Maybe c99 Should Hold Off On The China Praise

Submitted by edg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 7:58pm

There was a claim in a comment in gjohnsit's recent essay that China sent 2.4 billion masks to the United States (7 per person). There is absolutely, positively no evidence of that happening. It's fake news of the worst sort.

There is this, however:

China imported about 2.5 billion healthcare items, including visors, masks, gloves and ventilators, between January 24 and February 29, according to a report by China’s national customs authority, leaving frontline medical staff in scores of countries without protective equipment just as the virus hit.

Now those Covid-19 infected nations are having to buy it back at often highly inflated prices, according to various reports, handing the Chinese a diplomatic if not commercial coup as they dictate where supplies of essential life-saving equipment is and isn’t shipped.

Critics have accused Beijing of using so-called “face mask diplomacy” to split the European Union by shipping equipment to certain nations on more favorable terms than others, while leaving trade war adversary the United States, currently the pandemic’s epicenter, in a comparative lurch.

Source: Asia Times, 4/6/2020

And this:

American companies sold more than $17.5 million worth of face masks, more than $13.6 million in surgical garments and more than $27.2 million in ventilators to China during the first two months of 2020.

USA TODAY’s analysis of the trade numbers comes as medical professionals on the front lines of the nationwide crisis say they are being forced to reuse or go without personal protective equipment like surgical masks and face shields to account for the shortage.

The data show how U.S. manufacturers stepped up production and cleared out inventory to supply protective medical equipment to China for weeks, even as the threat of the coronavirus to the U.S. became clear.

Source: USA Today, 4/3/2020

And this:

"Trump shipped China 17 tons of American masks and medical supplies," says an ad from American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal super PAC that supports Joe Biden for president. "Our masks and supplies. Supplies we need now."

It’s true the State Department was involved in delivering to China tons of personal protective equipment donated by American companies and organizations in early February. The State Department even lauded the donations as "a testament to the generosity of the American people."

But the medical supplies were not "American" or "ours" in the sense that they belonged to the federal government or came from the National Stockpile, which the ad’s language may lead viewers to believe. The equipment was donated by American companies and organizations specifically for use by health care workers in China.

Source: FactCheck.org, 4/23/2020

In addition, on April 11, NY Times reported that China ceased shipments of medical supplies due to quality issues. On April 16, Wall Street Journal reported that 2.4 million (NOT billion) face masks are stuck in warehouses in China and can't reach the United States because of Chinese export restrictions.

So please, c99, can we stop with the framing of China as some great humanitarian nation only interested in helping the world be a better place? They're just as mercenary as the US if not more so.

Tags:

#china #coronavirus #ppe #covid-19

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:11pm

Maybe C99 should not bash China?

Who has sent doctors and is trying to help, and who is sanctioning countries and promoting war? Please consider US actions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Gaza, Syria, ....

I recommend listening to or reading this interview with economist Michael Hudson
https://moderaterebels.com/transcript-economics-american-imperialism-mic...

Video or transcript.

(26:24)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well what makes China so threatening is that it’s following the exact, identical policies that made America rich in the 19th century. It’s a mixed economy.

Its government is providing the basic infrastructure and subsidized prices to lower the cost of living and the cost of doing business, so that its export industry can make money. And it’s subsidizing research and development, just like the United States did in the 19th century and early 20th century.

So America basically says to the rest of the world, “Do as we say, not as we do, and not as we’ve done.”

So China has a mixed economy that is working very well. You can just see the changes occurring there. And it realizes that the United States is trying to disable it, that that the United States wants to control all the sectors of production that have monopoly pricing — information technology, microchip technology, 5G communications, military spending.

And the United States wants to be able to essentially buy goods from the rest of the world with overpriced exports, American movies, anything that has a patent that yields a monopoly price. And China wants to become — it has decided that.

America, in the 1950s tried to fight China by sanctioning grain exports to China. You mentioned sanctions earlier, the first sanctions were used against China, to prevent them, trying to starve them with grain.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by edg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:22pm

Yeah, sure.

@Lookout

Not one thing in your comment refutes my essay. Instead, you set up straw men and posit lesser evil arguments. Ask the Uighurs and Tibetans and Falun Gong and Muslims just how great China's government is. I'm sure they'll give you glowing reports.

Submitted by apenultimate on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:44pm

I don't get your essay

@edg

China prepared itself? That's evil?

