Funny events in anti-woke world

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
*Literally no
On 14 July 2018, a Cuban Communist Party task force drafted a new constitutional text, then given to a National Assembly commission headed by Party First Secretary Raúl Castro to assess, refine, and forward the new draft constitution to the National Assembly plenary.
The new constitution, which also omits the aim of building a communist society and instead works towards the construction of socialism,[26] was presented to the National Assembly of People's Power by secretary of the Council of State Homero Acosta for approval on 21 July 2018 before being slated to a national referendum.[26][27] The National Assembly then approved the new constitution on 22 July 2018,[28][29][30][31] a day ahead of schedule.[32]
It was announced that 135,000 meetings would be held during the popular consultation.[33] Each of these would be run by 7,600 two-person teams who would receive specialized training.[33]
The new constitution was debated at the 8th Plenum of the Communist Party of Cuba's Central Committee which took place between 12 and 13 December 2018.[42] At the meeting, the amended draft of the proposed constitution was drawn up by a group commissioned by the National Assembly of People's Power.[42][43] However, details of what was amended would not be made public until it was approved by the National Assembly.[42] On 18 December 2018, it was revealed that one of the changes to the new constitution which would have paved the way for same sex marriage was dropped.[44][45] On 20 December 2018, another change to the new Cuban Constitution was dropped and its language once again reinserts direction to building a communist society.[46] On 21 December 2018, the Cuba National Assembly approved the amended constitution, completing the final step for a referendum.[47]
The original draft was written by a party taskforce (ie: not popular referendum). That draft was then "assessed, refined, and forwarded" by an assembly commission (ie: not popular referendum). Said draft was then approved by the nation assembly (ie: not popular referendum).

Potential amendments were then allowed to be added via popular consultation (ie: popular referenda).

Once said amendments were collected, the central committee then debated and drew up an amended draft via a commissioned group (ie: not popular referendum). The amended draft was further revised behind closed doors before being approved by the national assembly (ie: not popular referendum).

The end result, after approval by the national assembly, was finally put to a popular vote (ie: popular referenda).

To summarize, popular referenda were used for submitting potential amendments to an already approved draft and for approving the final result. All other steps were taken by government representatives rather than the people at large.


(All emphasis is mine in the quotes)
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,783
3,527
118
Country
United States of America
It was announced that 135,000 meetings would be held during the popular consultation.[33] Each of these would be run by 7,600 two-person teams who would receive specialized training.[33]
What on earth do you think a people writing a constitution looks like if not more than a hundred thousand meetings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,495
3,697
118
The original draft was written by a party taskforce (ie: not popular referendum). That draft was then "assessed, refined, and forwarded" by an assembly commission (ie: not popular referendum). Said draft was then approved by the nation assembly (ie: not popular referendum).

Potential amendments were then allowed to be added via popular consultation (ie: popular referenda).

Once said amendments were collected, the central committee then debated and drew up an amended draft via a commissioned group (ie: not popular referendum). The amended draft was further revised behind closed doors before being approved by the national assembly (ie: not popular referendum).

The end result, after approval by the national assembly, was finally put to a popular vote (ie: popular referenda).

To summarize, popular referenda were used for submitting potential amendments to an already approved draft and for approving the final result. All other steps were taken by government representatives rather than the people at large.


(All emphasis is mine in the quotes)
The people were allowed to edit and write into the document, that's what popular writing looks like, or at least a form of it.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
What on earth do you think a people writing a constitution looks like if not more than a hundred thousand meetings?
The draft constitution was already written before the meetings were held, and the submitted amendments were refined and only added to the revised draft after approval by government officials. You should try reading the entire post rather than just cherry picking a sentence or two that fits your argument...

The people were allowed to edit and write into the document, that's what popular writing looks like, or at least a form of it.
They were only allowed to do so after a draft was already written by a committee, and their submissions were then handed to a group of government officials who were the ones to decide whether to add them, edit them, or ignore them. The people had no direct input on what the contents of the constitution were. They advised on possible amendments then got to vote on the final result that the representatives had written.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,495
3,697
118
The draft constitution was already written before the meetings were held, and the submitted amendments were refined and only added to the revised draft after approval by government officials. You should try reading the entire post rather than just cherry picking a sentence or two that fits your argument...



