So, in the wake of the near-crisis with Iran, Trump managed to escape further scrutiny by essentially claiming that the rocket attacks on the American base resulted in no injuries. This was a bald-faced lie. It turns out nearly 30 soldiers have suffered head injuries ranging from concussions to traumatic brain injuries. Trump has literally dismissed these as akin to "headaches" within the last 48 hours. I will never as long as I live understand how this party keeps getting away with saying they are the ones who "support the troops". Any Democrat who said anything like this would be drawn and quartered on Pennsylvania Ave., and EVERYONE knows it. Hearing a Commander-In-Chief literally dismiss the injuries of soldiers would be flat-out stunning in any other time-line.
Bolsonaro never said that indigenous people are not human beings, he only criticized the culture of burying alive disabled children. And guess what. White people had barbarian costumers too. There is nothing wrong in criticizing a culture.
So, in the wake of the near-crisis with Iran, Trump managed to escape further scrutiny by essentially claiming that the rocket attacks on the American base resulted in no injuries. This was a bald-faced lie. It turns out nearly 30 soldiers have suffered head injuries ranging from concussions to traumatic brain injuries. Trump has literally dismissed these as akin to "headaches" within the last 48 hours. I will never as long as I live understand how this party keeps getting away with saying they are the ones who "support the troops". Any Democrat who said anything like this would be drawn and quartered on Pennsylvania Ave., and EVERYONE knows it. Hearing a Commander-In-Cheif literally dismiss the injuries of soldiers would be flat-out stunning in any other time-line.
The biggest disappointment about Trump is that he before the election was against spend tax payer money to try solve problems in the other side of the world(something that never worked)
So, in the wake of the near-crisis with Iran, Trump managed to escape further scrutiny by essentially claiming that the rocket attacks on the American base resulted in no injuries. This was a bald-faced lie. It turns out nearly 30 soldiers have suffered head injuries ranging from concussions to traumatic brain injuries. Trump has literally dismissed these as akin to "headaches" within the last 48 hours. I will never as long as I live understand how this party keeps getting away with saying they are the ones who "support the troops". Any Democrat who said anything like this would be drawn and quartered on Pennsylvania Ave., and EVERYONE knows it. Hearing a Commander-In-Chief literally dismiss the injuries of soldiers would be flat-out stunning in any other time-line.
Supporting troops for republicans is having a yellow ribbon bumper sticker and thanking them for their service. It's akin to thoughts and prayers with gun violence. You just have to say something nice and that is support enough.
So, first off, there was ZERO reason to call the police in this scenario. For starters, what she SAID she was going to do when she actually went in back and called the cops would have been not only MORE than sufficient, it would have been the only proper procedure to follow. Placing an extended hold on any check of more than $2000 is standard banking practice until the funds can be verified. In the case of $90,000, it would have been likely and even prudent to put the full two-week hold allowed under federal regulations on it. The act of placing the hold alone removes all danger to the bank. If the checks are fraudulent the bank would know LONG before the money was ever made available in the account and it would be returned the day it was confirmed.
Moreover, even if she was legitimately suspicious this guy was some kind of master criminal, the absolute LAST thing you are supposed to do is let that person know you are on to them. Since the man was attempting to open an account to place the checks in, they would have had, at a BARE minimum, his address, social security number, and likely driver's license or state ID. In other words, MORE than enough for law enforcement to track him down if necessary. The fact that she called the cops shows me (who knows something about this) that not only isn't she qualified to be a manager, she isn't to be trusted to have any job in banking at all. Everything she did was both counterproductive and against all standard policy in these situations.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
That didn't happen last time, when Trump wasn't yet a fully known quantity. It is extremely difficult to believe it would happen this time, either.
Also, it is arguable that that kind of thinking holds more long-term danger to American democracy than a dozen corrupt plutocrats like Trump.
That is a bad translation of a out of context speech. He was saying that indigenous communities are having access to things that only the modern world can offer and "evolving" by abandoning practices like burying deficient children alive.
Sure, that might well be a bad translation of an out of context speech.
Was that also what it was when he called Haitian and Middle Eastern refugees "the scum of humanity", or when he called black activists "animals... who should go back to the zoo"?
