 Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis
• EO 14013 Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for
the Impact of Climate Change on Migration
•Executive Order 13991, officially titled Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing (and also referred to as the 100 Day Masking Challenge), is an executive order signed by U.S. President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.
•Executive Order 14043 of September 9, 2021
Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees
What day did Biden make that comment dipshit? Was it after he issued the executive orders and faced judicial rulings against said orders you dumb fuck?
Edit: oh you already knew that it was right after his election vs after rulings AGAINST his executive orders. So just bad faith maxing. Got it little man. Just be honest and say you love authoritarian pushback against judicial rulings because of dear leader and his simps appeals to “democracy” and “the will of the people”. MAGA NPCs gonna MAGA NPC lmfao
trump said he will comply with judicial rulings. not sure what kind of news you’re consuming.
President Trump said Tuesday he would abide by court rulings if they blocked parts of his agenda amid uproar over comments from some allies about defying the legal system.
“I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump said when asked if he would comply with court orders if they blocked his agenda.
Yes, he said he’ll comply with these initial rulings. But I worry that Vance’s comment about judges not being able to stop the President’s legitimate use of power lays the groundwork for the administration to ignore SCOTUS rulings based on Trump’s personal definition of “legitimate power”. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.
Another worrying thing I’ll add is that using a supposed mandate as justification for nearly all executive actions, coupled with demands of unwavering personal loyalty to Trump and his agenda, is reminiscent of idea that the will of the people are embodied in one man. It’s a hallmark of authoritarianism. I haven’t heard anyone use that specific language yet, but the vibe is too close for comfort.
Holy shit, I just listened to the clip from Elon that they played on the pod and he actually does explicitly talk about the will of the people being expressed through the President.
I remember a show, “Penn & Teller’s Bullshit” where that duo poked fun at ideas and introduced libertarian-leaning perspectives on things.
Specifically, they had an episode on world peace and how it was a crock of shit…without capitalism. Having a world where countries rely on each other for things, not out of global love and harmony, but driven by self-interest, makes the world a safer, more peaceful place. It was a good idea back then, but today I fear conservatives would call that globalist…
They would. Conservatives have punted on economics. They’re now catering to armchair Middle Aged colors lite drinking philosophers. Who have this “intuition” about the way the world works. Said intuition is almost always wrong and that same intuition is why the Venn diagram of MAGA and people who believe in fucking aliens looks like a near eclipse.
I'm sad that I feel this way, but I've defintiely gone from a place of pro-Israel doing what they gotta do while also having a generic sense of sympathy for Palestinian citizens to not caring if Gaza becomes Israeli potato fields all the way to the shoreline.
Man, I love The Fifth Column. And The Reason Roundtable. And The David Pakman Show. And Luke Beasley. And the red hand files. And Tim Dillon. And Legion of Skanks. And Ari Shaffir (he has the best comedy special of 2024 called “Jew.“ Amazing. I’m annoyed that most of you probably don’t know about this, or are still butt hurt about his Kobe tweet. If you actually give a fuck about Jews, watch this special. It is so funny.)
And I think Trump is the most horrible influence on America. As is Elon. Love you guys. And MM, I think Noam has gotten sucked into this whole Trump/Elon thing. Please talk to that dude. Because I fucking love that guy. I actually went to him when I thought the fifth column was going off the rails about Biden. We’ve got to all be logical and empathetic, and not just fucking tribal. I hate that shit man.
Also: never been drunker. LOL. I love you guys. Meaning everyone in the fifth column universe. We can fight all we want, but I love you all.
And I want all of them to say something about it. I think sometimes people get too big to listen totheir fans. I don’t understand it too. But Ari Shaffir‘s special is the best special in the last five years.
Cards on the table -- I work for a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. I'm not a government employee but a majority (though not all) of our funding comes from the National Science Foundation. I have many close friends that are federal employees. So I have a vested interest in all of this.
I suspect that if you sat down and had a good-faith conversation with the civil service and others like me that are adjacent to it, an overwhelming majority would welcome a serious attempt to reform the bureaucracy to make it more efficient and save money. Those same people will probably have excellent ideas for how to change policies and incentive structures to do that. I know I would welcome that. And if the outcome of a more deliberative process that engaged Congress was that my FFRDC loses funding and I lose my job, that would suck, but I could accept it.
