The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

I am well aware that they are US residents. After all, the law that was waived banned non-US shipping interests from carrying cargo between 2 US ports.
I referenced fuel & water because that's what the article GF posted specifically referred to. I have read elsewhere that internal distribution problems are choking off supplies of all sorts.
So, again, a lack of shipping capacity isn't the problem.

[Gatefan1976]

Yeah, when your infrastructure gets levelled, you do tend to get "internal distribution problems"

depends.jpg

[Falcon Horus]

When we abandon ship, I will not play this women and children first chivalry. It's every Jelgate for himself

That chivalry hasn't been applicable since the Titanic went under.

Anyone surprised?

https://www.axios.com/white-house-le...494919129.html

Nope.

[Annoyed]

Yeah, when your infrastructure gets levelled, you do tend to get "internal distribution problems"

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42439[/ATTACH]

Yes, you do. But the law was waived to increase shipping capacity to the island. That increase in capacity is no longer useful because they are not able to handle the incoming traffic internally. What is the point of maintaining the exception to the law? Simply to provide an additional market for non U.S. carriers? Or is it a foot in the door to getting the law dropped permanently in order to benefit outside shipping businesses?

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, you do. But the law was waived to increase shipping capacity to the island. That increase in capacity is no longer useful because they are not able to handle the incoming traffic internally. What is the point of maintaining the exception to the law? Simply to provide an additional market for non U.S. carriers? Or is it a foot in the door to getting the law dropped permanently in order to benefit outside shipping businesses?

Do you have -any- conception of how ignorant you sound?
Shipping needs to supply other things besides consumables, consumables that are time reliant are even less useful when you do not have the infrastructure to -move- them.
You are a mechanic, how's about I give you 4 new tyres, but ignore your blown engine, slipped diff, dodgy cambers and shot drive-train?
I GAVE you tyres, why are you not moving??
THAT is your argument.

As for the shipping, put whatever checks you want on it, let it stand until the issue is dealt with, but limit non US ships. The issue with the shipping is TAX, so for anyone to land goods in a "disaster zone" is facing that tax, which is the last thing disaster victims need to deal with.

[Annoyed]

Do you have -any- conception of how ignorant you sound?
Shipping needs to supply other things besides consumables, consumables that are time reliant are even less useful when you do not have the infrastructure to -move- them.
You are a mechanic, how's about I give you 4 new tyres, but ignore your blown engine, slipped diff, dodgy cambers and shot drive-train?
I GAVE you tyres, why are you not moving??
THAT is your argument.

As for the shipping, put whatever checks you want on it, let it stand until the issue is dealt with, but limit non US ships. The issue with the shipping is TAX, so for anyone to land goods in a "disaster zone" is facing that tax, which is the last thing disaster victims need to deal with.

What tax are you referring to? I was under the impression that the issue was the restriction of what flagged ships could carry cargo between US ports, and the temporary lifting of that restriction to increase incoming capacity.

[Gatefan1976]

What tax are you referring to? I was under the impression that the issue was the restriction of what flagged ships could carry cargo between US ports, and the temporary lifting of that restriction to increase incoming capacity.

Jesus Christ, I give up.
All issues exist in a vacuum.

[garhkal]

That chivalry hasn't been applicable since the Titanic went under.

In some regards it still is that way.. Just look at most hostage situations... When the cops ask for 'hostages to be freed as a 'sign of good faith', its ALWAYS women and kids first being asked for..

[aretood2]

I am well aware that they are US residents. After all, the law that was waived banned non-US shipping interests from carrying cargo between 2 US ports.
I referenced fuel & water because that's what the article GF posted specifically referred to. I have read elsewhere that internal distribution problems are choking off supplies of all sorts.
So, again, a lack of shipping capacity isn't the problem.

Yes, you do. But the law was waived to increase shipping capacity to the island. That increase in capacity is no longer useful because they are not able to handle the incoming traffic internally. What is the point of maintaining the exception to the law? Simply to provide an additional market for non U.S. carriers? Or is it a foot in the door to getting the law dropped permanently in order to benefit outside shipping businesses?

What tax are you referring to? I was under the impression that the issue was the restriction of what flagged ships could carry cargo between US ports, and the temporary lifting of that restriction to increase incoming capacity.

You are missing the point. Puerto Rico has nothing. There are entire regions that have No books, no computers, no power, no reliable transportation, no real phone service or telecommunications, no buildings, no beds, no blankets, no medicine, no food, no stoves, no refrigerators, no stores, no warehouses, no working hospitals, no power lines, no accessible roads, insufficient fuel, no reliable shelter (Hurricane season isn't over), no operating schools (All books, computers, supplies damaged in flooding and storm), no economy.

Adding a tax does not help, it just makes things harder. Adding a cost instead of finding ways to lower costs just makes things harder. What little PR does have, is costing them a fortune. They might as well have been nuked by North Korea.

In some regards it still is that way.. Just look at most hostage situations... When the cops ask for 'hostages to be freed as a 'sign of good faith', its ALWAYS women and kids first being asked for..

I haven't heard of this at all, to be honest.