They were only allowed to do so after a draft was already written by a committee, and their submissions were then handed to a group of government officials who were the ones to decide whether to add them, edit them, or ignore them. The people had no direct input on what the contents of the constitution were. They advised on possible amendments then got to vote on the final result.
And if they were ignored, they could have voted it down. Again, this is one way to accomplish popular writing.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
And if they were ignored, they could have voted it down. Again, this is one way to accomplish popular writing.
So elected (and non-elected) representatives working behind closed doors are a key piece of actually accomplishing your definition of "popular writing"? Why not just admit you're using non-normal definitions for things rather than arguing with Silvanus for weeks?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,495
3,697
118
So elected (and non-elected) representatives working behind closed doors are a key piece of actually accomplishing your definition of "popular writing"? Why not just admit you're using non-normal definitions for things rather than arguing with Silvanus for weeks?
No, because the people are the ultimate arbiters of what does and doesn't go into the constitution. I said weeks ago that delegating work is fine. I'd say Cuba is a bit too top-down in their implementation, but if you stop at several steps and ask the people if they're doing a good job and what changes they'd make, then you are legislating by popular will and writing. So no, I'm not going to admit anything other than being consistent.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,929
864
118
Country
United States

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,051
118
Country
United States
If I'm reading that article correctly, Oregon companies are making money by exporting to China.

So that's neat
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,185
969
118
Country
USA
Except my moral philosophy regarding abortion has zero to do with pain or pleasure, as repeatedly explained in the Texas v Abortion thread in exhaustive detail.
Right, and I wasn't talking to you, was I? I welcome the response to anything I say, whether directed at you or not, but "your comment to and about someone else doesn't apply to me" isn't really a counterpoint. I know it doesn't apply to you. The person I suggested that to, however, went on a detailed explanation of why we should afford greater rights to dogs than fetuses based on their capacity to understand suffering. I know that wasn't you. I was talking to them.
I think that claim of "hedonism" is nothing but a bizarre confection of your own devising.
My response to MysteriousGX above is probably as good a response to this as anything.
So your argument is that virtually all the statistics and evidence points to the US healthcare system being both grossly inefficient and for much of the population inadequate, but it's just a "lie" because... you say so?
There are many valid complaints about the way we pay for healthcare in the US, many which I would argue alongside you personally. Grossly inefficient is a fair description. "Unable to get treatment", which you said initially, is much less of a fair description for a country in which health services are prolific and accessible.
One would expect that in a world of perfect equality of opportunity and merit-based advancement, the chances of a child of poor parents to get a job paying $1 million year (or $100,000, or $50,000 or $20,000) to be roughly the same as a child of wealthy parents. But it isn't the case, or even close in the USA. And yet in a country in like Denmark, it is far more likely for that to occur. In other words, being born to a wealthy family affords massive advantages, or being poor grants huge disadvantages.
Honestly, this particular argument is so far from where we started, it's not worth continuing in its current state. Like, yes, wealth does have intergenerational advantages. Those advantages are clearer in a nation that has been wealthy longer. But this argument came from you believing that you couldn't agree with Republicans because we neglect the poor, and your evidence for that was supposed to be social mobility rankings. You're a lot of steps away from making that case stick.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,377
3,500
118
Well it's nice to identify the many various worrying people influencing the growing various madness lately, even if the concept of consequences and accountability seem to be more blatantly reserved mostly for minorities, the poor and fiction now.


On Tuesday morning, hundreds of QAnon followers gathered on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, believing they were going to see John F. Kennedy reappear.

These people had traveled from all over the U.S.—from California, Florida, New York, Montana, and at least a dozen other states. On Monday night there was an almost carnival-like atmosphere in downtown Dallas, as they gathered in anticipation of the predicted return of the assassinated president, something they believed would also somehow trigger the return of former president Donald Trump to the White House and his announcement as “king of kings.”

But by early Tuesday afternoon, that sense of anticipation was fast disappearing, and as heavy rains started to fall, the people who had spent a lot of time and money traveling to Dallas to see JFK gave up and trudged back to their hotels.