I mean, there comes a point where the man must be damned by the words he lets come out of his mouth, yes?
Look to his wife. She has a lot of obvious indigenous traits.
"My friend is black!" is an argument virtually every racist uses to protest that they aren't racist. Racists aren't literal cartoon characters, you can be racist and still have friends or family in the group you're racist against.
I will, again, encourage you to educate yourself on what racism means.
I'd like you to educate us on precisely what you think racism means, and what criteria you would use to judge someone racist. Please also name some racist public figures, and why you think they are racist.
The Bolton revelations are both unsurprising and reveal what this impeachment trial is really about, which is Republican Senators. Bolton is a horrible guy, but he (like everyone and everything else) can confirm what we already know. Which is that Trump is OF COURSE guilty of exactly what he is accused of doing. Every Republican Senator deep down KNOWS this. They aren't stupid. They are just craven. At the very least, the idea that Bolton shouldn't be required to at least confirm or deny his claims under oath is absurd. This is asking nothing more than for him to appear and tell the truth of what he knows. Which is that he has first-hand knowledge that Trump was holding the aid SPECIFICALLY to get the investigations. Full-stop. And of course, the White House has known about Bolton's revelations for WEEKS, and was hiding them from the McConnell and the Senate, who are now blindsided AGAIN with yet another shoe. The defense, in the end, is going to be nothing more than what I have been saying it would be for months upon months. He did it, we don't care, fuck liberals, power is power. Trump will OBVIOUSLY survive this. But 4 or 5 Republican Senators probably aren't going to come November.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
That didn't happen last time, when Trump wasn't yet a fully known quantity. It is extremely difficult to believe it would happen this time, either.
Also, it is arguable that that kind of thinking holds more long-term danger to American democracy than a dozen corrupt plutocrats like Trump.
I generally agree that likening Sanders supporters to those wearing a bomb vest is a bit much. I do think the majority will come around.
That said, I still believe that Sander's supporters (In particular, Bernie Bros) are a highly corrosive element in the progressive wing. Their approach is scorched earth in politics. Candidates that are, by and large, reasonable selections for the party are vilified by a constant onslaught.
I'm not a big Buttigieg fan, but the treatment he has received from left twitter, mainly Sander's supporters has poisoned the well, so to speak.
I'm fine with competition, but I am less fine with burning bridges and poisoning wells.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
That didn't happen last time, when Trump wasn't yet a fully known quantity. It is extremely difficult to believe it would happen this time, either.
Also, it is arguable that that kind of thinking holds more long-term danger to American democracy than a dozen corrupt plutocrats like Trump.
I generally agree that likening Sanders supporters to those wearing a bomb vest is a bit much. I do think the majority will come around.
That said, I still believe that Sander's supporters (In particular, Bernie Bros) are a highly corrosive element in the progressive wing. Their approach is scorched earth in politics. Candidates that are, by and large, reasonable selections for the party are vilified by a constant onslaught.
I'm not a big Buttigieg fan, but the treatment he has received from left twitter, mainly Sander's supporters has poisoned the well, so to speak.
I'm fine with competition, but I am less fine with burning bridges and poisoning wells.
Joe Scarbourough said something interesting today that I had no idea was a dynamic. Apparently, after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a significant portion of his support did not, in fact, get in line behind Hubert Humphrey 1968. They turned to George Wallace instead. I'm 100% sure no African-American Kennedy backers did this. Point being, a large portion of people were willing to turn to anyone who wasn't connected to Johnson (like Humphrey) or Nixon, even if he was the most vocal segregationist of the 1960s.
My recent support of Bernie is almost entirely because I realize Democrats are in a hostage situation with his supporters. A large contingent of them not only will not support another nominee, but some of them will turn to Trump out of spite. Many more centrist or older Democrats may be wary, may not even like him, but they WILL vote for him over Trump. I cannot in any way say that about at least 25-30% of Sander's supporters. They are wearing a political suicide bomb and they WILL pull the trigger.
That didn't happen last time, when Trump wasn't yet a fully known quantity. It is extremely difficult to believe it would happen this time, either.
Also, it is arguable that that kind of thinking holds more long-term danger to American democracy than a dozen corrupt plutocrats like Trump.