American companies willing sold this stuff to the Chinese instead of America preparing itself? Even in February when it was obvious what was coming? And China should be held to account?

And China trading with countries that have good terms? They weren't the ones who started the tariffs and export restrictions of various things a couple years ago you may recall. They responded in retaliation, sure.

Sorry, I don't get the angst. I don't doubt they have export restrictions because they are probably wisely thinking they might need masks for second and third rounds of virus control. They do have 1.2 billion people . . .

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:02pm

Perhaps you missed the first paragraph.

@apenultimate

That the first comment in gjohnsit's essay was given 18 positive votes despite being completely false doesn't bother you? And you're criticizing me for refuting that false comment in my essay? That's makes me incredibly sad.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:45pm

Michael Hudson is right and so are you, edg

@edg Mike was correct about the U.S strategies of state subsidization to small and large industry over 100 years ago. To a lesser extent, this is still the case. The U.S. does not deserve any merit badges for its continuing sanctions of the poor in too many nations to count. Venezuela and Iran are current prime examples of U.S. extortion.

But your essay is correct. The Chinese, knowing before the rest of us knew, that the proverbial SARS was going to hit the fan, scooped up all the PPE they could. Our "humanitarian" neoliberal companies were only too glad to sell them, knowingly depriving the U.S. of what equipment would be needed in only a few weeks. Maybe, they considered the huge markup such scarcity of supply would bring. Of course, such a drastic markup would appear to be worthwhile to Jane and Joe Q. Public once their countrymen started dropping in the streets.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:19pm

Wasn't that the right thing to do for their citizens?

@Alligator Ed

The Chinese, knowing before the rest of us knew, that the proverbial SARS was going to hit the fan, scooped up all the PPE they could.

They were the first ones hit with this so why was it wrong that they did? Haven't they been sending supplies to other countries now that they are threw the worst? It's just as wrong as FEMA stealing masks and ventilators from the states after they found them, ordered them and paid for them. FEMA just took 5 million masks meant for the VA hospital system. This leaves so many veterans and staff vulnerable to getting the virus. During Bush's tenure every agency in the federal government started stockpiling hollow tip bullets by the billions. The FDA, IRS, SSA down to the tiniest one. So why is this administration stockpiling so much stuff? Does it have anything to do with the national guard from Illinois (?) being sent to DC and being placed under the federal government?

Caitlin has been writing essays about how for the last 3 years we were told that Russia was our enemy and that they were constantly doing nefarious things. Like interfering with our elections. Guess who is doing it this time? Yep. China. I will post her essay on this later just because I think we are getting hit with a lot misinformation and outright propaganda. Let's all keep an open mind and remember to be civil in your disagreements. M-Kay?

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:45pm

Self-interest and game theory

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg Self-interest:
Version 1: I win.
Version 1A. I win, you lose
Version 2. I win, you win
Version ultimate: I lose, you lose.

And with that, the comment concludes with sage advice:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBHbHdqJ7fQ]

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 10:03pm

You lost me

@Alligator Ed

Not sure what this has to do with my comment?

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:42am

Explanation: game theory applies to all human interactions

@snoopydawg Yes. All of them. Most of us prefer the win-win scenario because we are empathetic, social beings who value other people. Giving a cashier money for goods purchased is a trivial but apt example. Cashier, representing the merchant receives money for goods customer obtains. Win-win.

China absconds with entire supply of needed material:
China wins. Other party loses.

Hope that clears this up.

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:09pm

It's ironic.

@Alligator Ed

I find it amusing and ironic that the vaunted "Chinese miracle" was brought about by US consumer passion for cheap big-screen TVs and other cheap goods financed by trillions of dollars of US debt funded by China using American consumer's dollars. It's like a giant Ponzi scheme that transferred up to $500 billion per year to China, without which they'd still be a 3rd world cesspool.

I find it ironic and amusing that Americans are praising China for growth underwritten by that giant Ponzi scheme. But I find it sad that the debt created by our generations' lust for cheap goods must someday be paid by our progeny.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 6:28pm

You are blaming the consumers for this?

@edg

I find it amusing and ironic that the vaunted "Chinese miracle" was brought about by US consumer passion for cheap big-screen TVs and .