But for many, the cost and effort it took to get to Dallas were not wasted, because even though they didn’t see JFK, many of them did get to meet the man they view as the manifestation of God on earth.

Michael Brian Protzman, 58, who his tens of thousands of loyal and obsessive followers know as Negative48, showed up in Dallas to see the prediction he’d made come true.

Protzman, born in the same year Kennedy was shot, has run his own demolition firm, called Eclipse Demolition, for the last 14 years from his hometown of Federal Way, Washington. Records show that the company went into administration last year, around the same time that Protzman was beginning a new career as a QAnon influencer.

But unlike most influencers, Protzman has effectively built a cult within the QAnon movement, where his followers refer to him as a godlike figure, are willing to travel across the country to see JFK resurrected, and most of all, continue to praise Protzman even when the miracle fails to materialize.

His rise within the QAnon world has been rapid. Back in March, his Negative48 Telegram channel had around 1,700 members; today, it has over 105,000 members. But aside from the number of followers Protzman has, what makes him stand out from other QAnon influencers is the loyalty and worship he has engendered in those people.

Protzman has used his newfound fame to spread deeply antisemitic content while pushing highly suspect financial investments to his followers, many of whom confessed within the channel that they are in vulnerable situations personally and are in need of help.

As well as denying the Holocaust, Protzman’s channel has boosted the deeply antisemitic film Europa – the Last Battle, a 10-part film that claims Jews created Communism and deliberately started both world wars as part of a plot to found Israel by provoking the innocent Nazis, who were only defending themselves.

“If you haven’t watched the documentary Europa: The Last Battle 2017, here’s the link,” said the post, sent on Oct. 2. It has been viewed over 38,000 times.

He has also promoted the film Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told and said that if Trump had done what was needed, he would have been compared to the Nazi leader.

Protzman attempts to hide his hatred of Jews by discussing conspiracies related to the Khazars, an antisemitic dog whistle that’s been used by conspiracy theorists for centuries.

But in an audio chat in May, Protzman declared to his followers that “there are no Jews. Period. Anywhere. Period. There is no Jewish race. And the Jewish leadership are basically the British empire, the Roman empire, it’s just the criminals.”

Like many grifters, Protzman is pushing questionable financial advice to his followers. In this case it involves investing in foreign currencies like the Iraqi dinar or the Vietnamese dong, under the pretense that a “great financial reset” is coming and will revalue those currencies on a 1-to-1 basis with the dollar, instantly creating millions of dollars in wealth for those who have invested.

While Protzman tells followers they can buy the currency anywhere, he says that the best way to do it is by signing up on a website he promotes where users have to sign a non-disclosure agreement before making their purchase, an agreement which he said on an audio chat in May that forbids them from discussing the details of the transaction.

“The stuff that I have seen has shaken me to my core,” one researcher who has been tracking Protzman’s activity for months told VICE News. The researcher, who tweets at the Exposing Extremism account, was granted anonymity to protect himself from attacks by Protzman or his acolytes. ”They are brainwashing people with English gematria.”

Protzman’s popularity is built on a bastardized version of numerology known as gematria, a Jewish system of assigning a numerical value to a name, word, or phrase based on the letters used and inferring some sort of spiritual or mystical meaning behind the phrase.

Protzman’s fake gematria is based on English (A=1 to Z=26) rather than Hebrew (Aleph=1 Taf=400)—a system Protzman appears to have co-opted from a similar method developed by English occultist Aleister Crowley.

Protzman applies this fake version of gematria to passages of the Bible as well as QAnon phrases, freely mixing the two worlds to create a link between Christianity, QAnon, and the Kennedys.

Protzman uses this system as “proof” to support the complex and fantastical lies he has told his followers.

In Protzman’s telling, Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had four children with her. This gave rise to a bloodline that went on to create many famous people today, notably the Kennedys.

He also claims that blood-type O is a marker for the Christ bloodline and that the “New World Order” is trying to hunt down that bloodline by DNA testing COVID-19 PCR swabs.