[Annoyed]

You are missing the point. Puerto Rico has nothing. There are entire regions that have No books, no computers, no power, no reliable transportation, no real phone service or telecommunications, no buildings, no beds, no blankets, no medicine, no food, no stoves, no refrigerators, no stores, no warehouses, no working hospitals, no power lines, no accessible roads, insufficient fuel, no reliable shelter (Hurricane season isn't over), no operating schools (All books, computers, supplies damaged in flooding and storm), no economy.

Adding a tax does not help, it just makes things harder. Adding a cost instead of finding ways to lower costs just makes things harder. What little PR does have, is costing them a fortune. They might as well have been nuked by North Korea.

Frankly, I don't know what "tax" GF is going on about.
There is apparently a law which prohibits non-US flagged shipping to deliver cargo from one port to an other. Because there are only so many eligible ships in the region, an exemption was granted immediately after the storm to increase the capacity of materials that could be moved to PR.
That resulted in PR's transportation infrastructure being overwhelmed. It can't handle the volume of material being brought in.
What is the point of maintaining the exception if they can't handle the incoming quantity?

[aretood2]

Frankly, I don't know what "tax" GF is going on about.
There is apparently a law which prohibits non-US flagged shipping to deliver cargo from one port to an other. Because there are only so many eligible ships in the region, an exemption was granted immediately after the storm to increase the capacity of materials that could be moved to PR.
That resulted in PR's transportation infrastructure being overwhelmed. It can't handle the volume of material being brought in.
What is the point of maintaining the exception if they can't handle the incoming quantity?

I don't see what the point of the waiver in this is in the first place. Governments don't need to dictate how much of X can or cannot be shipped anywhere. As soon as transportation is set up,
and new supplies are needed, that law will impede recovery directly.

[aretood2]

Let me add a few more details about the Jones Act. Basically it's a protectionist scheme from the early century intended to promote American shipment. It made it more expensive for non American ships to go between two US ports. So a Foreign ship can't stop at Hawaii, drop off cargo, and pick up new cargo and go to San Francisco to offload the new cargo. This makes compitition basically dwindle down causing prices to rise. Which is why it is so expensive to ship things to Puerto Rico from the US.

The Jones Act was unquestionably waved imediatly for the mainland states hit by the Hurricanes. However Trump felt that he had to "Think" about it because companies didn't want him to lift it for Puerto Rico...so somehow the victims of the mainland are more "worthy" of imediate action. But victims of Puerto Rico require a lot more justification and convincing of private companies in order to take any action.

Do you get it yet, Annoyed?

[Falcon Horus]

The Jones Act explained by the Maritime Law Center, for anyone interested.

In some regards it still is that way.. Just look at most hostage situations... When the cops ask for 'hostages to be freed as a 'sign of good faith', its ALWAYS women and kids first being asked for..

Never heard of it, but the rule is basically a myth to begin with anyway.

It comes forth from an athropological viewpoint that a society has to protect the most vulnerable in their midst, and in every tribe, community and society, children are considered the weakest and are also the future of the tribe, community or society. Without children you die out.

Women are considered the caregivers in the patriarchal set-up of humankind (and the barers of children), and therefor under the rules of chivalry the male half of the population will be ushered to be the gentleman and let the woman get rescued first.

Note: holding the door for a woman to exit first, is not considered very chivalrous as you neglected to check whether it's save for her to leave. A misconception of the gentleman-ways.

If you are offended that women and/or children get preferential treatment in anything, you only have your fellow men to blame for that. You literally created that whole thing yourself.

Now to the hostage situation -- if it bothers you so much that children, in particular, get preferential treatment of being released before any men in that situation, you should really do a little soul searching and wonder why that might make you angry.

Then again, considering Sandy Hook didn't change anything about your gun laws, children are probably not the people's priorities to protect.

And for the record...

The Protection of Women in International Humanitarian Law
31-12-1985 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 249, by Françoise Krill

[Annoyed]

Let me add a few more details about the Jones Act. Basically it's a protectionist scheme from the early century intended to promote American shipment. It made it more expensive for non American ships to go between two US ports. So a Foreign ship can't stop at Hawaii, drop off cargo, and pick up new cargo and go to San Francisco to offload the new cargo. This makes compitition basically dwindle down causing prices to rise. Which is why it is so expensive to ship things to Puerto Rico from the US.

The Jones Act was unquestionably waved imediatly for the mainland states hit by the Hurricanes. However Trump felt that he had to "Think" about it because companies didn't want him to lift it for Puerto Rico...so somehow the victims of the mainland are more "worthy" of imediate action. But victims of Puerto Rico require a lot more justification and convincing of private companies in order to take any action.

Do you get it yet, Annoyed?

I get it, but do you?

You may recall, I favor protectionism of US industry, and that is indeed my primary concern with objections to the temporary waiver being rescinded. Those who favor "free trade" think they have a foot in the door towards repealing the law altogether. Sorry, I'd rather slam the door shut on that foot.

[Starsaber]

I get it, but do you?

You may recall, I favor protectionism of US industry, and that is indeed my primary concern with objections to the temporary waiver being rescinded. Those who favor "free trade" think they have a foot in the door towards repealing the law altogether. Sorry, I'd rather slam the door shut on that foot.

Even though it causes significant impacts to the cost of living for all US islands (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the US Virgin Islands mainly)?