USA News and Poland - part 8

Where am I going to go that is any safer than where I am at right now ?


Northern Michigan and the U.P. have been prepped for what's coming for a long time now.
The first thing that you will see is shortages which my guess will start before summer and gradually get worse throughout the summer.
Then the panic buying will start but it will be to late.


Do you really think that they are going to let him be our president again ?
I will be very surprised if he is still sucking air come November.

Hawaii.


Yes, I think he will win the election.

He has the same chance as Navalny had in Russia. I mean from prison, not grave.

Just as with alcoholics, the US has to hit the bottom. Trump will only delay this moment just as he and gutless RINOs did in 2017 and 2018.

Step 1: Write a new and sane constitution. This one is not working. See 34T debt and 3 million foreign scum pouring in unstopped each year.

Illegals are now allowed to fly with no identification and only the paper they signed to show up in court that the filled out falsely.

You can't make this sh!t up.

I am literally sick when I watch the news from the border because this shyt is not reversible.
As in Europe, we will never get rid of this garbage because nobody is stupid enough to take it from us.

Biden, in his fvcking infinite stupidity promised the US would rebuild the bridge that collapsed after being hit by a container ship. Never fvcking mind that the shipping company and the insurance company for the ship are multi billion dollars companies! Biden just bought more political donations with US taxpayer money! This POS cannot be allowed to continue.

I hope you are wrong JR. I pray for a Trump win now. I hope every rainbow haired fvcktard with 120 different pronouns pulls their hair out or jumps off a bridge when it happens. This left wing socialist agenda has to be killed, one way or another. And as safe as your area is, there are enough leftist nut cases in TC, P, G, C, and other cities to set things off. And dont get me started on the people from the D who own places up there now.

Or in his common sense.


The bridge and its value to society come first. They can claim the costs off the insurance company later.

And if there's a future dispute. America doesn't exactly lack lawyers or the ability to legislate.


Smoke a joint or take some Xanax. The people on that city do need a bridge, and providing infrastructure (and dealing with the finances/litigation/insurance etc) is one of the things that governments are for.

You are right jon357.
The new fad now is for Black thugs to lambaste upper glass older women in the face while walking down the street minding their own business.

No rhyme, no reason besides they are rich White privileged b!tches in their eyes.
Would you care to address that jon357 ?

Cobblers.


As the person who commented on the bridge.

We're talking about public infrastructure not your racist fantasies.

Hey, stupid, is the FBI a racist org? It is they who report how 6% of Americans commit 60% of murders. That 6% are black males.

That is why racism is the first tool in the survival kit here.

I didn't think you would address the new Fad that is happening in our bigger cities. (Google it and then tell me that it is a fantasy) 😗


Yup, they move up here in Gods country with a pocket full of cash to get away from it and bring it right along with them.

And nasty, toxic, shameless, rude, ill-mannered, ungodly, vomit inducing Novi wonders why I don't invite him up here for lunch so he can get his foot in the door. 😮

Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, it's too late.

I'm much more interested in the bridge that came down than people I don't know behaving badly.

@jon357
The collapse was caught on video, and the bridge wont be rebuilt more quickly with government money. Really man, just keep your fvcking thoughts about my comments to yourself. I want no discourse with you.

The bridge was not built with federal money in the beginning. And therefore tax payers should not have to pay for it. It is an accident covered by insurance and therefort eh insurance and other company directly responsible should pay. This is a crime being committed by Biden to fleece the taxpayers once again.

@PolAmKrakow
It still needs rebuilding without delay.

And governments, not private companies, are for infrastructure.


It's a public forum. Set up a private one somewhere if you can't handle that.


So what.

Get a bridge up and running and then claim it off the insurance.


Any lawyer, judge or jury would disagree...

@jon357
When federal money is used to build state infrastructure without congressional authority, or a referendum, it is illegal. This is a crime in that Biden is using public money to secure political donations to his campaign by not making the Democraticly owned companies pay for the damage they cause. And if you knew anything about public funding, it would be done more quickly privately. Now, once again, dont direct comments at me. We do not like each other, stay in your lane I will stay in mine.

Repair society's infrastructure, you mean.


I'm sure your government have lawyers to advise them. Even very good ones.


Or more likely to get it done quickly and claim it in the insurance.


It's a public forum.

If your fascist chum 'novichok' refrains from making pointless, racist, bigoted and frequently obscene replies to my comments literally daily. I'll consider ignoring your rants.

Until then, Suck it up, Buttercup...