But that's not what Elon and DOGE are doing. These blanket across the board cuts to the workforce and budgets are going to make things less efficient and effective, and they're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's going to make it harder for the government to do the things we actually want it to do and it's going to seriously hurt US leadership in a lot of areas. And it's all entirely predictable, which makes it hard to believe that this is just incompetence on the part of otherwise good faith actors.
For how long would you say you would have welcomed "serious attempt(s) to reform the bureaucracy"? And in that time, what specific steps have been taken by you or others you know to actually effectuate those changes? Also, since you have expertise in this area, what specific reforms do you support? I ask this because I've come across comments like this increasingly frequently, the idea that reform is necessary but this is the wrong way to go about it. I can wrap my head around that being someone's view, it just needs to be followed with specific reform proposals to be taken seriously rather than seen as a stall and/or deflection. (Right or wrong, that's how it looks to many of us in the private sector)
Sorry for taking awhile to respond. These are all good questions and I understand your perspective.
I'll give you a few concrete ideas focused grant funding (I have no insight into the regulatory state). One of my pet peeves is that the incentives to find cost savings are all front loaded. You estimate costs when you submit a funding proposal and while there is an incentive to not make your project too expensive, in general the attitude is that within certain boundaries good projects will get funded with costs as a secondary consideration. And in my world, no one wants to go over budget, so costs are always estimated on the high side to account for some contingency. If you're successful then the government has committed that funding. You have to submit annual reports and your spending is subject to audit, but there is no incentive to *under spend* the grant. On the contrary, there are disincentives for doing so, because that money is already effectively in-pocket and your institution is already counting on using the overheads associated with that money (more on this below).
One idea for reforming this system is to treat the initial budget as an upper limit but for all subsequent purchases to go through more rigorous review by the spending agency when that money is actually spent. That added level of scrutiny would probably require more bureaucrats and more paper work, but it might help keep costs under control.
Another idea is to pair this with reform of how "indirect costs" (i.e. overheads) are handled. Right now, host institutions (usually universities, but not always) negotiate with funding agencies (NSF, NIH, etc.) to charge a fixed overhead percentage on grants (some categories of costs are exempt from this). Now, some of these overhead costs are absolutely legitimate. They go to fund physical infrastructure and things like safety personnel and hazardous waste disposal. But the overhead rates have crept up over the years and are usually in the range of 40-50%, with 60% not that uncommon and 30% on the low end. I don't know what all that covers but I'm fairly confident that stricter guidelines could cut those down.
To their credit, DOGE has paid attention to this. They recently capped NIH overheads at 15%. But as usual, they used a sledgehammer approach. The cuts were imposed overnight and with no real rationale for how they came up with a 15% max.
I would have taken the time to draft better guidelines and then let the funding agencies negotiate individual rates. I would also look into charging a fixed fee on more grants or categories of spending rather than a percentage. Then I would pair that with the above focus on cost savings on the actual research activities by allowing research institutions to keep some fraction of any unspent funds as a "bonus" overhead (let's just say 10% for sake of argument) , with the rest returned to taxpayers. That way institutions have some skin in the game when it comes to saving money with no need for more red tape.
There are other simpler reforms: relax buy-American rules that drive up costs (you can get exemptions but it adds work). Be more willing to pull the plug on underperforming grants prior to the end of terms (research is risky and some ideas just won't pan out). Change per diem rules when travelling. Have stricter rules about what types of conferences will be funded and how much one can spend on that. I haven't dealt with it personally, but I know a lot of people blame cost-plus contracts for driving up costs and favor fixed-price contracts. I could also go into some more radical ideas but hopefully this suffices for now.
What have I personally done to pursue these reforms? I have to admit, to my discredit, not much. I've had watercooler conversations about this type of stuff with my bosses and colleagues but most everyone just kind of accepts the system as-is and works within it. I try to be careful about spending when I travel. But there isn't much one person can do on their own. The incentives have to change. There really hasn't been the political will to pursue those changes, which is why I was cautiously optimistic about DOGE when they first announced it, and why I've been so disappointed with how it's actually gone so far.
I wish I could have Moynihan and Douglas Murray with me whenever the Israel/Gaza topic came up so they could verbally eviscerate my foes in ways I am unable to.
I'm only at 35 minutes and have to step away for a bit, so who knows what's yet to come--but I get the feeling that if Kmele really let loose on electrons, it would be like Matt and Moynihan on Dylan.
I invited him to come see our telescope (not a euphemism!!) and never got a response. And no offense, but I bet you it’s way cooler than your microscope.