When they offshored their factories and nothing was made here anymore where we people supposed to get them from? Or should they have gone without them?

other cheap goods financed by trillions of dollars of US debt funded by China using American consumer's dollars. It's like a giant Ponzi scheme that transferred up to $500 billion per year to China, without which they'd still be a 3rd world cesspool

Guess that's our fault too? I blame the government for it. Kinda reminds me of the people who blame poor people for going into debt while the real problem is that they are getting paid so little they are barely surviving at all.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by edg on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 9:49am

Blaming consumers?

@snoopydawg

Of course consumers are involved. Consumers make purchasing choices along the way that decide which products survive and which don't. For example, televisions used to be made in the US -- Muntz, Philco, Sylvania, etc. Consumers switched their loyalty to foreign brands. Granted, consumer choice was shaped by WalMart and other retailers that pushed higher profit foreign TV sets.

Early in his company's spectacular expansion, Sam Walton or "Mr. Sam," as everyone called him, decided to reach across the Pacific and make imports a pillar of Wal-Mart's business model. Forcing his American suppliers to cut costs, stressing sales volume over high margins, and wowing customers by showcasing one super low-priced item in each category -- all hinged on importing to find the cheapest prices.

"Sam was an advocate of importing. It was his vision," said a retired senior executive, who was a buyer in Wal-Mart's Hong Kong office in the 1980s, and who asked to keep his identity private. "Our first office was in Hong Kong, then Taiwan. Korea soon after. We'd visit factories, see how they store goods. You would look at every step of the process very carefully."

"From the beginning, Walton had bought goods wherever he could get them cheapest, with any other considerations secondary," writes Bob Ortega, author of the Wal-Mart history, In Sam We Trust. By the early 1980s, Ortega reports, Walton "increasingly looked to imports, which were usually cheaper because factory workers were paid so much less in China and the other Asian countries."

WalMart and other retailers provided the opportunity to buy foreign goods. American consumers decided to forsake American brands and instead purchase those foreign-made products. It's disingenuous to blame businesses and exculpate consumers.

As to your second point, we ARE the government. We nominate them, we elect them, we empower them, and we forgive them their sins. If the people solidly opposed something, that something wouldn't occur. We allow deficit Federal spending. The compromise WE have made is that the right gets funding for the military while the left gets an equal and opposing amount for social programs.

Likewise for trade deficits. We want cheap foreign goods, thus we import more than we export. If we refused to buy anything that wasn't U.S. manufactured, then manufacturers would make things in the U.S.

Submitted by on the cusp on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 11:17am

Poor people buy what they can afford.

@edg What is readily available.
It has nothing to do with country of origin, and everything to do with having $ left over with which to purchase food.
Poor people are blamed for most of the ills in the world.
Please don't pile on more blame.

#1.1.2.2.1 Of course consumers are involved. Consumers make purchasing choices along the way that decide which products survive and which don't. For example, televisions used to be made in the US -- Muntz, Philco, Sylvania, etc. Consumers switched their loyalty to foreign brands. Granted, consumer choice was shaped by WalMart and other retailers that pushed higher profit foreign TV sets. Early in his company's spectacular expansion, Sam Walton or "Mr. Sam," as everyone called him, decided to reach across the Pacific and make imports a pillar of Wal-Mart's business model. Forcing his American suppliers to cut costs, stressing sales volume over high margins, and wowing customers by showcasing one super low-priced item in each category -- all hinged on importing to find the cheapest prices. "Sam was an advocate of importing. It was his vision," said a retired senior executive, who was a buyer in Wal-Mart's Hong Kong office in the 1980s, and who asked to keep his identity private. "Our first office was in Hong Kong, then Taiwan. Korea soon after. We'd visit factories, see how they store goods. You would look at every step of the process very carefully." "From the beginning, Walton had bought goods wherever he could get them cheapest, with any other considerations secondary," writes Bob Ortega, author of the Wal-Mart history, In Sam We Trust. By the early 1980s, Ortega reports, Walton "increasingly looked to imports, which were usually cheaper because factory workers were paid so much less in China and the other Asian countries." WalMart and other retailers provided the opportunity to buy foreign goods. American consumers decided to forsake American brands and instead purchase those foreign-made products. It's disingenuous to blame businesses and exculpate consumers. As to your second point, we ARE the government. We nominate them, we elect them, we empower them, and we forgive them their sins. If the people solidly opposed something, that something wouldn't occur. We allow deficit Federal spending. The compromise WE have made is that the right gets funding for the military while the left gets an equal and opposing amount for social programs. Likewise for trade deficits. We want cheap foreign goods, thus we import more than we export. If we refused to buy anything that wasn't U.S. manufactured, then manufacturers would make things in the U.S.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by edg on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 4:50pm

Don't be silly.

