OT: effect of US Govt shutting down software accounts

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20904030/adobe-venezuela-photoshop-behance-us-sanctions

Adobe is shutting down service for users in Venezuela
in order to comply with a U.S. executive order. This
is not the first time something like this has happened.
It's foolish and short-sighted for the Trump govt. to
behave this way, because it sends the message that if
one places their operational reliance on a U.S. based
supplier, they can be summarily shutoff and damaged,
without recourse; it's safer to use non-U.S. products.


--
Thanks,
- Win

From the comments: "If Adobe was any good at understanding law, this
would never have happened. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc aren’t
doing this, why does Adobe think it applies to them?"

The level of political / civic naivete in the comments is sort of
charmingly innocent on the one hand, and sort of scary on the other.
Our universities aren't doing their jobs.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:26:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote...

Would you have felt the same if similar tactics were
used against apparteid SA?

It's basically a terrible policy approach. Consider,
Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, against
the wishes of most of the rest of the world. Now he
is ramping up punishments to companies, etc., in the
EU if they ignore his Iran edicts. He has activated
a new tool to create mayhem, his favorite activity.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I thought the Iran deal was very unhelpful, essentially
putting Iran on the fast track for nukes and ICBMs. But
I was particularly appalled at the way it was dishonestly
portrayed, then unlawfully evaded the constitutional
requirement for ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate.

But 2/3rds of the Senate were not going to approve the treaty,
so Mr. Obama just called it a 'deal' instead, unilaterally
committing the country to an unfavorable deal he concocted
in secret, without the country's consent. That's unlawful.
And he misprepresented the terms, and linked numerous undisclosed
side agreements. That's not how a representative republic is
supposed to work.

Weren't there pallets of US currency involved too?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Whoey Louie wrote:

Trumptards

What a phenomenally stupid thing to say.

When Cruz was gone, I voted against Clinton. Democrats had a good
candidate (but only one!) named Webb and they don't seem to remember him
at all. They piss and moan about Trump and fail to introspect at all -
and I mean they fail totally the way a psychotic person or a child fails
to introspect - about what they might have done better, as if they make
no mistakes and they made the perfect choice.

Such people have no business calling *ANYONE* an idiot, or any
quasi-retarded neologism.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 10:26:31 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote...

Would you have felt the same if similar tactics were
used against apparteid SA?

It's basically a terrible policy approach. Consider,
Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, against
the wishes of most of the rest of the world. Now he
is ramping up punishments to companies, etc., in the
EU if they ignore his Iran edicts. He has activated
a new tool to create mayhem, his favorite activity.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I thought the Iran deal was very unhelpful, essentially
putting Iran on the fast track for nukes and ICBMs.

IDK how it put Iran on a fast track for nukes. They were forced
to ship their enriched uranium out of the country and were limited
to low levels of enrichment. It was being monitored by UN inspectors
and they say the Iranians were complying. It's now, because Trump
reneged on the deal that Iran recently announced they were now
enriching beyond the agreement.




But

I was particularly appalled at the way it was dishonestly
portrayed, then unlawfully evaded the constitutional
requirement for ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate.

I think it was a bad deal too. Obama should have pushed with harder
sanctions and should have gotten a better deal. But that doesn't mean
that Trump reneging on it made any sense. Trump's main issue with the
deal was that Obama did it. If Trump had done the same thing, then it
would have been Trumpstastic.

It's not the first executive agreement that has been done that way
and it won't be the last. Meanwhile we have nothing from the big
critic, the stable genius, nothing at all. No agreement with NK,
no agreement with Iran, no trade agreement with China. So much for
Art of the Deal.

But 2/3rds of the Senate were not going to approve the treaty,
so Mr. Obama just called it a 'deal' instead, unilaterally
committing the country to an unfavorable deal he concocted
in secret, without the country's consent. That's unlawful.

Nonsense. It's been done before and it will be done again.
possibly by Trump.

And he misprepresented the terms, and linked numerous undisclosed
side agreements. That's not how a representative republic is
supposed to work.

I agree, there was some shystering there. But again, it's not the first
time a president has made a deal with some unknown side agreements.
I suppose if you want to outlaw it, Congress could pass a law.

I dunno if Mr. Trump's sanctions will have the desired effect,
but I'm hopeful sanctions will be better than what was previously
essentially a green light + loads of money to make it happen.

Cheers,
James Arthur

The loads of money is mostly a Trump and GOP lie. They word it to make
it sound like it was US govt money. The money was from legitimate
money the US owed Iran for defense purchases that they had paid for,
but that the US cancelled after the 1980 hostage affair. I think some
may have been money that was impounded subject to trade sanctions too,
but it was always Iran's money.

There are many problems with Trump's approach:

1 - Why would Iran trust us again, when Trump just reneged on the existing
deal made just a few years ago?