In my opinion Trump's (despicable) behavior with regards to a Ukraine deal is a pretty solid argument against a mass democracy engaging in proxy military conflicts.
If there's no reasonable expectation that we can fulfill our promises we probably shouldn't be making said promises.
As democracies change maybe foreign policy has to as well.
What’s the evidence that Musk is all that intelligent beyond the realm of business? I’ve been annoyed by the guy before his entry into politics, since he started dabbling in the area i work in (neuroscience), and my overall impression is he’s not very knowledgeable about any of the things he invests in. I think of him as the Steve Jobs figure—he’s not programming the computers, but he makes the product launches look cool. Of course, I’ll have to scrub the internet of every comment I’ve made about Musk once all government funding for my research has dried up and I’m begging NeuraLink for a job…
He’s an investor, ceo, general extremely entitled hype guy who thinks since he’s been successful means he knows everything and can do anything. He could be anybody. He only cares about himself and his government contracts. The last 6 months proves
How gullible and uneducated he is-only getting his information from his shitty platform & unable to understand basic ideas and unable to form coherent sentences. I truly Hope he fails Miserably and fails hard. I will be laughing the whole way. History will not look back kindly. The sad thing is he will get a blanket pardon from trump at the end of the term.
I know that Kmele's attempts to steelman everything comes from a good place, but at some point the evidence against the steelman is so overwhelming that it becomes an exercise in excuse making.
Trump isn't anti-war. He was more than happy to go to war against ISIS. There's a good chance he uses the US military against Mexican cartels. And damaging (maybe irreperably, if this continues, though I don't think we're there yet) our alliances with Europe and Canada and aligning with Russia on Ukraine is making other wars more likely, and making the world a more dangerous place. I already wrote above about the possibility of countries currently under the US defense umbrella looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia will be emboldened to start new wars against the countries that they think should be in their sphere of influence. The best way to prevent China from moving against Taiwan and eroding the territorial integrity of other Southeast Asian countries is to maintain a strong deterrent effect, but the US military cannot do that on its own. We need allies, and Europe is a *critical* part of any economic deterrent. We'll see how our alliances with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines fare, but nothing we have seen thus far should make anyone optimistic, and we need military cooperation from all those countries to deter China.
Trump is making the world a more dangerous place, and I'm personally well past the point that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to being an idiot. It's entirely foreseeable.
Can I just jump in and endorse Kmele’s steel-manning all kinds of ideas? Whenever he does this—regardless of what particular view he expresses—he always draws the other guys into saying something interesting. So I appreciate it.
I’m not convinced that Elon is as politically gullible as these guys think.
Is it possible he just knows how to game the twitter audience? He knows how it works and how to speak the language all the way down to the lowest common denominator.
Was also wondering if saying Elon “does not understand how government works” is a better way to describe this. He clearly knows how to lobby and get money from government via politics.
How do people think other work? It’s not that easy for someone to “feign” gullibility. Yes. It’s easy to “imagine” someone doing it. It’s also easy to “imagine” a rocket shaped like an elephant that shoots peanut butter out of its ass to fly. Imagination is powerful. Reality hardly ever measures up.
So glad Matt referenced “so are we the baddies”. That has been running through my mind hoping Americans would make the connection
For those who haven’t seen it.
https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY
If Trump truly has an aversion to war he really needs to stop setting the stage for multiple long term conflicts on multiple fronts. In the past month he has alienated multiple allies with tariffs, insults and threats to sovereignty and cozied up to two world powers who would are much more likely to turn against America whereas the former allies would never even consider it. I understand if America makes decisions, in their own interests, that unfortunately hurt allies financially or strategically. It’s the gleeful insults, the threats to sovereignty (including openly musing about military force against Greenland and Panama) that are causing the irreparable damage to the relationship with former allies, not the actual decisions. It’s seems like the insults, threats and alienating former allies is a feature not a bug
If you’re the leader of a country that lives under the protection of America’s nuclear deterrent and you think Trump might fail to honor our commitments or explicitly abandon them, what would you do? I suspect more than a few such leaders will look at the last 80 years and decide that the only way they can truly guarantee their security is to have nuclear weapons of their own. If Trump continues down this road we may see major nuclear proliferation, which would be tragically ironic given the number of his supporters (and non-supporters like Kmele) who openly worry a lot about the threat of nuclear war vis a vis escalation in Ukraine.