@on the cusp

I'm not blaming poor people and I really don't see how you reached that conclusion based on what I wrote. Poor people don't buy Lexuses and BMWs instead of Chevys or Fords. Poor people don't buy $5,000 Korean-made 100" TVs. It wasn't poor people that ushered WalMart into small towns and cities to the detriment of Mom & Pop retailers. And it's not poor people that decide trade policy, although they suffer greatly from it in terms of lost jobs and opportunities.

I wish people would read what I actually write instead of creating some imaginary knee-jerk caricature of it. I didn't even mention poor people in my comment. That's all on you.

Submitted by on the cusp on Wed, 04/29/2020 - 4:17am

Rich people shop at Walmart. SRSLY

@edg @edg Please stop with the rudeness.
I read exactly what you wrote, responded accordingly.
What else have I written that fails your test?

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by on the cusp on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 3:18am

Blacks. Latinos.

@edg @edg Muslims. Hindi. Poor ass whites.
Immigrants. Yemeni. Cubans. Venezuelans. Bolivians. Haitians. Puerto Ricans.
I left out a lot, but I am typing one handed, and my hand got tired.
We, the USA, slaughter some of their population daily.
If we went on murder and war crimes criteria for comparison, just using the US and China, China would look like a saint. Add in some drones and sanctions, it gets worse.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 5:01am

US coup plotters putting Queen Lili‘uokalani under house arrest

@on the cusp
Didn’t get to flee abroad and be fêted by foreign dignitaries and Hollywood stars, with Great Powers’ intelligence agencies and their media assets treating her as head of government of Hawai‘i in exile.

Submitted by Lookout on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 6:53am

I'm not trying to refute you

@edg

I'm saying I read more China bashing here (CB is an exception) than praising, and I'm also saying in the scheme of things, the USA is more evil than China. We war, they build. Not that they are some humanitarian heroes, but are certain;y helping other countries more than we are.

This essay reminds me of the time you criticized me for suggesting MayoPete had CIA connections. Did you see the articles published later which confirm those notions? Like this one and many others.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/30/coup-plotters-cia-agents-mayor-pete-e...

I have no idea about the mask issue you write about here, but in the larger scheme of things I think it is plain to see they are the lesser of two evils.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:15pm

I don't remember.

@Lookout

I don't remember criticizing you about Mayor Pete. I'm not a fan of the CIA, so I don't know why I would have done so. Do you have a link perhaps? As far as I know, there's no way for us to search our comments.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 6:30pm

There is

@edg

Click on your account and then click on your comments.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 7:49pm

That doesn’t bring up a way to search the comments

@snoopydawg

unless by “search” you mean spending hours scrolling through the pages opening and reading each comment one by one until you find the specific one you’re looking for. As far as I have ever been able to find, edg is right, there is no way to run a search for specific text to quickly//efficiently find an older comment, either my own or anyone else’s.

I am, however, blessed (or cursed) with a very good memory. I do not try to file these things away. It just happens that I remember a lot of what I read, including what people say in their essays and comments here.

I was not going to share this, as it could appear I’m a weird stalker for even knowing about or remembering this particular discussion. But, I believe Lookout is referring to this essay by edg from back in November:

Are We Recreating Daily Kos?

The essay was critical of (among other things) calling Mayor Pete a drug dealer. The essay appeared to be sparked by a comment from Lookout in a previous essay the day before.

https://caucus99percent.com/comment/449396#comment-449396

I cannot get the link to go directly to the original comment, so you will have to scroll down a bit to see it. Lookout’s comment was on speculation that Pete was a CIA drug dealer while he was in Afghanistan. So in summary, edg’s criticism was about calling Pete a drug dealer, with no evidence that is true. (And there is still no evidence it was/is true.). And he brought up the general tone of many people at that time who were attacking any candidate who was not Bernie or Tulsi.

My ‘search’ technique was: Remember edg’s essay and the comment that preceded it, then scroll through edg’s essays until I found it, then note the date he published it, then go to his comments page and jump around the pages too find comments from just before the essay date, then scan through them until I found one that looked likely to be connected to the comment from Lookout, open it, and from there scroll to find the comment from Lookout that I recalled about Pete being a CIA drug dealer.