I generally agree that likening Sanders supporters to those wearing a bomb vest is a bit much. I do think the majority will come around.
That said, I still believe that Sander's supporters (In particular, Bernie Bros) are a highly corrosive element in the progressive wing. Their approach is scorched earth in politics. Candidates that are, by and large, reasonable selections for the party are vilified by a constant onslaught.
I'm not a big Buttigieg fan, but the treatment he has received from left twitter, mainly Sander's supporters has poisoned the well, so to speak.
I'm fine with competition, but I am less fine with burning bridges and poisoning wells.
Joe Scarbourough said something interesting today that I had no idea was a dynamic. Apparently, after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a significant portion of his support did not, in fact, get in line behind Hubert Humphrey 1968. They turned to George Wallace instead.
I dont pretend to know a lot about 1968 election dynamics in general, but it makes sense insofar as the 1960s were rife with political realignment. George Wallace was a Democrat, and though his values contradict RFK's in general, there was always a divide between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. The southern democrats would get onboard with Nixon in his "Southern Strategy", which bloomed in 1972, and are currently the core the Republican Party.
Northern Democrats would ally with liberal Republicans in the west and form the big-tent framework that the Democrats currently exist under.
Still. It makes you wonder how a voter goes from RFK to Wallace. I mean, I get that RFK had some ugly moments during McCarthyism, but... still...
I'm really starting to think that Sanders can actually pull off the Democratic nomination. A few more insults from Hillary might even put him over the top. Now it's just a matter of overcoming Trump's ace in the hole. The economy...
I typically do not post many videos from MSNBC opinion hosts unless I feel quite strongly about the point the are making. And this is one that I have been harping on and has been completely lost in most of this discussion:
Ah, but charging Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, with false espionage charges in the US is okay? Or, of course, that Huawei woman they're trying to extradite from Canada.
The hypocrisy of empires is, as always, rather rancid.
Ah, but charging Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, with false espionage charges in the US is okay? Or, of course, that Huawei woman they're trying to extradite from Canada.
The hypocrisy of empires is, as always, rather rancid.
Yeah, who else is going to investigate actions of our citizens in other countries? The CIA??? It's not in the jurisdiction of the FBI so either it's up to the other country or the UN. I'm not even sure the UN has a means of investigating these kinds of crimes. Maybe somebody can elaborate...
How are the roads in North Dakota? Here in Michigan they're terrible and the State is trying to come up with solutions. Trouble is, nobody trusts the state when they say they need more money (Republicans or Democrats according to polling). Since you have a similar climate to here I'm just wondering if you have the same pothole problems that we do. If not, do you have any idea why?
@Balrog99 "Now it's just a matter of overcoming Trump's ace in the hole. The economy..."
Oh yeah, homelessness is still stupidly high and people are forced to work 3 jobs at minimum wage just to survive. The economy is in SUCH a good place.
@Balrog99 "Now it's just a matter of overcoming Trump's ace in the hole. The economy..."
Oh yeah, homelessness is still stupidly high and people are forced to work 3 jobs at minimum wage just to survive. The economy is in SUCH a good place.
Name a time in history where some people didn't have to struggle. That doesn't mean the economy isn't good.
How are the roads in North Dakota? Here in Michigan they're terrible and the State is trying to come up with solutions. Trouble is, nobody trusts the state when they say they need more money (Republicans or Democrats according to polling). Since you have a similar climate to here I'm just wondering if you have the same pothole problems that we do. If not, do you have any idea why?
I mean, they seem generally fine to me, though I haven't driven for about a year a and a half. But there are constantly huge construction projects every summer on major roads in town. But yeah, in general in this part of the country, the weather is absolute hell on the roads. It goes from possible 90 degree days in the summer to -20 degree days in the winter. That temperature fluctuation plus the snow and ice build up itself is absolute hell on the roads. I don't speak with any firsthand knowledge, but I would be shocked if year-round warmer climates had to have even a 1/3 as much road repair as the upper midwest.
How are the roads in North Dakota? Here in Michigan they're terrible and the State is trying to come up with solutions. Trouble is, nobody trusts the state when they say they need more money (Republicans or Democrats according to polling). Since you have a similar climate to here I'm just wondering if you have the same pothole problems that we do. If not, do you have any idea why?
