The same place you do for people without a terminal diagnosis - you have to have a system for doing that anyway.

I have to say, that doesn’t seem unreasonable. My understanding is that one can get a terminal diagnosis long before one becomes too sick to work.

I’d say that this actually illustrates one of the strengths of the American system. In a context of bitter partisan division, the delegation of authority to individual states prevents an all-or-nothing national outcome and gives people places to go where the government is aligned with their needs and their values. Obviously relocating is expensive and disruptive, but the most powerful right a citizen can have is his exit right.

They don’t have a majority in the Senate for it even if the Senate accepts it as a budget bill, which is not guaranteed.

But whatever you do, don’t call him an extremist.

The author of this article seems to be arguing against an attitude towards Elon Musk which doesn’t actually exist. There’s no widespread perception of him as a moderate, and no taboo against calling him an extremist. Major newspapers aren’t making a big deal of his endorsement of this film because it isn’t surprising, not because they tacitly approve.

I don’t even know what the good outcome here would be, given the terms of America’s surrender. Maybe it would be better if Iran pushed too far and forced Trump to re-enter the war.

What I don’t get is why prices aren’t already rising more than they have. It seems like literally everyone except the Trump administration itself expects the strait of Hormuz to remain blocked for a long time, so shouldn’t that be priced in already?

This is the correct thing to say, no matter what he might actually think. The less that he appears to be concerned about the cost of the war, the stronger his negotiating position against Iran is.

I mean, the article seems to do a pretty good job of answering the question in the headline. There isn’t strong evidence in the files (which have been released) that anyone else was involved in sex trafficking.

The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

I didn’t expect someone explicitly opposed to majority rule to call me an enemy of democracy…

As a matter of fact, I agree with you that there’s a difference between maximal democracy and good government. Sometimes it’s good to have a barrier between people’s whims and power, whether that barrier is anti-majoritarian procedure in Congress which is preventing Republicans from passing this law or a rule that prevents someone who didn’t go through the process of getting valid ID from voting.

There’s a difference between reinterpreting and simply considering a quote in context. “There” is the Strait of Hormuz and “it” is oil shipped through the strait.

He clearly meant defending the Strait of Hormuz specifically, not attacking Iran generally. Still a bad idea, but not what people are taking the quote to mean out of context.

It’s not enough to have fair elections - a democracy needs elections generally perceived as fair. It would have been better if the Republicans hadn’t created the widespread, false perception that voter fraud is common, but the fact of the matter is that they did and merely trying to convince the public that there is really no problem hasn’t worked so far. If 71% of the voters want to have to show proof of citizenship, and if most of the ones prevented from voting because of that are low-information voters likely to vote for Republicans anyway, I say let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.

I feel like Democrats shouldn’t have been fighting the Republicans on this. The law is popular, not entirely unreasonable, and potentially going to hurt Republicans rather than Democrats at the polls.

Why does the headline claim he said something that he didn’t in fact say?

He’s right. Even when starting a war was a mistake, you can’t just pretend that you didn’t. Stopping unilaterally isn’t necessarily the best course of action.

That’s not quite that what the said.

“We expect casualties with something like this,” the president said. “We have three, but we expect casualties - but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.”

Not the phrasing I would have chosen, but it sounds like he means “a great deal of good” as in “We’ve done a great deal to help.”

With that said, any President has to weigh the costs and benefits in lives of military action - it would be crude to explicitly say that some number of soldiers’ lives is a favorable exchange for a military objective, but it’s essential to do that math in private.

It was because they needed an established ally in the middle east to help them control oil reserves, and to oppose socialist governments in Palestine they worried would align with the Soviets.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing - the Soviet Union was a hostile power and the USA needs oil.

The leaders were set to meet where the offices of the Iranian presidency, the supreme leader and Iran’s National Security Council are located.

Where the Iranians not even trying to avoid all getting killed at once? They must have thought that this was a bluff.

What’s the reasoning behind treating this as a scandal? Clearly participating in Epstein’s crimes would be blameworthy but simply doing business with someone who had been convicted of crimes seems fairly neutral to me - one might argue that a decent person should be so disgusted by the crimes that he would refuse to associate with the criminal in any way, but how is that supposed to work as a general principle if the criminal in question isn’t independently wealthy? Do sex offenders just never get to have jobs again?