It took me about 10 minutes to dig up the links, based on my memories. If I had not remembered the issue from the time, I would never have been able to locate either or even have a clue where to start looking.

IF there is actually a site search feature that could make this easier, please someone let me know! I have basically assumed we don’t have one due to either the technical challenges of implementing it, or because JtC doesn’t want to encourage people to go digging up stuff from the past. Which is not a bad idea, overall.

Submitted by edg on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 9:57am

Wow, thanks!!

@CS in AZ

You have a great memory and ability to find things. I remember now. You summarized my point exactly. The irony is that I never supported Pete for President. I was a Bernie/Tulsi fan.

#1.1.4.1.1

unless by “search” you mean spending hours scrolling through the pages opening and reading each comment one by one until you find the specific one you’re looking for. As far as I have ever been able to find, edg is right, there is no way to run a search for specific text to quickly//efficiently find an older comment, either my own or anyone else’s.

I am, however, blessed (or cursed) with a very good memory. I do not try to file these things away. It just happens that I remember a lot of what I read, including what people say in their essays and comments here.

I was not going to share this, as it could appear I’m a weird stalker for even knowing about or remembering this particular discussion. But, I believe Lookout is referring to this essay by edg from back in November:

Are We Recreating Daily Kos?

The essay was critical of (among other things) calling Mayor Pete a drug dealer. The essay appeared to be sparked by a comment from Lookout in a previous essay the day before.

https://caucus99percent.com/comment/449396#comment-449396

I cannot get the link to go directly to the original comment, so you will have to scroll down a bit to see it. Lookout’s comment was on speculation that Pete was a CIA drug dealer while he was in Afghanistan. So in summary, edg’s criticism was about calling Pete a drug dealer, with no evidence that is true. (And there is still no evidence it was/is true.). And he brought up the general tone of many people at that time who were attacking any candidate who was not Bernie or Tulsi.

My ‘search’ technique was: Remember edg’s essay and the comment that preceded it, then scroll through edg’s essays until I found it, then note the date he published it, then go to his comments page and jump around the pages too find comments from just before the essay date, then scan through them until I found one that looked likely to be connected to the comment from Lookout, open it, and from there scroll to find the comment from Lookout that I recalled about Pete being a CIA drug dealer.

It took me about 10 minutes to dig up the links, based on my memories. If I had not remembered the issue from the time, I would never have been able to locate either or even have a clue where to start looking.

IF there is actually a site search feature that could make this easier, please someone let me know! I have basically assumed we don’t have one due to either the technical challenges of implementing it, or because JtC doesn’t want to encourage people to go digging up stuff from the past. Which is not a bad idea, overall.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:30pm

Ditto, Lookout

China is an extremely repressive society, and it is announced and known.
Here, we suspend habeas corpus without fanfare, spirit away mostly liberals to secret prisons to undergo secret enhanced interrogations for a time kept secret from the prisoner, who has no access to a lawyer or a court. Most of our population doesn't know that. Chinese people know exactly what is coming if they step out of line. They KNOW they have very little say or choice. We still THINK we have some say, we still THINK we have choices.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:36pm

I'm not familiar

@on the cusp with the story of the liberals being sent to secret prisons to undergo enhanced interrogations. Info and cites pls.

Important for me to know as I could be considered a candidate for such an event and I would rather avoid the experience.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 8:49pm

wokkamile, you could spare yourself such imprisonment

@wokkamile Here is how: get a talented attorney to write you up a Democrat Loyalty Oath, worded something like:

"I, wokkamile, do freely and whole-heartedly commit to vote Blue-No-Matter-Who. I will support any Dem candidate for any office elected or otherwise, including our liege H. R* Clinton.

Submitted by wokkamile on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 8:57am

You must be confused

@Alligator Ed about my statements made here on several occasions to remain undecided at this time on Biden. Bidin' my time. The election isn't until Nov. And I tend to be more independent minded in politics compared to some here, and I usually don't fall in line.

Now, didn't you want to get back to your imagined legal issue about endorsements being withdrawn and your curious idea of a lawsuit for breach of alleged implied contract? Or did you get a talented attorney here to set you straight on that?

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 6:32am

I would like to get a talented attorney

@wokkamile but all questioned have declined, as there is no money in it for them. Perhaps you have someone admitted to the Bar (the Legal Bar, of course) who might be inclined to support pro bono my questions about implied contract.