I mean, they seem generally fine to me, though I haven't driven for about a year a and a half. But there are constantly huge construction projects every summer on major roads in town. But yeah, in general in this part of the country, the weather is absolute hell on the roads. It goes from possible 90 degree days in the summer to -20 degree days in the winter. That temperature fluctuation plus the snow and ice build up itself is absolute hell on the roads. I don't speak with any firsthand knowledge, but I would be shocked if year-round warmer climates had to have even a 1/3 as much road repair as the upper midwest.
I've heard they're not too bad in Minnesota either. I'll have to look up how they fund the road repairs in your neck of the woods...
How are the roads in North Dakota? Here in Michigan they're terrible and the State is trying to come up with solutions. Trouble is, nobody trusts the state when they say they need more money (Republicans or Democrats according to polling). Since you have a similar climate to here I'm just wondering if you have the same pothole problems that we do. If not, do you have any idea why?
I mean, they seem generally fine to me, though I haven't driven for about a year a and a half. But there are constantly huge construction projects every summer on major roads in town. But yeah, in general in this part of the country, the weather is absolute hell on the roads. It goes from possible 90 degree days in the summer to -20 degree days in the winter. That temperature fluctuation plus the snow and ice build up itself is absolute hell on the roads. I don't speak with any firsthand knowledge, but I would be shocked if year-round warmer climates had to have even a 1/3 as much road repair as the upper midwest.
I've heard they're not too bad in Minnesota either. I'll have to look up how they fund the road repairs in your neck of the woods...
I mean, I know for a fact that one side of 1-94 for a ten mile or so mile stretch from Fargo to the Twin Cities has been being totally replaced EVERY summer of my entire life. I've never taken a trip that way from May to October without that being the case. Not once. The next year they move onto another section. But interstates are (I believe) federal. I doubt the state has to cover that cost at all.
US proposals to solve the Israel / Palestinian conflict can be found here.
The press reports I've seen of the proposals are fairly scathing and I can see why that is, though there's quite a lot in the documents I agree with. However, there's no shortage of problems I can see, such as with the following:
- the US is presented one the one hand as a neutral broker, but on the other as a close ally of Israel that can't be expected to ask them to make unreasonable compromises. Those conditions don't sit well together.
- Israel retains responsibility for defense and security in a demilitarized future Palestinian "state". At least in the short term it would also control all air and sea traffic. This is described as being a benefit to Palestine on the grounds they don't therefore have to pay for these functions.
- All existing Israeli enclaves would be incorporated into Israel by forming corridors through a Palestinian state. That's part of the reason why some commentators have suggested this proposal is a fairly extreme type of gerrymandering.
- The various sections of the Palestinian state would be stitched together using bridges and tunnels to allow travel through Israeli territory without jeopardizing security. The tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza would need to be about 60 miles long, which would be an extremely expensive infrastructure project. The idea is the costs of this exercise would be met by an international fund, but that seems far-fetched to me.
- the existing security barrier (moved where necessary) would be retained and Israel would exercise full control over crossings.
- as previously said Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. Palestine would be offered the chance of taking some existing Palestinian suburbs of Jerusalem (outside the current security barrier) and making them their capital (after renaming them).
- there's no recognition Israel bears any responsibility for the current state of the Palestinian people. Instead this is seen as entirely the fault of the Palestinians themselves.
- there are a number of mentions of the intended goal to move Israel and the Arab nations into alliance against Iran. That seems to be rather shoehorned in to reflect the current state of affairs with Iran and is unlikely to be something all parties can rally around ...
I do have some sympathy with the idea that the previous negotiations, which were based on generalities (with the specifics to be agreed at a later date), have run their course. Putting forward specific ideas, at least on less contentious issues, could offer an alternative approach to discussions - trying to build up confidence and momentum from getting agreements on some points. However, it's almost impossible to see that happening in this case when proposals have been developed with no input from the Palestinians or neighboring countries.
I suspect there never will be any negotiations on these and they will quietly disappear. Hopefully though, some of the good ideas will be picked up when/if there are future initiatives by new governments.
This "peace plan" is two politicians attempting to change the conversation in their respected countries regarding their legal situations.