Friedrich Merz, who will very likely gain the necessary majority after tomorrows federal elections to become Germany's next chancellor very recently suggested starting a discussion between UK, France and Germany regarding a nuclear sharing program. Certainly would not have happened without Trump.
I can tell you that some Canadians are talking about purchasing nuclear weapons. That would not have happened a month ago
Indeed! Where are the TFC Trumpsters to decode how we "take him seriously but not literally" on this one?
Best Moynihan advice ever: Always read The Red Hand Files (quoted in this episode by Matt) and everything else Nick Cave writes for that matter. Cheaper than therapy and less proselytizing than a sermon, it's unceasingly gentle, wise & beautifully written❤️
The joy, grace, and wit of everything he writes gives me life… as does the way he handles hate mail. Such a gem.
Oh dude. Absolutely the best. Love that motherfucker.
Michael almost got there on the reasoning for using the “mandate” speak. It was used by Mussolini in 1924 after his election win, it was used by Hitler in 1932/1933 after his electoral wins, it was used by other authoritarians after elections and upon attempts to seize greater powers. It’s intentional to justify their push for executive power.
MAGA NPCs refused to say that the US was a democracy just a few months ago (“it’s a republic”). Now they parrot Elon with the “mandate” speak paired with the “we’re a democracy and the people have spoken” and “we must fulfill the will of the people” and “if the president can’t enact the will of the people then we’re not a democracy”.
Again Michael gets it right by calling it out… but calls it a weird/childish/stupid/learning on the fly by Elon/others. But it’s not. It’s intentional. There’s nothing but signs of intelligent intent. He knows exactly what he’s saying/doing and why he’s doing it.
I think the right's abuse of language is more offensive to me than the left's at this point because they're abusing ideals I actually sincerely hold.
Republicans have been saying the "it's not a Democracy, it's a constitutional Republic" for my entire life. Similarly, both parties have been talking about their political mandates for my entire life. Neither of these things are new to MAGA or relegated to dictatorships.
Points went right over your head.
When FDR, LBJ, Obama, Biden, etc… hell I’ll throw Reagan/Bush/etc in there… they spoke of mandates in terms of to push for a legislative agenda. This admin is leaving the legislature at the door and saying this to justify their executive actions and to criticize the judicial checks that are occurring against those executive actions. Context matters and the comparison to authoritarians is based on this context/intent not general use of the word.
And you missed the point entirely on MAGA parroting “we’re a republic” in response to talk of democracy being on the ballot (and it sounding like Democrat lmfao). Republicans may have been saying this all their life but MAGA had this talking point in overdrive/on repeat. And then they pulled a 180 when they won the popular vote and heard dear leader, Elon, etc start with the mandate talk and how if the executive can’t execute the will of the people we’re not a democracy speak.
The points didn't go over my head, nor I did I miss them, because you didn't make them until now. I can't read your mind to know the unspoken nuances you were apparently implying, man. If there's context you want people to consider, you should add it to your comment.
Literally noted that it was in relation to seizure of executive power as well as the switch by maga from use of republic to democracy parrot points. They were my central points. You just jumped on the “oh well I’ve heard these words used before” and “well actually those words have been used all my life” ignoring the context. I then had to provide in detail context so you understood what you missed. That’s fine but the point were both there.
I see where you said the grab for executive power now that you've pointed it out, but making it the last point in your paragraph makes it read like an afterthought, not the central point. Not sure why you needed to be a dick about it, but admittedly I responded in kind, so shame on both of us I suppose.
Just speaking plainly. Understand not everyone likes that style but yeah you get back what you throw out. If I thought you read my points in good faith and still didn’t understand that would be one thing but when your response is a “well actually this is the same as it’s always been/nothing new to see here” it’s generally going to get a harsher response.
the mandate term came from mainstream media after the election. i heard the term all night on abc the night of the election.
In relation to the authority to exert executive power and as a criticism of judicial blocks on executive power? That’s the necessary context. That’s how it’s being used by Elon/Trump. Yes the term mandate gets used for legislation in pretty much every election. The specific use for executive power implementation and justification is what differentiates this instance and aligns it with the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, and other authoritarian dictators throughout history.
i don’t think this is really specific to trump and hitler lol.
“What’s becoming clear each hour is that a record number of Americans of all races, faiths and religions, chose change over more of the same,” Biden said. “They’ve given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism. They made it clear they want the country to come together not continue to pull apart.”
biden issued many executive orders on all of these issues.