The implication in your retort about my suspicions about the legality of implied contract is that you think this is just nonsense--which in fact it might be. But as snoopy opined elsewhere in this thread, dear wokkamile, you might be headed for a gulag just because...

Admittedly, not being a lawyer frees my limited mind of all the why's and wherefore's which you might adduce. Thus, please help me with the legal habeas factorum.

Submitted by wokkamile on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 9:20am

Ianal, but

@Alligator Ed OTC apparently is and responded to your inquiry about what was really a double hypothetical -- if there is an unendorsement and if a lawsuit ensues alleging a breach of implied contract.

Actually a triple hypothetical: in order to have any basis for a suit, you first must have a valid contract, which requires something called "consideration", meaning simply both parties must have a meeting of the minds and agree to give up something of value -- money, goods, services, etc. The endorsor obviously gives up something -- his public support for the other candidate. But in the Bernie Endorses Biden scenario, we don't know if Biden gave any promise in return which the parties intended to be part of some binding contract.

But even if he did -- let's say Biden agreed to put a majority of Bernie people on Joe's health task force to be formed and announced by May 1 and agreed secondly to name a progressive as his VP from a short list Bernie would give him and to announce that pick by May 15 -- and May 15 came and went with no promises kept by Biden and Bernie then sued, there would still be two problems as this non-lawyer sees it. First, was such an agreement put in writing? Oral contracts can be enforced for sure, though with more difficulty, and a court would want to know why such promises weren't put on paper. Biden would just say he understood "x" from their agreement, and Bernie would argue they had agreed on "x+2" -- a no-win situation where the court would just say the plaintiff screwed up by not putting it all in writing.

Second, there is in the political world no tradition I'm aware of that makes such political promises binding absent more compelling evidence. Bernie, as plaintiff, might sue and Biden would say there was no binding agreement, just an understanding that Joe would seriously consider Bernie's ideas, and further, this is the way things operate in our political world -- we talk, we might agree even, but neither of us realistically expect any agreement to be legally binding. This is how things work in our industry. And any reasonable judge would find this a good argument.

Similar if Joe sues Bernie for unendorsing -- though there Bernie would have the additional argument that he was just exercising his 1st Am right to free speech in the endorsing and unendorsing.

It might make for a stronger hypothetical and more interesting question to consider if you could come up with some historical cases along these lines involving broken promises in the political world that made it to court with a favorable outcome..

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 1:17pm

Your explanation is helpful

@wokkamile One verity of politics: "all politicians lie".

Hereinafter affiant sayeth naught.

#2.1.1.1.1 OTC apparently is and responded to your inquiry about what was really a double hypothetical -- if there is an unendorsement and if a lawsuit ensues alleging a breach of implied contract. Actually a triple hypothetical: in order to have any basis for a suit, you first must have a valid contract, which requires something called "consideration", meaning simply both parties must have a meeting of the minds and agree to give up something of value -- money, goods, services, etc. The endorsor obviously gives up something -- his public support for the other candidate. But in the Bernie Endorses Biden scenario, we don't know if Biden gave any promise in return which the parties intended to be part of some binding contract. But even if he did -- let's say Biden agreed to put a majority of Bernie people on Joe's health task force to be formed and announced by May 1 and agreed secondly to name a progressive as his VP from a short list Bernie would give him and to announce that pick by May 15 -- and May 15 came and went with no promises kept by Biden and Bernie then sued, there would still be two problems as this non-lawyer sees it. First, was such an agreement put in writing? Oral contracts can be enforced for sure, though with more difficulty, and a court would want to know why such promises weren't put on paper. Biden would just say he understood "x" from their agreement, and Bernie would argue they had agreed on "x+2" -- a no-win situation where the court would just say the plaintiff screwed up by not putting it all in writing. Second, there is in the political world no tradition I'm aware of that makes such political promises binding absent more compelling evidence. Bernie, as plaintiff, might sue and Biden would say there was no binding agreement, just an understanding that Joe would seriously consider Bernie's ideas, and further, this is the way things operate in our political world -- we talk, we might agree even, but neither of us realistically expect any agreement to be legally binding. This is how things work in our industry. And any reasonable judge would find this a good argument. Similar if Joe sues Bernie for unendorsing -- though there Bernie would have the additional argument that he was just exercising his 1st Am right to free speech in the endorsing and unendorsing. It might make for a stronger hypothetical and more interesting question to consider if you could come up with some historical cases along these lines involving broken promises in the political world that made it to court with a favorable outcome..