The entire plan and process has been pathetic from the start, but Fox news and the gullible will gobble this up as another one of Trump's "accomplishments." It's time to hand this problem back over to the body that created it, the UN, and bring in some fresh perspective, mediation and dialog in a neutral setting.
I agree about the need for a neutral setting, but that's hard to find. While the US is regarded as not neutral by the Palestinians, the UN is regarded as not neutral by Israel. As long as Israel retains that stance (and the US supports Israel in that), the UN is effectively helpless.
The last initiative to make progress was the Oslo peace process - and an important reason for that relative success was the neutral facilitator role played by Norway. However, that role was supported by the US - under the current administration any country considering such a role would be virtually certain to turn it down on the grounds that the US would be far more likely to sabotage than support any process that didn't follow the blueprint just created.
Yeah, who else is going to investigate actions of our citizens in other countries? The CIA??? It's not in the jurisdiction of the FBI so either it's up to the other country or the UN. I'm not even sure the UN has a means of investigating these kinds of crimes. Maybe somebody can elaborate...
Well, if the rule was "crimes are investigated/prosecuted by the country they're committed in", that would be alright. So would "crimes are investigated/prosecuted by the country the accused is a citizen of". Or a more likely "it depends on the crime, which government is more interested in prosecuting, and some amount of negotiation".
However, when the US insists on one form of justice for itself and one for literally everyone else, there is a problem.
(To answer your question, that's where the ICC and to an extent Interpol would come in. If the US had supported rather than opposing the former, there could be a better framework for international justice.)
We aren't talking about ANY of that. We are talking about the President of the United States openly SOLICITING foreign prosecution of an American citizen for (at a bare minimum), politically advantageous news stories. If there was any ACTUAL belief Hunter Biden had committed a crime by serving on an energy board (and to this date not a single person anywhere has even offered a working THEORY as to what that crime may be), the proper means to look into it would be through, oh I don't know, the FBI or whatever Distirct Attorney would have jurisdiction over him. What absolutely isn't done is sending your personal goon squad to Ukraine (who hold no official title or capacity whatsoever) to get them to do it, and holding half a billion dollars in Congressionally appropriated money hostage until they acquiesce. The fact this even has to be pointed out shows such a fundamental lack of understanding basic Civics that it would be frightening if it wasn't so unsurprising.
If people want to criminalize the benefits of nepotism, we're gonna have to build alot of new prisons. And Trump's children would have their own cell block. Jared and Ivanka are OFFICIAL government employees who made, no hyperbole, hundreds of millions of dollars last year. The fact any Trump supporter anywhere is talking about Hunter Biden is beyond absurdity, it's farcical. This isn't getting paid money by a board for some ceremonial position. They are getting massive loans and trademarks from foreign countries after White House meetings. The difference between the two is like the difference between parking in a handicapped spot and vehicular manslaughter.
Comments
The biggest disappointment about Trump is that he before the election was against spend tax payer money to try solve problems in the other side of the world(something that never worked)
Suggesting that Indigenous people werent human before now is textbook racism.
Supporting troops for republicans is having a yellow ribbon bumper sticker and thanking them for their service. It's akin to thoughts and prayers with gun violence. You just have to say something nice and that is support enough.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-michigan-tried-deposit-checks-his-bank-manager-called-n1122011
So, first off, there was ZERO reason to call the police in this scenario. For starters, what she SAID she was going to do when she actually went in back and called the cops would have been not only MORE than sufficient, it would have been the only proper procedure to follow. Placing an extended hold on any check of more than $2000 is standard banking practice until the funds can be verified. In the case of $90,000, it would have been likely and even prudent to put the full two-week hold allowed under federal regulations on it. The act of placing the hold alone removes all danger to the bank. If the checks are fraudulent the bank would know LONG before the money was ever made available in the account and it would be returned the day it was confirmed.
Moreover, even if she was legitimately suspicious this guy was some kind of master criminal, the absolute LAST thing you are supposed to do is let that person know you are on to them. Since the man was attempting to open an account to place the checks in, they would have had, at a BARE minimum, his address, social security number, and likely driver's license or state ID. In other words, MORE than enough for law enforcement to track him down if necessary. The fact that she called the cops shows me (who knows something about this) that not only isn't she qualified to be a manager, she isn't to be trusted to have any job in banking at all. Everything she did was both counterproductive and against all standard policy in these situations.