2 - Trump doesn't just want a nuke agreement, he demands it include not
only nukes, but missiles, their support for Syria, Yemen rebels, Hezbollah,
etc. He demands they become Sweden and that isn't going to happen.

3 - It would be humiliating for the Iranian leaders to cave in to Trump's
demands after having made a deal already.

4 - All the other countries in the JOPCA don't agree with Trump and
the Iranians figure Trump won't be there much longer

5 - Each Trump fiasco and scandal makes him weaker and weaker.

6 - For what Trump demands, what really would have to happen is regime
change, that appears extremely unlikely. And all his economic pressure,
could produce an even worse result. Trump learned nothing from Iraq,
Libya and Afghanistan. The last one, we really had no choice, but it
too shows how it's impossible to right a country and that instead you
can wind up worse off.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 3:26:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Whoey Louie wrote:

Trumptards

What a phenomenally stupid thing to say.

You mean "Trumptards never cease to amaze"? That's not stupid, it's
an observation.

When Cruz was gone, I voted against Clinton.

I voted for neither. I was in a solid blue state, I thought at the time
that my vote would not have mattered. If I was in a swing state, I
would have regrettably voted for Clinton, at least she's sane and not
a complete fool and also not anywhere near as divisive as Trump.
I would have hoped that her term would have been similar to Bill's.
In retrospect I wish I had voted for her, just to increase the popular
vote against Trump, so he would have lost the popular vote by even more.





Democrats had a good

candidate (but only one!) named Webb and they don't seem to remember him
at all.

The GOP had many good candidates, but instead the Trumptards insisted on
Trump. And now that they haven't learned from their mistakes, as they
continue to support him through one stupid fiasco after another, as they
are in the process of running him again, they have indeed become Trumptards.



They piss and moan about Trump and fail to introspect at all -

and I mean they fail totally the way a psychotic person or a child fails
to introspect - about what they might have done better, as if they make
no mistakes and they made the perfect choice.

Such people have no business calling *ANYONE* an idiot, or any
quasi-retarded neologism.

That's just factually wrong. Sure, some do, some Democrats never gave
Trump a chance, just like some GOP never gave Obama a chance. Many
others, like me, hoped that he would change. He has changed, he's
actually gotten worse. I'm not going to have a lying shyster spit in
my face, tell me it's raining and shout "All hail Dear Leader".
Trump has done many really, really stupid and awful things. No point
in listing them, it wouldn't matter to you. My last step was to
withdraw my registration as a Republican back in June. I'm not going
to be part of a party that defends a lying, incompetent shyster that's
a threat to our national security. I wish I had done it sooner.
Even many at Fox have finally started
to turn. He lost Matt Drudge. Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson just
totally blasted him for what he did with the Kurds, so maybe the
Evangelicals are starting to turn. Those supporters are the biggest
hypocrites. Evangelicals supporting a serial adulter, who dates porn
stars, who lies all the time, cheats, insults, divides. How that's
consistent with what their churches teach, IDK.

Enjoy the rest of your ride on the clown bus!

 

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote
in news:qno0ku$uq2$1@dont-email.me:

Whoey Louie wrote:

Trumptards

What a phenomenally stupid thing to say.

When Cruz was gone, I voted against Clinton. Democrats had a good
candidate (but only one!) named Webb and they don't seem to
remember him at all. They piss and moan about Trump and fail to
introspect at all - and I mean they fail totally the way a
psychotic person or a child fails to introspect - about what they
might have done better, as if they make no mistakes and they made
the perfect choice.

Such people have no business calling *ANYONE* an idiot, or any
quasi-retarded neologism.

Donald J. Trump spent a lot of time bitching about Iran. All the
while he tries to get a guy responsible for defiying sanctions
against Iran to the tune of billions of dollars out of prison and
released to... You guessed it... Turkey.

Who had Giuliani as a lawyer.

The criminal plots thickens, and yes, dipshit, they are IDIOTS.

They should both go to GITMO and be put on bread and water.

 

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:52:42 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:26:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote...

Would you have felt the same if similar tactics were
used against apparteid SA?

It's basically a terrible policy approach. Consider,
Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, against
the wishes of most of the rest of the world. Now he
is ramping up punishments to companies, etc., in the
EU if they ignore his Iran edicts. He has activated
a new tool to create mayhem, his favorite activity.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I thought the Iran deal was very unhelpful, essentially
putting Iran on the fast track for nukes and ICBMs. But
I was particularly appalled at the way it was dishonestly
portrayed, then unlawfully evaded the constitutional
requirement for ratification by 2/3rds of the Senate.

But 2/3rds of the Senate were not going to approve the treaty,
so Mr. Obama just called it a 'deal' instead, unilaterally
committing the country to an unfavorable deal he concocted
in secret, without the country's consent. That's unlawful.
And he misprepresented the terms, and linked numerous undisclosed
side agreements. That's not how a representative republic is
supposed to work.


Weren't there pallets of US currency involved too?

$1.7B in non-US currency.