Yeah, it's fair and balanced to say the sun rises in the east and the sun rises in the west.

If the two are opposites it's not fair and balanced. One is wrong and one is right (as in this case) or, perhaps, both are wrong.

Neither scenario is fair or balanced.

I understand that you (Bob) and Donald agree that what Obama did was wrong. And so it was doubly wrong of "Liberals" to have supported him so blindly. That is a legitimate though biased point of view which I would be foolish to argue against for it is your belief.

In that case please enligten us about what are you two aiming to achieve by throwing excrement in the general direction of a fan?

What is the plan? What can the US propose that Iran IS going to ratify? Will Iran (and North Korea and China and, come to think of it, any country) have any interest to make a new deal with the USofA, if they either brag and throw insults or sulk and walk away?

Complying (for the most part) voluntarily was a resonable step in the right direction for both Iran and the US, how does trashing this agreement help? I mean how does it help anyone except Donald in the short term by pleasing fanboys?

Donald usually avoids stating aims (or makes multiple confusing proclamations) and then claims any outcome as a victory. What is a victory in your scenario - regime overthrow? change of Iranian public attitudes towards "America"? a more friendly "supreme leader"? a different ruling moslem faction? or maybe fluctuating oil prices? restructuring of oil field ownership?

Obama limited this to nuclear weapons, seems like a good idea in retrospect, frankly.

Yeah if that tyrannical government lines up a few choppers to shoot at a cluster of dissidents standing in the open. Rather silly statement for a completely unrealistic scenario, like saying you need an AR15 to defend against a tyrannical government.

Feels like Douchbag Scenarios....

Uber's long term goal is to cut drivers out altogether.
(Not sure how that would work for this dreamed up helicopter scenario...)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/uber-s-first-self-driving-fleet-arrives-in-pittsburgh-this-month-is06r7on

To be fair, this guy speaking seems to be pretty racist himself. He mentioned things about wishing we had sent former slaves back to Africa because we are still using them as sort of slaves. Also talking about 400 years plots, getting a passport so you can flee to Africa, and such. Guy is a nutjob if you ask me.

This has been done quite a few times. It never works. Worst case scenario is a repeat of what happened in Cambodia. Best case is that they will eke out a subsistence living poorly managing the land they have seized.

No no no, being inspired by her, by itself, is indeed less offensive than being inspired by Hitler, the consequences are less dire.

But having the gall to admit publicly that you are inspired by her unconditionally is equally as bad as .. substitute Adolf where applicable.

By doing either you admit to be a self-conscious antisocial asshole.

I understand that reading her book can accidentally shove you in a better direction than before, and that is very unlikely in the other scenario, I give you that.

I was inspired by Vladimir Mayakovsky and Che Guevara for what thats worth :-)

So a general all-encompassing nod to her is just like a general nod to any evil. And you dont get out of that by quantifying evil and making it relative.

The sad thing is that Tuvalu isn't going to be around much longer to spend that sweet sweet tld money.

In addition to being tiny, it's also barely above sea level and so incredibly susceptible to climate change.

Basically, they're in serious trouble. Even the best case climate change scenarios probably still spell doom for Tuvalu.

Unless of course it was blurrier, like from a security camera. Forensics would likely still be able to determine it's a fake, but it could well be that a damning clip could have a huge impact before that happens. I could absolutely envision scenarios where this sort of tech could easily ruin a person's life.

Ordinarily, I'm willing to give bad parking the benefit of the doubt. I've been in a scenario where I've been forced to park badly because the car next to me was across the line, which forces the car next to me to do the same and so on and so on.

But in this case, that's not even possible because she's parked beside the trolley(trundler in American?) bay.

Philosophically I am conflicted, but gotta admit, I am very curious to know what I'd actually do.

but I don't think I'd get past the screening. It would be interesting to see if the people that may have a predisposition to some sort of trauma would react differently in the moment. I mean, obviously completely unethical to find out, but still interesting.

Also, did any of participants have knowledge of the trolley problem before? Were they able to recognize the scenario without the deception being revealed? Would having thought about how they'd react previously prompt them to make a decision faster in the heat of the moment, or would perhaps doubts about the realness of the scenario cause them to be passive?. questions. so many questions

Also from Vox, an interview with Political Science Professor Peter Feaver : https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/17/16656856/trump-congress-nuclear-weapons-war

He says, in the instance that the United States is under imminent threat, the above applies, otherwise:

"The other scenario is that the president wakes the military up in the middle of the night and says, "Hey, I wanna do a nuclear strike," and in that setting, he would raise a lot of alarms throughout the chain of command. People would be saying, "Well, what is this? Why are we doing this?" It would require a lot more people to say, "Yes. This is the right decision." "

Good article
Sounds like the normal scenario.
Cop violates someone's rights violently. Department pays victim some taxpayer's money. Bad cop transfers to another department so they can claim he was fired, and the scenario repeats.
I think when a civil servant like a cop is fired for cause, they should be blacklisted from the profession like any other professional criminal is, and should lose any pension or other benefits they "earned". That might make them less confident that their actions won't come back to hurt them.

You don't know who you are in this scenario?
You are the camera hole with the electrical tape peeled off.

I'm positive this isn't what Mr Rogers meant.