294
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
294 points (97.4% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4927 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m pretty sure they were going to do that with or without him. the party responsible for the incident should be the one fitting the bill
Yes, but ascertaining liability and securing a payout is a process that may take many years of being dragged through the courts, if it is even successful at all.
The government making money available immediately does help get things going with less uncertainty about who can foot the bill.
this is all good... the problem is that, with the issue solved, nobody will put pressure to get that money back
look at the BP spill, they barely took a hit on their profit margin and left a mess that nobody is looking at anymore
Yeah that's a great way to get an immediate injunction from a judge. That's not how these things work.
they think the shipping company owns it's cargo?
I seriously doubt people who say that kind of thing have thought this through for more than about 4 seconds. It's like having a conversation with a Michael Bay movie.
Damn, I had to drop my phone so I didn't feel that burn myself.
Unless you're a pirate 🦜
I'm gonna ignore all the legalities that would have to be worked around to even attempt that plan, and skip straight to the final step of selling the seized goods.
Not sure that fire damaged and/or waterlogged goods are gonna fetch a good price. The ship burned, and partially sank.
Why didnt the bridge have insurance?
That’s the federal government
… why?