@jon357
You dont know or understand anything in the US. Biden made his comment to a reporter in a press conference, and please continue to observe how he will be told he cant do it. You cant make an insurance claim after the fact, and it is Marylands jurisdiction, not the US. You started this with me, so until you are man enough to confront me in person or discuss your stalking me in private, I will continue to not be polite to you. Dont be such a pu$$y, and tell me who you are, that can be done in private. What do you have to hide? And I am sure you know that stalking someone online like you have is illegal.

@PolAmKrakow

I think the biggest issue - is that a taxpayer funded reconstruction would be 5X more expensive than one paid for by an insurance company.

Everybody loves Uncle Sam's money, and when he pays for something - you do it as slowly, expensively, and idiotically as possible. He'll have no choice but to accept your revised budget.

Meanwhile, some insurance company will bend every contractor over backwards to ensure cheapest possible cost and rule out overruns.

So when the Feds bring the bill to the insurance company, it'll have a lot to complain about. Also, the people of Baltimore would likely be worse off in a government funded reconstruction.

@PolAmKrakow
He's their president. If he wants to build a bridge, he can build a bridge.


You sure as hell can't make one before the fact now, can you...


Not a lawyer, are you.... Nobody is being 'stalked''.

Your threats don't work.

He's not a king, but the Executive branch of our government. He can ask that a bridge be built, but one cannot be built by fiat-unless he has the personal resources to fund such an endeavor.

It's the legislative branch-the USian Congress (house of reps and senate) that control the purse strings. So, he needs to ask Congress to fund it.

The Dept of Transportation, which is an agency within the Executive Branch, does have certain funds (given to them by Congress) to cover emergency needs; however, those funds are capped well below the cost of this bridge rebuild.

PAK is right, the shipping company-ie, its insurer-is going to be liable for the lion's share. However, this will be litigated, so something needs to be done while it's being litigated. And whatever is done is going to have to go through Congress and/or the State of Maryland.

Biden was wrong and reckless in saying feds would pay for it all. He said it because it's election season. Well, that and he is a sociopath and congenital liar.

@Bobko

You pretty much nailed it.

The insurance company will have much to argue their position with a judge.

@Bobko

Agreed. The insurance company will most probably pay a negotiated price.

Remember that cruise ship that caused a bunch of damage, I think it was in Italy, not all that long ago? The insurance company didn't pay full amount, but they paid a large sum.

There are other considerations than just the bridge. There'll he loss io life and property suits, as well. What'll be interesting to see is if a court is willing to entertain an economic loss claim. There's a big sugar factory right next to that bridge that will be effected big time, not to mention the countless other concerns that will be effected. I think there's some law(s) that protect against those suits, but if there is negligence on part of shipper discovered might change things n

Look.

If it takes the government, as usually happens, years and years to get a replacement in place - then the economic costs could easily balloon to billions of dollars.

The last time anyone paid billions of dollars, was BP for Deepwater Horizon. There, everything was pretty clear cut.

Here, if you begin to throw years of the Port of Baltimore being out of service as "economic damages", it can also result in a claim of billions. Therefore, TIME has the biggest role to play here.

This is what I would certainly use an an avenue of attack as a lawyer for Maersk and the insurance company that underwrote the ship.

@Bobko

Well, the chances that an economic lose claim would even win are slim to none. I think there are laws on the books that pretty much make it a non-starter.

However, if negligence is found, I wonder how that could be spun and whether a court would bite.

To split hairs, Maersk has no liability. It's the ship owner company from Singapore that does. Maersk, may have a claim for damages though since they are the holders of the cargo on the ship.

The reality is it is WAY too soon to know how any of this will shake out. There's a tangled web of tentacles associated with such an endeavor.

It hasn't prevented certain government officials from naming them as possible counterparties in a claim.

Either I've forgotten more law than I realize (very possible) or the gov official is doing some grandstanding.

@AntV

Presumably - you charter a ship, you should have done your due diligence in regards to its sea worthiness.

To my mind - and seemingly to yours - this is a joke. I am a victim.

Maybe, the key factor, is that people know Maersk is capable of shelling out billions.

You have to remember most gov officials have neither the experience nor common sense to know how the real world works.

You probably have hit the nail squarely on the head that they know Maersk has very deep pockets, which, of course, means they can afford the very best legal counsel; which means, taxpayers will pay gobs of money to fund the gov in its losing case against Maersk.

It's worth remembering that doing things the cheapest is not always the best option. Especially in something that should withstand a lot like...a bridge

My company had many times been called in to fix problems created by works carried out by companies that outbid us for the project. Usually turns out to be a lot more expensive than giving us the job on the first place. If we even touch it that is