That didn't happen last time, when Trump wasn't yet a fully known quantity. It is extremely difficult to believe it would happen this time, either.
Also, it is arguable that that kind of thinking holds more long-term danger to American democracy than a dozen corrupt plutocrats like Trump.
Sure, that might well be a bad translation of an out of context speech.
Was that also what it was when he called Haitian and Middle Eastern refugees "the scum of humanity", or when he called black activists "animals... who should go back to the zoo"?
I mean, there comes a point where the man must be damned by the words he lets come out of his mouth, yes?
"My friend is black!" is an argument virtually every racist uses to protest that they aren't racist. Racists aren't literal cartoon characters, you can be racist and still have friends or family in the group you're racist against.
I'd like you to educate us on precisely what you think racism means, and what criteria you would use to judge someone racist. Please also name some racist public figures, and why you think they are racist.
Judging by your posts, you are the one who should learn.
I generally agree that likening Sanders supporters to those wearing a bomb vest is a bit much. I do think the majority will come around.
That said, I still believe that Sander's supporters (In particular, Bernie Bros) are a highly corrosive element in the progressive wing. Their approach is scorched earth in politics. Candidates that are, by and large, reasonable selections for the party are vilified by a constant onslaught.
I'm not a big Buttigieg fan, but the treatment he has received from left twitter, mainly Sander's supporters has poisoned the well, so to speak.
I'm fine with competition, but I am less fine with burning bridges and poisoning wells.
Joe Scarbourough said something interesting today that I had no idea was a dynamic. Apparently, after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a significant portion of his support did not, in fact, get in line behind Hubert Humphrey 1968. They turned to George Wallace instead. I'm 100% sure no African-American Kennedy backers did this. Point being, a large portion of people were willing to turn to anyone who wasn't connected to Johnson (like Humphrey) or Nixon, even if he was the most vocal segregationist of the 1960s.
I dont pretend to know a lot about 1968 election dynamics in general, but it makes sense insofar as the 1960s were rife with political realignment. George Wallace was a Democrat, and though his values contradict RFK's in general, there was always a divide between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. The southern democrats would get onboard with Nixon in his "Southern Strategy", which bloomed in 1972, and are currently the core the Republican Party.
Northern Democrats would ally with liberal Republicans in the west and form the big-tent framework that the Democrats currently exist under.
Still. It makes you wonder how a voter goes from RFK to Wallace. I mean, I get that RFK had some ugly moments during McCarthyism, but... still...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/economy/nabe-growth-gdp/index.html
I'm really starting to think that Sanders can actually pull off the Democratic nomination. A few more insults from Hillary might even put him over the top. Now it's just a matter of overcoming Trump's ace in the hole. The economy...
The hypocrisy of empires is, as always, rather rancid.
Yeah, who else is going to investigate actions of our citizens in other countries? The CIA??? It's not in the jurisdiction of the FBI so either it's up to the other country or the UN. I'm not even sure the UN has a means of investigating these kinds of crimes. Maybe somebody can elaborate...
Curiosity question...
How are the roads in North Dakota? Here in Michigan they're terrible and the State is trying to come up with solutions. Trouble is, nobody trusts the state when they say they need more money (Republicans or Democrats according to polling). Since you have a similar climate to here I'm just wondering if you have the same pothole problems that we do. If not, do you have any idea why?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-elites-always-rule
Edit: I'm thinking it's time to put the foxes back in charge for a while now...
Oh yeah, homelessness is still stupidly high and people are forced to work 3 jobs at minimum wage just to survive. The economy is in SUCH a good place.
Name a time in history where some people didn't have to struggle. That doesn't mean the economy isn't good.
I mean, they seem generally fine to me, though I haven't driven for about a year a and a half. But there are constantly huge construction projects every summer on major roads in town. But yeah, in general in this part of the country, the weather is absolute hell on the roads. It goes from possible 90 degree days in the summer to -20 degree days in the winter. That temperature fluctuation plus the snow and ice build up itself is absolute hell on the roads. I don't speak with any firsthand knowledge, but I would be shocked if year-round warmer climates had to have even a 1/3 as much road repair as the upper midwest.