In Protzman’s fantasy world, John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy are the physical second incarnation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, while JFK Jr. is the Archangel Michael, and Donald Trump is the Holy Spirit.

In videos captured of Protzman in Dallas this week, he is seen speaking as if in a trance channeling some higher source and taking words or phrases, assigning them numeric values, and then linking those phrases to other words and phrases with identical values—implying some sort of meaning in those connections.


When JFK failed to materialize in Dealey Plaza on Tuesday, Protzman and many of his followers went to a Rolling Stones concert, where many claimed they met Michael Jackson in disguise.

Protzman did not respond to multiple calls from VICE News to his cell phone, or to text messages, WhatsApp messages, or emails. Calls to a number listed for Protzman’s business went unanswered, while calls to a number listed for his residence was answered by someone who said “no one of [Protzman’s] name lives here.”

As outrageous and unhinged as Protzman’s claims may sound, he has clearly tapped into a demand for these messages.

While other similar groups on Telegram also pushed followers to travel to Dallas, their basis for doing so was Protzman’s predictions. And unlike other online conspiracy influencers, Protzman has so much sway over his followers that he was able to get them to travel from all corners of the country and show up in Dallas based solely on his word that a miracle was going to take place.

While many within the broader QAnon community blasted Protzman and his followers for making a mockery of the movement by staging such a stunt—no, really—and despite the fact the Kennedys didn’t appear at Dealey Plaza, Protzman’s followers remain loyal.

In one group chat on a Telegram channel filled with followers of Protzman on Wednesday evening, one follower said: “I am so energized and feel amazingly positive about all of this.”

Another said: “I think Dallas was a great success,” adding, “I'm so proud of Negative and the people that went there.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,106
6,386
118
Country
United Kingdom
And competing with the UK, who also went on an unnecessary bidding war competing with other nations, because being a government buyer doesn't mean you're not just another buyer.
You think that the entire US competing with the United Kingdom contributed anywhere near as much to the state shortages experienced in the US as the states competing with eachother?

No, that's what you're talking about now to shift away from you saying that you have to have a government to put products in the hands of consumers.
It's literally what I already said in the post you replied to.

I don't exclude them, I'm just pointing out that they're small parts of the supply chain. A supply chain is the series of trades that move from extracting raw materials to putting them in consumer's hands. Insulin for example is a global product that will travel thousands of miles and the materials will change hands dozens of times. The UK government has control of at best less than a hundred miles of that supply chain. The rest of it is completely out of the government's hands. And it's not just insulin, this is basically everything made. And like all chains, a supply chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A plastic and/or glass shortage for example might see an insulin shortage. The fuck is the UK going to do about that?
So, the government doesn't control the extraction of raw materials in other countries, obviously. And that means its control over the supply chain in it's own country is minimal? Even though government actions can (and frequently do) make the difference between acute shortage and surplus?

It's not significant in the same way someone going to the store and buying 3 packages of toilet paper they don't need just in case doesn't contribute to a toilet paper shortage.

It absolutely did.
OK, so, let's assume for a second that the UK competing with the US for international contracts contributed significantly to supply chain shortages in the US. Let's assume (for the sake of argument, because it's patently false) that the contribution was comparable to the impact of states competing with one another in the nationwide bidding war.

The former, there, can be solved by... what, exactly? Nations competing with eachother would occur with either representative or direct democracy. The only difference in D.D. would be that purchase orders would come from 2,000+ different UK providers, rather than 1. Whereas the second issue (the different providers competing with one another within a nation) occurs only in a healthcare system with no centralisation, with each provider acting on their own behalf.

If you think you're too dumb to know how policies would play out, why should I listen to a damn thing you say? By your own admission, you're a bad source of information. I should just blow off anything you say.
Almost as if the degrees of knowledge necessary are vastly different!

*Literally no
*Literally yes.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,082
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Well it's nice to identify the many various worrying people influencing the growing various madness lately, even if the concept of consequences and accountability seem to be more blatantly reserved mostly for minorities, the poor and fiction now.