• EO 14008 Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad
• EO 13990 Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis
• EO 14013 Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for
the Impact of Climate Change on Migration
•Executive Order 13991, officially titled Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing (and also referred to as the 100 Day Masking Challenge), is an executive order signed by U.S. President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.
•Executive Order 14043 of September 9, 2021
Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees
What day did Biden make that comment dipshit? Was it after he issued the executive orders and faced judicial rulings against said orders you dumb fuck?
Edit: oh you already knew that it was right after his election vs after rulings AGAINST his executive orders. So just bad faith maxing. Got it little man. Just be honest and say you love authoritarian pushback against judicial rulings because of dear leader and his simps appeals to “democracy” and “the will of the people”. MAGA NPCs gonna MAGA NPC lmfao
trump said he will comply with judicial rulings. not sure what kind of news you’re consuming.
President Trump said Tuesday he would abide by court rulings if they blocked parts of his agenda amid uproar over comments from some allies about defying the legal system.
“I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump said when asked if he would comply with court orders if they blocked his agenda.
Trump has said all sorts of things and lied you fucking piece of absolute subhuman garbage.
Yes, he said he’ll comply with these initial rulings. But I worry that Vance’s comment about judges not being able to stop the President’s legitimate use of power lays the groundwork for the administration to ignore SCOTUS rulings based on Trump’s personal definition of “legitimate power”. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.
Another worrying thing I’ll add is that using a supposed mandate as justification for nearly all executive actions, coupled with demands of unwavering personal loyalty to Trump and his agenda, is reminiscent of idea that the will of the people are embodied in one man. It’s a hallmark of authoritarianism. I haven’t heard anyone use that specific language yet, but the vibe is too close for comfort.
Holy shit, I just listened to the clip from Elon that they played on the pod and he actually does explicitly talk about the will of the people being expressed through the President.
Evidence that they “know”. Whatever that means. I’m curious.
Concerning globalism:
I remember a show, “Penn & Teller’s Bullshit” where that duo poked fun at ideas and introduced libertarian-leaning perspectives on things.
Specifically, they had an episode on world peace and how it was a crock of shit…without capitalism. Having a world where countries rely on each other for things, not out of global love and harmony, but driven by self-interest, makes the world a safer, more peaceful place. It was a good idea back then, but today I fear conservatives would call that globalist…
They would. Conservatives have punted on economics. They’re now catering to armchair Middle Aged colors lite drinking philosophers. Who have this “intuition” about the way the world works. Said intuition is almost always wrong and that same intuition is why the Venn diagram of MAGA and people who believe in fucking aliens looks like a near eclipse.
I loved when they shot a watermelon to disprove the JFK second shooter theory.
I'm sad that I feel this way, but I've defintiely gone from a place of pro-Israel doing what they gotta do while also having a generic sense of sympathy for Palestinian citizens to not caring if Gaza becomes Israeli potato fields all the way to the shoreline.
Man, I love The Fifth Column. And The Reason Roundtable. And The David Pakman Show. And Luke Beasley. And the red hand files. And Tim Dillon. And Legion of Skanks. And Ari Shaffir (he has the best comedy special of 2024 called “Jew.“ Amazing. I’m annoyed that most of you probably don’t know about this, or are still butt hurt about his Kobe tweet. If you actually give a fuck about Jews, watch this special. It is so funny.)
And I think Trump is the most horrible influence on America. As is Elon. Love you guys. And MM, I think Noam has gotten sucked into this whole Trump/Elon thing. Please talk to that dude. Because I fucking love that guy. I actually went to him when I thought the fifth column was going off the rails about Biden. We’ve got to all be logical and empathetic, and not just fucking tribal. I hate that shit man.
Also: never been drunker. LOL. I love you guys. Meaning everyone in the fifth column universe. We can fight all we want, but I love you all.
Ari Shaffir Jew. Is one of the best specials ever made. It’s really one of those. https://youtu.be/y2YtIBYM4w0?si=tYZP323U9rCYxrTq
And I want all of them to say something about it. I think sometimes people get too big to listen totheir fans. I don’t understand it too. But Ari Shaffir‘s special is the best special in the last five years.
Cards on the table -- I work for a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. I'm not a government employee but a majority (though not all) of our funding comes from the National Science Foundation. I have many close friends that are federal employees. So I have a vested interest in all of this.