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:02pm

Suspension of habeas corpus is all

@wokkamile over the site and the alternative news. Look it up.
Liberals being silenced is the damn REASON we have the FBI. Look THAT up.
That info has been available for years.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by wokkamile on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 8:48am

Nah, I can't find much

@on the cusp online except wrt Lincoln in the Late War Between the States, which many here will recall well.

Other than that, there was something from Trump's AG about suspending hc from March, but I don't see any follow up.

Seems to me liberals are doing a pretty good job of silencing themselves -- Pelosi silencing easily cowed liberals in the House, and liberals there doing there usual job of self-silencing with their cowardice.

Agree that the FBI has acted malevolently towards the Left historically, and it's true they occasionally nab a nosy liberal, sometimes in cooperation with their CIA colleagues. But liberals like Max Blumenthal, Michael Moore, Lee Camp and others seem to be operating as usual, so maybe the silencing isn't so widespread.

Not that political suppression can't rear its ugly head at dicey times in the US, but I just don't see what you are referring to. And it's certainly not the equivalent of no political speech as in Xi's China.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 6:37pm

Blaming Trump for something Obama did?

@wokkamile

I have been writing about how our civil rights have been rescinded so many times I'm sick of seeing myself do it. Maybe you have just missed those essays but the last time was either yesterday or the day before. Look up the 2012 NDAA that was written and signed into law during Obama's term. Look at what the ACLU said about it.

If Barr does ask congress to let him do that then just know that they wrote the rules for it long before Trump became president. Just one more thing Trump does that Obama did first.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 9:54pm

This might interest you

@wokkamile

This says that habeas corpus was rescinded in 2001 and re-upped in 2013. I'm not sure if this date is correct, but it's here now. Any president can tell the military to arrest wokkamile for no reason at all and you're thrown into a black hole till who knows when? Lots of other freedoms have been taken from us. I wonder what would have happened if people told the TSA to stick it and just refused to fly? I did, but I doubt that they noticed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/power-grab-likes-which-we-havent-see...

On further thought this might have been included in the patriot act. It was supposed to sunset, but...

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by wokkamile on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 9:28am

Again, the way

@snoopydawg OTC originally posted caused me to think she was talking about ongoing cases involving numerous libs being arrested and put away in a secret prison for interrogation methods beyond the norm, which is why I asked her what was going on now that I had apparently missed.

I am aware there have been things put into parts of fed law, quietly, over the years which could be used -- I just was asking whether this was happening now. Apparently not so much.

On the historical items, yes, but I don't intend every post I create to always delve into the historical background, and sometimes it's true that while something bad is on the books, it's not likely to be used or abused by one president (Obama, even if he helped put it there) but is far more likely to be dusted off by another (Trump). And yes to the argument made that it's dangerous to be putting such things into law, even if by a reasonable, sane president (Obama) bc it could come back to haunt us all later (with Trump).

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 11:44am

Ever hear of Chelsea Manning?

@wokkamile

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by wokkamile on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 11:58am

If otc was just referring

@Not Henry Kissinger to CM and not something more widespread and systemic, which I detected from her post, she could have replied that way.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:04pm

She's far from the only one.

@wokkamile

—

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:25pm

Which country has the biggest prison system?

@on the cusp

According to Hedges we are number one in the world. Yippee for us. I'm guessing that the economy would collapse sooner if they emptied them out.,$.22/hour is what many of them are paid. But if they want to make a phone call it's $3.50 paid to the private companies that have taken control over. Want to read a book? $$$$ Want ...? $$$

We certainly have a big log in our eyes.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:18pm

Then again...

@snoopydawg

China is the world's most active death penalty country; according to Amnesty International, China executes more people than the rest of the world combined per annum, so there's that.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 6:40pm

The Saudis recently beheaded 800 people

@edg

Maybe countries should get their D out and measure who has the biggest one?

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:02pm

While we are on the subject

I’d like to say that RT is not an unbiased source of information. This was made painfully clear to me a while back when I watched Chris Hedges interview Mark Blythe. I have great respect for both of them, but about 10 minutes in, there was this creepy moment when Hedges suddenly asked a question that was a total non sequitur and obvious pro-Russia propaganda to boot. Blythe just shook his head and said no. Hedges artlessly rephrased the question and Blythe again refused the bait. They then moved on as if nothing had happened. Clearly Blythe had been prepped (or was smart enough to recognise it) and when Hedges was done “paying rent” they moved on.

