US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 85

On November 23 2018 00:34 iamthedave wrote:
Yeah. That's unfortunate. Hopefully the case stands as a reminder for other people who might have the same idea. Given it's a US citizen does the US have obligations to do anything in particular?

On November 23 2018 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


Depends on the usage of "obligation" I'd say apologize, Trump might want to bomb them for all I know.

On November 23 2018 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


Depends on the usage of "obligation" I'd say apologize, Trump might want to bomb them for all I know.

On November 23 2018 04:36 LegalLord wrote:


Damn, those natives have a pretty smart policy.

In terms of legal obligations I'd say the most "proper" action right now would be to do nothing. An idiot got himself killed doing something he shouldn't have. The natives did everything right in this situation.

BERLIN — Denmark and Finland both announced Thursday that they would halt future arms exports to Saudi Arabia, following a similar decision by neighboring Germany earlier this month. The Danish and Finnish announcements come the same week President Trump backed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, despite the CIA assessing that he ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Denmark’s ban includes goods that can be used both for military and civilian purposes but is still less expansive than the German measures, which also included sales that had already been approved.

While the Nordic countries are tiny arms equipment exporters in comparison with bigger players such as the United States, Britain or France, their decision will probably exacerbate concerns within the European arms industry of a growing anti-Saudi consensus in the European Union and beyond.

Even though Trump has suggested that he will put Saudi investments and arms exports revenue above human rights concerns, lawmakers across the political spectrum and on both sides of the Atlantic have grown increasingly alarmed.

Apart from the killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in October, a Saudi-led coalition has been accused of numerous human rights violations in Yemen since 2015. On Wednesday, international humanitarian organization Save the Children said that 85,000 children had starved to death there since the beginning of the intervention.

On November 23 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Maybe Trump will just try to sell the island weapons to defend itself against a real US invasion in a couple years.

But seriously, selling Saudi Arabia weapons and calling them an ally? Are people really making some moral justification for this?

Personally the starving 10's of thousands of children to death and bombing school buses and hospitals would have been more than enough reason to stop, but at least having a US journalist assassinated and chopped up into pieces was enough for some of our European peers to say enough (sorta).



www.washingtonpost.com

The country using our weapons to slaughter innocent children is our ally, the country that exposed corruption among our political system through hacking got 2 years of wall to wall coverage of how dangerous and evil they are and why they have to be our enemy.

On November 24 2018 02:14 Danglars wrote:
If you can reconcile “seemed fully supportive” and “yes they suck, but,” chances are that your descriptions lack nuance anyways and nobody should really care.

On November 24 2018 02:14 Danglars wrote:
If you can reconcile “seemed fully supportive” and “yes they suck, but,” chances are that your descriptions lack nuance anyways and nobody should really care.

On November 24 2018 23:08 iamthedave wrote:


You're welcome to set the record straight with your deeply nuanced views on the issue.

On November 25 2018 01:07 Danglars wrote:

The point is, someone who can put together full support and admit the supporters have deep misgivings does not possess the critical faculties necessary to warrant further probing on the topic. Let me crib some micronesia to say, I'm just going to give up on you on this thread.

On November 23 2018 03:50 GoTuNk! wrote:


It's important to recognize the islanders right to enforce their borders, imagine the chaos of allowing illegal aliens to come in un cheked

On November 25 2018 01:07 Danglars wrote:

The point is, someone who can put together full support and admit the supporters have deep misgivings does not possess the critical faculties necessary to warrant further probing on the topic. Let me crib some micronesia to say, I'm just going to give up on you on this thread.

On November 25 2018 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm still curious about your "but..." though? fyi I've heard "but" from Democrats and Republicans, I'm just curious what your "but" is or anyone else that has one.

On November 25 2018 03:41 Jockmcplop wrote:
I know the debate about health and costing in the US is very old, but its still absolutely shocking to me when I read stories like this one:

https://truthout.org/articles/parents-deliver-ashes-of-diabetic-children-to-price-gouging-insulin-manufacturer/

Alec Smith died 3 days before his payday because he had to ration his insulin, which cost him $1300 every 3 months. This is an INSANE price for something that so many people rely on to live. In the UK, insulin is free on the NHS, the people of our country get to live and the people of the USA have to die. For what reward? So that the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies can be slightly richer than they already are.

What a totally fucking immoral system.

People from literally any other point in time or location on Earth would agree with me surely.

On November 25 2018 03:49 iamthedave wrote:


Location on earth, maybe, but point in time? Things were an awful lot worse if you wind the clock back a century or two.

At one point most people believed that it was the genuine prerogative and right of the lord to good health, and the peasants had to rely on the will of god alone.

On November 25 2018 03:49 iamthedave wrote:
At least now most people are pissed off about it. And people being pissed off is at least the catalyst for change in a lot of cases. It strikes me as a straight up improvement that the ACA - flawed though it is - enjoys bipartisan support, which means that over time the government is likely to iteratively improve on it.

Maybe a bit of finger crossing going on there. GH, how well/bad does the ACA actually function? It sounds okay in practice, but I'm well aware that things usually sound an awful lot better than they function in the real world.