I suspect that if you sat down and had a good-faith conversation with the civil service and others like me that are adjacent to it, an overwhelming majority would welcome a serious attempt to reform the bureaucracy to make it more efficient and save money. Those same people will probably have excellent ideas for how to change policies and incentive structures to do that. I know I would welcome that. And if the outcome of a more deliberative process that engaged Congress was that my FFRDC loses funding and I lose my job, that would suck, but I could accept it.
But that's not what Elon and DOGE are doing. These blanket across the board cuts to the workforce and budgets are going to make things less efficient and effective, and they're throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's going to make it harder for the government to do the things we actually want it to do and it's going to seriously hurt US leadership in a lot of areas. And it's all entirely predictable, which makes it hard to believe that this is just incompetence on the part of otherwise good faith actors.
For how long would you say you would have welcomed "serious attempt(s) to reform the bureaucracy"? And in that time, what specific steps have been taken by you or others you know to actually effectuate those changes? Also, since you have expertise in this area, what specific reforms do you support? I ask this because I've come across comments like this increasingly frequently, the idea that reform is necessary but this is the wrong way to go about it. I can wrap my head around that being someone's view, it just needs to be followed with specific reform proposals to be taken seriously rather than seen as a stall and/or deflection. (Right or wrong, that's how it looks to many of us in the private sector)
Sorry for taking awhile to respond. These are all good questions and I understand your perspective.
I'll give you a few concrete ideas focused grant funding (I have no insight into the regulatory state). One of my pet peeves is that the incentives to find cost savings are all front loaded. You estimate costs when you submit a funding proposal and while there is an incentive to not make your project too expensive, in general the attitude is that within certain boundaries good projects will get funded with costs as a secondary consideration. And in my world, no one wants to go over budget, so costs are always estimated on the high side to account for some contingency. If you're successful then the government has committed that funding. You have to submit annual reports and your spending is subject to audit, but there is no incentive to *under spend* the grant. On the contrary, there are disincentives for doing so, because that money is already effectively in-pocket and your institution is already counting on using the overheads associated with that money (more on this below).
One idea for reforming this system is to treat the initial budget as an upper limit but for all subsequent purchases to go through more rigorous review by the spending agency when that money is actually spent. That added level of scrutiny would probably require more bureaucrats and more paper work, but it might help keep costs under control.
Another idea is to pair this with reform of how "indirect costs" (i.e. overheads) are handled. Right now, host institutions (usually universities, but not always) negotiate with funding agencies (NSF, NIH, etc.) to charge a fixed overhead percentage on grants (some categories of costs are exempt from this). Now, some of these overhead costs are absolutely legitimate. They go to fund physical infrastructure and things like safety personnel and hazardous waste disposal. But the overhead rates have crept up over the years and are usually in the range of 40-50%, with 60% not that uncommon and 30% on the low end. I don't know what all that covers but I'm fairly confident that stricter guidelines could cut those down.
To their credit, DOGE has paid attention to this. They recently capped NIH overheads at 15%. But as usual, they used a sledgehammer approach. The cuts were imposed overnight and with no real rationale for how they came up with a 15% max.
I would have taken the time to draft better guidelines and then let the funding agencies negotiate individual rates. I would also look into charging a fixed fee on more grants or categories of spending rather than a percentage. Then I would pair that with the above focus on cost savings on the actual research activities by allowing research institutions to keep some fraction of any unspent funds as a "bonus" overhead (let's just say 10% for sake of argument) , with the rest returned to taxpayers. That way institutions have some skin in the game when it comes to saving money with no need for more red tape.
There are other simpler reforms: relax buy-American rules that drive up costs (you can get exemptions but it adds work). Be more willing to pull the plug on underperforming grants prior to the end of terms (research is risky and some ideas just won't pan out). Change per diem rules when travelling. Have stricter rules about what types of conferences will be funded and how much one can spend on that. I haven't dealt with it personally, but I know a lot of people blame cost-plus contracts for driving up costs and favor fixed-price contracts. I could also go into some more radical ideas but hopefully this suffices for now.
What have I personally done to pursue these reforms? I have to admit, to my discredit, not much. I've had watercooler conversations about this type of stuff with my bosses and colleagues but most everyone just kind of accepts the system as-is and works within it. I try to be careful about spending when I travel. But there isn't much one person can do on their own. The incentives have to change. There really hasn't been the political will to pursue those changes, which is why I was cautiously optimistic about DOGE when they first announced it, and why I've been so disappointed with how it's actually gone so far.
