Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvarangot | Hacker News Reader

Look I find Rand Paul as amusing as the next guy and I like that he has a voice, but he's been censored because he sounds insane. I watched most of the discussions with Fauci honestly it's just two old dudes that hate each other trying to get the other dude to say the thing that will give them their political win.

View on HN

He sounds insane because the media you consume tells YOU he should sound insane.

“A sane person to an insane society must appear insane.”

― Kurt Vonnegut,

I don't have anything in particular against insane people, most of my family has anger issues, I didn't have a happy childhood, I have friends with degenerative conditions, etc, etc ,etc... Rand Paul sound insane to me because I have a great deal of experience with both down to earth and psychotic people, grounded and dissociative people, all in real life. Based on that experience, Paul's performance in the committee looks more like what an intoxicated autistic individual edging a psychotic breakdown looks like _in real life_ and not on TV or the media, than what a down to earth honest legislator trying to investigate a mass pandemic looks like.

I understand he uses that character to push water down to his mill. That doesn't excuse his behavior on my regard and most of all it doesn't excuse his complete inaction doing actual research into where the virus came from instead of digging dirt on Fauci.

> Paul's performance in the committee looks more like what an intoxicated autistic individual edging a psychotic breakdown looks like

I thought so, too. His presentation was overly theatrical. But on the other hand, he has been vindicated on most of the points he made against Fauci. Any reasonable person would consider what they were doing gain-of-function research. I don't think Fauci has any maniacal plans or backroom pharma deals going on, he's just a corrupt bureaucrat trying to cover his ass for a series of incompetent decisions.

A guy can be drunk and autistic while at the same time being 100% correct.

Just because you’re an expert in crazy people and you see them everywhere doesn’t mean this particular one is wrong.

And honestly, if you were a senator and had inside information that convinced you the pandemic was deliberate and funded by the US government, I would hope you’d act a little unhinged, too.

He sounds totally normal to me, honest and serious, but very much normal. Maybe we’ve become so accustomed to bullshit and sugarcoating that we’ve unwittingly reframed seriousness and rigor into seeming ludicrous?

Insane as he comes off sounding to you, what do you make of his position on this subject?

I would say I agree with his position more than any other senator, but I think he focuses too much on what Fauci did or didn't know or do about gain of function research and not enough on actually investigating where the virus came from. I don't care about Fauci, I think Paul wants to out him to show a political victory but honestly that wouldn't change anything. The idea of the senate committee was to investigate the lab leak theory, but Paul made it about investigating Fauci and I think that was not for the benefit of the people but for his own personal campaign agenda and that sucks.

I agree with you, but he doesn’t really have the authority to push the investigation in any other way than to roast whoever he has access to in public meetings. There isn’t congressional support to pass a resolution or bill to do so. He holds minority views within a minority party, and he is just one legislator, not an executive.

In other words, the only way that Rand Paul can influence the situation in any meaningful way is through political means. So, I find it hard to fault the theatrics with Fauci as distasteful as there are.

He has an army of publicly funded staffers and has resources that I would never dream off and will never have in my life to actually do research into where the virus came from. He can do all the theatrics he wants as long as he's also using his resources for something that is not digging dirt on Fauci also.

I don't buy when politicians start being all like "look I agree with you and that's my end game but first we need to get rid of this guy, and then we win the election, and then we put this other guy in that position and then and then and then". It's not true he can't do better now, it's just not convenient to him and since it's convenient to me I will not support him.

Rand Paul knows Fauci suppressed information and lied to congress. He has to attack his credibility and management of the pandemic to open the door for further investigation.

In his position he can't investigate where the virus actually came from. Absolutely all formal channels were blocked by widespread censorship, which is why the investigation was done by groups of anonymous internet users like DRASTIC, and relies so heavily on leaked documents. How exactly is a Senator meant to make that happen?

As a member of the legislative branch, Paul's role is fairly narrow: he can summon the people who actually do the work to ask them pointy questions, and try to build support for changing the law. If you look at how things are done in the UK Parliament or other legislative bodies in democracies, it's no different. The question of who is in power is the key one they focus on because they can't micro-manage the details of every possible government agency.

I think with him being the highest paid employee In The entire U.S. federal government and being the figurehead controlling the restrictions on our lives for 2+ years then caring about him is justified.

Unfortunately this is the way he must proceed in order to bring about change, within the confines of his role and the law.

I do think even in this very narrow role he may be succesful. There seems to be sufficient support built-up for an investigation to happen before long, whereas less than a year ago this seemed unfathomable.

> two old dudes that hate each other trying to get the other dude to say the thing that will give them their political win.

That describes a huge proportion of contemporary politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com