3 ms·

No, there's zero debate to be had. They actively intercept and confiscate medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. Blue state

No, there's zero debate to be had. They actively intercept and confiscate medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. Blue states, I might add. Which is of course a complete coincidence. (And other countries haven't been immune to this either, but that's another story.)

sooheon 7y ago
A: "there's a good debate to be had about the role of justice system, should it seek to rehabilitate or punish?" B: "no, there's zero debate to be had because this one judge was caught taking bribes" One is a question about purpose and design, the other is a bug in the implementation.
makomk 7y ago
See, this is why it's lose-lose for the federal government. If they allow states to bid against each other for the same equipment, enriching shady middlemen and stockpilers, this is proof they've failed (see comment elsewhere in thread) - but if they seize those stockpiles and don't allow them to be sold at a massive markup to the highest bidder, they're actively intercepting medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. The American press has been loudly pushing both of these narratives at once.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sgift 7y ago
  Probably because the president (still the leader of said government) telling the press that his people shouldn't talk to governors which haven't been nice enough to him doesn't inspire confidence that the second part is done in the best interest of all states. Now, if the federal government would show that they don't just do it for selfish purposes that narrative would die down pretty fast.
- kelnos 7y ago
  The lack of coordination and mixed messages have been a problem. Trump has publicly said governors should be fending for themselves, and has also been "punishing" states with governors he doesn't like by not taking their calls. States have no reason to trust the federal government to properly help them, and the federal government has shown no capacity or willingness to do anything but release funds.

sooheon 7y ago

A: "there's a good debate to be had about the role of justice system, should it seek to rehabilitate or punish?" B: "no, there's zero debate to be had because this one judge was caught taking bribes" One is a question about purpose and design, the other is a bug in the implementation.

makomk 7y ago

See, this is why it's lose-lose for the federal government. If they allow states to bid against each other for the same equipment, enriching shady middlemen and stockpilers, this is proof they've failed (see comment elsewhere in thread) - but if they seize those stockpiles and don't allow them to be sold at a massive markup to the highest bidder, they're actively intercepting medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. The American press has been loudly pushing both of these narratives at once.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sgift 7y ago
Probably because the president (still the leader of said government) telling the press that his people shouldn't talk to governors which haven't been nice enough to him doesn't inspire confidence that the second part is done in the best interest of all states. Now, if the federal government would show that they don't just do it for selfish purposes that narrative would die down pretty fast.
kelnos 7y ago
The lack of coordination and mixed messages have been a problem. Trump has publicly said governors should be fending for themselves, and has also been "punishing" states with governors he doesn't like by not taking their calls. States have no reason to trust the federal government to properly help them, and the federal government has shown no capacity or willingness to do anything but release funds.