I've heard they're not too bad in Minnesota either. I'll have to look up how they fund the road repairs in your neck of the woods...
I mean, I know for a fact that one side of 1-94 for a ten mile or so mile stretch from Fargo to the Twin Cities has been being totally replaced EVERY summer of my entire life. I've never taken a trip that way from May to October without that being the case. Not once. The next year they move onto another section. But interstates are (I believe) federal. I doubt the state has to cover that cost at all.
The press reports I've seen of the proposals are fairly scathing and I can see why that is, though there's quite a lot in the documents I agree with. However, there's no shortage of problems I can see, such as with the following:
- the US is presented one the one hand as a neutral broker, but on the other as a close ally of Israel that can't be expected to ask them to make unreasonable compromises. Those conditions don't sit well together.
- Israel retains responsibility for defense and security in a demilitarized future Palestinian "state". At least in the short term it would also control all air and sea traffic. This is described as being a benefit to Palestine on the grounds they don't therefore have to pay for these functions.
- All existing Israeli enclaves would be incorporated into Israel by forming corridors through a Palestinian state. That's part of the reason why some commentators have suggested this proposal is a fairly extreme type of gerrymandering.
- The various sections of the Palestinian state would be stitched together using bridges and tunnels to allow travel through Israeli territory without jeopardizing security. The tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza would need to be about 60 miles long, which would be an extremely expensive infrastructure project. The idea is the costs of this exercise would be met by an international fund, but that seems far-fetched to me.
- the existing security barrier (moved where necessary) would be retained and Israel would exercise full control over crossings.
- as previously said Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. Palestine would be offered the chance of taking some existing Palestinian suburbs of Jerusalem (outside the current security barrier) and making them their capital (after renaming them).
- there's no recognition Israel bears any responsibility for the current state of the Palestinian people. Instead this is seen as entirely the fault of the Palestinians themselves.
- there are a number of mentions of the intended goal to move Israel and the Arab nations into alliance against Iran. That seems to be rather shoehorned in to reflect the current state of affairs with Iran and is unlikely to be something all parties can rally around ...
I do have some sympathy with the idea that the previous negotiations, which were based on generalities (with the specifics to be agreed at a later date), have run their course. Putting forward specific ideas, at least on less contentious issues, could offer an alternative approach to discussions - trying to build up confidence and momentum from getting agreements on some points. However, it's almost impossible to see that happening in this case when proposals have been developed with no input from the Palestinians or neighboring countries.
I suspect there never will be any negotiations on these and they will quietly disappear. Hopefully though, some of the good ideas will be picked up when/if there are future initiatives by new governments.
The entire plan and process has been pathetic from the start, but Fox news and the gullible will gobble this up as another one of Trump's "accomplishments." It's time to hand this problem back over to the body that created it, the UN, and bring in some fresh perspective, mediation and dialog in a neutral setting.
The last initiative to make progress was the Oslo peace process - and an important reason for that relative success was the neutral facilitator role played by Norway. However, that role was supported by the US - under the current administration any country considering such a role would be virtually certain to turn it down on the grounds that the US would be far more likely to sabotage than support any process that didn't follow the blueprint just created.
Well, if the rule was "crimes are investigated/prosecuted by the country they're committed in", that would be alright. So would "crimes are investigated/prosecuted by the country the accused is a citizen of". Or a more likely "it depends on the crime, which government is more interested in prosecuting, and some amount of negotiation".
However, when the US insists on one form of justice for itself and one for literally everyone else, there is a problem.
(To answer your question, that's where the ICC and to an extent Interpol would come in. If the US had supported rather than opposing the former, there could be a better framework for international justice.)
If people want to criminalize the benefits of nepotism, we're gonna have to build alot of new prisons. And Trump's children would have their own cell block. Jared and Ivanka are OFFICIAL government employees who made, no hyperbole, hundreds of millions of dollars last year. The fact any Trump supporter anywhere is talking about Hunter Biden is beyond absurdity, it's farcical. This isn't getting paid money by a board for some ceremonial position. They are getting massive loans and trademarks from foreign countries after White House meetings. The difference between the two is like the difference between parking in a handicapped spot and vehicular manslaughter.