Michael thank you for your words about Gaza and the murdered hostages. We appreciate you
I wish I could have Moynihan and Douglas Murray with me whenever the Israel/Gaza topic came up so they could verbally eviscerate my foes in ways I am unable to.
I’m dying for them to have Murray on again!
You too Kmele - i just hadn’t got there yet. Matt …. Bueller ? Bueller ??
I'm only at 35 minutes and have to step away for a bit, so who knows what's yet to come--but I get the feeling that if Kmele really let loose on electrons, it would be like Matt and Moynihan on Dylan.
If I invited kmele to my lab to use the electron microscope would he say yes?!?!
I invited him to come see our telescope (not a euphemism!!) and never got a response. And no offense, but I bet you it’s way cooler than your microscope.
None taken. I guarantee it's cooler
What are you waiting for??
In my opinion Trump's (despicable) behavior with regards to a Ukraine deal is a pretty solid argument against a mass democracy engaging in proxy military conflicts.
If there's no reasonable expectation that we can fulfill our promises we probably shouldn't be making said promises.
As democracies change maybe foreign policy has to as well.
What’s the evidence that Musk is all that intelligent beyond the realm of business? I’ve been annoyed by the guy before his entry into politics, since he started dabbling in the area i work in (neuroscience), and my overall impression is he’s not very knowledgeable about any of the things he invests in. I think of him as the Steve Jobs figure—he’s not programming the computers, but he makes the product launches look cool. Of course, I’ll have to scrub the internet of every comment I’ve made about Musk once all government funding for my research has dried up and I’m begging NeuraLink for a job…
He’s an investor, ceo, general extremely entitled hype guy who thinks since he’s been successful means he knows everything and can do anything. He could be anybody. He only cares about himself and his government contracts. The last 6 months proves
How gullible and uneducated he is-only getting his information from his shitty platform & unable to understand basic ideas and unable to form coherent sentences. I truly Hope he fails Miserably and fails hard. I will be laughing the whole way. History will not look back kindly. The sad thing is he will get a blanket pardon from trump at the end of the term.
I know that Kmele's attempts to steelman everything comes from a good place, but at some point the evidence against the steelman is so overwhelming that it becomes an exercise in excuse making.
Trump isn't anti-war. He was more than happy to go to war against ISIS. There's a good chance he uses the US military against Mexican cartels. And damaging (maybe irreperably, if this continues, though I don't think we're there yet) our alliances with Europe and Canada and aligning with Russia on Ukraine is making other wars more likely, and making the world a more dangerous place. I already wrote above about the possibility of countries currently under the US defense umbrella looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Russia will be emboldened to start new wars against the countries that they think should be in their sphere of influence. The best way to prevent China from moving against Taiwan and eroding the territorial integrity of other Southeast Asian countries is to maintain a strong deterrent effect, but the US military cannot do that on its own. We need allies, and Europe is a *critical* part of any economic deterrent. We'll see how our alliances with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines fare, but nothing we have seen thus far should make anyone optimistic, and we need military cooperation from all those countries to deter China.
Trump is making the world a more dangerous place, and I'm personally well past the point that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to being an idiot. It's entirely foreseeable.
Can I just jump in and endorse Kmele’s steel-manning all kinds of ideas? Whenever he does this—regardless of what particular view he expresses—he always draws the other guys into saying something interesting. So I appreciate it.
I think the problem isn't the steelmaning as much as the assumption that Trump has any stance that's not immediately dynamic and changeable.
I’m not convinced that Elon is as politically gullible as these guys think.
Is it possible he just knows how to game the twitter audience? He knows how it works and how to speak the language all the way down to the lowest common denominator.
Was also wondering if saying Elon “does not understand how government works” is a better way to describe this. He clearly knows how to lobby and get money from government via politics.
No. Probably not.
How do people think other work? It’s not that easy for someone to “feign” gullibility. Yes. It’s easy to “imagine” someone doing it. It’s also easy to “imagine” a rocket shaped like an elephant that shoots peanut butter out of its ass to fly. Imagination is powerful. Reality hardly ever measures up.
Sometimes a cigar. Is just a cigar.
Welch is still Mr. Magoo with the technology, I see
https://www.thefp.com/p/us-government-controls-ukrainian-media/ Would be interesting to have this writer on