He's got himself a nice little cult going there. Religion doesn't go away, it just gets weirder and sometimes much more stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,495
3,697
118
You think that the entire US competing with the United Kingdom contributed anywhere near as much to the state shortages experienced in the US as the states competing with eachother?
Yes, because that's how supply chains work. This is how a shortage happens.

It's literally what I already said in the post you replied to.
That you're changing the topic? Yes, but I'm trying not to.

So, the government doesn't control the extraction of raw materials in other countries, obviously. And that means its control over the supply chain in it's own country is minimal? Even though government actions can (and frequently do) make the difference between acute shortage and surplus?
See like this? You weren't saying "in it's own country" before, because that inherently narrows down a supply chain a whole lot. Like, a whole whole lot. So much so that it's not really worth calling a supply chain anymore. You're talking about transporting a few specific goods. And if that's what you're talking about I can still say that private industry may be less egalitarian about it, but they can still deliver finished products too, so what's your point?

OK, so, let's assume for a second that the UK competing with the US for international contracts contributed significantly to supply chain shortages in the US. Let's assume (for the sake of argument, because it's patently false) that the contribution was comparable to the impact of states competing with one another in the nationwide bidding war.

The former, there, can be solved by... what, exactly? Nations competing with eachother would occur with either representative or direct democracy.
Congratulations on reaching the point I set out weeks ago when you brought up supply chains in the first place. You're trying to make an argument of degrees, but a supply shortage caused by a buyup of a good is almost never the fault of any one buyer, but an emergent phenomenon with it's root in "not enough were manufactured in the first place for this sudden demand". The UK contributed to it, but so did Germany, Italy, France, Russia, and yes, individual buyers in the US. So stop trying to say the UK didn't contribute, they did. Stop trying to say the US made it worse on themselves than the UK, that can be true and still not invalidate that the UK made it worse for everyone. It's literally a problem of everyone making it a problem for everyone else.


Almost as if the degrees of knowledge necessary are vastly different!
Well no, they aren't. I'm just going to ignore any serious policy talk from you, because by your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about on any issue.

*Literally yes.
What do you know?
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,377
3,500
118
He's got himself a nice little cult going there. Religion doesn't go away, it just gets weirder and sometimes much more stupid.
Indeed. Although there's an element of extra concern with the intensity of that leader's antisemitism, as it's pretty much Indistinguishable from actual neo Nazis. When you're promoting material like "Europa - the last battle" then you're quite a few thousand leagues deep into that culture. 😕
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,106
6,386
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, because that's how supply chains work. This is how a shortage happens.
Ooooook, sure. So, the numbers. The UK ordered ~30,000 ventilators (significantly more than were needed, by most estimates). Over half of them were from UK manufacturers. So that's <15,000 from overseas manufacturers, over which they have the potential to be "competing" with other nations. The average cost for these was £22,300.

In the US, the cost of ventilators pre-pandemic was between ~$25 - $30,000. So that's roughly in line with what the UK was paying for overseas-made ventilators during the pandemic. Then, in the US during the pandemic, the price of ventilators-- on which individual states were bidding against eachother-- rose to ~$40,000.

The US stockpile is just under 100,000 ventilators. States are having to bid ~$40,000 per unit on them, a price which rose by over $10,000 during the pandemic. And you want to attribute equal weight to an order from the UK for.... 15,000 units, at ~£22,300.

Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is? It's transparently obvious that the inter-state bidding war in the US is what drove the price through the ceiling. Not comparatively measly orders from the UK at much lower purchasing costs.

See like this? You weren't saying "in it's own country" before, because that inherently narrows down a supply chain a whole lot. Like, a whole whole lot. So much so that it's not really worth calling a supply chain anymore. You're talking about transporting a few specific goods. And if that's what you're talking about I can still say that private industry may be less egalitarian about it, but they can still deliver finished products too, so what's your point?
I didn't think it necessary to specify that the national government doesn't control resource extraction in other countries, because that's so blindingly obvious.

My point is that what the national government does control within its own borders-- purchasing, delivery, and stockpile maintenance-- frequently makes the difference between acute shortage and surplus, and I would prefer for those aspects not to be in the hands of price-gouging private interests.