None of these “leaders” jockeying for power (Putin, Xi, Bolsonaro, etc.) are our friends. None. Please don’t think otherwise.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/26/2020 - 9:32pm

I can't think of one site that is

@Hawkfish

I read lots of sites except I rarely read the NYT or CNN unless I'm directed there by someone posting a link. But I do keep an open mind on what I'm reading. Even so I'm sure some propaganda slips in. Remember we trusted news sites long after we should have seen them for what they were. I semi woke up to this during Obama's tenure and became even more awake after Bernie got screwed. Many here took the same journey.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 5:50am

It’s gotten so I have to skim right-wing extremist sites, or

@snoopydawg
else miss certain facts or aspects of situations that mainstream media in Europe are reluctant to report.

The most obvious example of this pattern: intentionally becoming very vague and unspecific concerning suspects in crimes when they have migrant backgrounds or are asylum-seekers.

Take this case where in the English town of Bolton, some weeks ago 7-year-old Emily Jones was stabbed to death in a park:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-52222752

Are right-wing populist sources revealing an inconvenient truth when they all agree that the 30-year old woman accused of the stabbing is Somali?

There’s no way to check — other, more “standard” sources seem to want to neither confirm, nor deny, nor offer any additional information.

The idea is that readers / listeners / viewers “shouldn’t” care what the ethnicity of the suspect is, so even if “we” the journalists know, we simply won’t tell them.

The trouble with that idea is, I immediately ask myself, okay, what ELSE do they think I “shouldn’t” be allowed to know and are therefore not telling me (or even lying about — all for the sake of what they see as a good cause, of course) …

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:28pm

just as a 'for instance'

@lotlizard

The Propaganda Multiplier, swprs.org

It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.

The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.

A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a US and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.

lots more text, charts, bolded sections, but i do admire this truth:

“What the agency does not report, does not take place”

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 12:21pm

RT?

@Hawkfish

Not one of my sources for this essay.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 7:57pm

I didn’t mean to imply

@edg

That it was. I was actually agreeing with you obliquely that some of the news sources I see cited here are questionable. Sorry if that was not clear.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by edg on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 10:17am

No problem. Thanks. n/t

@Hawkfish

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 10:01am

Maybe edg should change his title.

One comment in one essay does not a website make.

—

Submitted by edg on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 8:46pm

Maybe not.

@Not Henry Kissinger @Not Henry Kissinger

If it were just one comment, I'd agree. But since it was the very first comment in a gjohnsit essay (most read essayist on c99) AND it was given 18 upvotes AND it was totally false AND was unchallenged by anyone but me, then I strongly disagree. Has critical thinking died on c99? Do we just accept and upvote random assertions without checking?

Especially considering that another comments in the same essay is "The Chinese people like their socialist government".

That the people running the US government are and have been assholes both domestically and internationally is a fact. But that fact hardly means that we should bow down and praise China, especially when the praise ("China sent US 2.4 billion masks") is a flat-out lie.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 8:11pm

Critical thinking has not died here, thankfully

@edg

I for one appreciate any and all fact checking and corrections or challenges to false or wrong information. It saves me a lot of time! And I appreciate the people who do it.

I have to agree that there are times when unfounded information does go unchallenged, or mostly so, and there is a tendency to upvote comments and essays saying something popular, even it’s not factual. That is why I personally check everything I can, or I just let it go by if I don’t have the knowledge, time, or energy to fact check something. There are certainly some writers I’ve learned to trust more than others. It’s all part of the free-wheeling nature of this place.

Submitted by on the cusp on Mon, 04/27/2020 - 10:50pm

The prison unit

@snoopydawg in Hunstville,TX, the site of Death Row, has 65 inmates with the corona virus. I hear guards are understaffed, working double shifts, that it has gone to hell there.
@Not Henry Kissinger

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 12:08am

Now multiply that by every prison in this country

@on the cusp

Many states are letting people out of prison but not people like Riley Winters and Julian Assange of course. This country is dead set on making sure that Julian dies in prison. The court hearing has already been decided no matter what evidence is shown. The consortium news article is a must read as are the comments.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 04/28/2020 - 1:19pm

This should save Texas considerable expense

@on the cusp when those about to die do so without further judicial intervention.