Congratulations on reaching the point I set out weeks ago when you brought up supply chains in the first place. You're trying to make an argument of degrees, but a supply shortage caused by a buyup of a good is almost never the fault of any one buyer, but an emergent phenomenon with it's root in "not enough were manufactured in the first place for this sudden demand". The UK contributed to it, but so did Germany, Italy, France, Russia, and yes, individual buyers in the US. So stop trying to say the UK didn't contribute, they did. Stop trying to say the US made it worse on themselves than the UK, that can be true and still not invalidate that the UK made it worse for everyone. It's literally a problem of everyone making it a problem for everyone else.
Except enough were produced. There were more than enough to meet US demand, in the US. And yet, through a pointless bidding war, they drove the price through the roof and managed to create state-wide shortages, while tens of thousands of ventilators sat unused and unbought while competing interests fought eachother for primacy.

If you want to say the UK's order for 15,000 ventilators at under market price caused that, while the individual US states were outbidding eachother to the tune of $10,000 above market price per unit, for numbers that dwarf the entire UK order anyway, then you're being ridiculous.

Well no, they aren't. I'm just going to ignore any serious policy talk from you, because by your own admission you have no idea what you're talking about on any issue.
"Oh yeah?! Well, you said yourself that you're a stinky buttface, so why should I listen to you?! Yes you did I heard you!!"

Playground stuff.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,495
3,697
118
Ooooook, sure. So, the numbers. The UK ordered ~30,000 ventilators (significantly more than were needed, by most estimates). Over half of them were from UK manufacturers. So that's <15,000 from overseas manufacturers, over which they have the potential to be "competing" with other nations. The average cost for these was £22,300.

In the US, the cost of ventilators pre-pandemic was between ~$25 - $30,000. So that's roughly in line with what the UK was paying for overseas-made ventilators during the pandemic. Then, in the US during the pandemic, the price of ventilators-- on which individual states were bidding against eachother-- rose to ~$40,000.

The US stockpile is just under 100,000 ventilators. States are having to bid ~$40,000 per unit on them, a price which rose by over $10,000 during the pandemic. And you want to attribute equal weight to an order from the UK for.... 15,000 units, at ~£22,300.

Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is? It's transparently obvious that the inter-state bidding war in the US is what drove the price through the ceiling. Not comparatively measly orders from the UK at much lower purchasing costs.
Yes, because those ventilators were taken off the market, driving up the price for literally everyone else unless every ventilator in the UK was only ever going to be sold in the UK, as a closed market. Just because someone buys their toilet paper early at a more reasonable price in one part of a country doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to the price rising and the supply shorting in other parts of the country. It's a global market, and the UK contributed to the shortage of ventilators as everyone did. Even citing that half those ventilators being made in the UK is a bit false as they could have been exported, but weren't because they were bought up.


I didn't think it necessary to specify that the national government doesn't control resource extraction in other countries, because that's so blindingly obvious.
You say now, after spending weeks talking about supply chains and having it pointed out to you repeatedly that you were talking out your ass over this exact point.

My point is that what the national government does control within its own borders-- purchasing, delivery, and stockpile maintenance-- frequently makes the difference between acute shortage and surplus, and I would prefer for those aspects not to be in the hands of price-gouging private interests.
And nobody said it has to be. Putting in an order isn't some herculean task of government beauracracy, it's ordering.

Except enough were produced. There were more than enough to meet US demand, in the US. And yet, through a pointless bidding war, they drove the price through the roof and managed to create state-wide shortages, while tens of thousands of ventilators sat unused and unbought while competing interests fought eachother for primacy.

If you want to say the UK's order for 15,000 ventilators at under market price caused that, while the individual US states were outbidding eachother to the tune of $10,000 above market price per unit, for numbers that dwarf the entire UK order anyway, then you're being ridiculous.
No I'm not. At the very least you have proven that you really don't know how these issues work.


"Oh yeah?! Well, you said yourself that you're a stinky buttface, so why should I listen to you?! Yes you did I heard you!!"

Playground stuff.
If you want to say it like that, I'm just going to take you at your word that you don't know what you're talking about, and it's clear you're correct to value yourself lowly.