cybersin

Most already are, or moving towards it. But no, that's not a good thing.

Though, as America is still the global superpower, the debt really isn't as important as you suggest, but of course I wouldn't speak out against slashing defense spending and hiking taxes on wealthy individuals and big business.

Why would they come to America if they thought poorly of it? Immigrating to the US is no trivial matter and requires a large commitment of time and effort. Of course immigrants think highly of the US. Whether or not their perception of America is based in reality is another matter entirely.

I'm sorry, but there is no situation where it is permissible to stand idle as someone suffers an untimely and preventable death.

Even soldiers at war, captured in foreign territory without visas, are entitled to lifesaving care.

OK. So by that logic, let's say you are touring Europe and have a heart attack. The paramedics are in the area and available, but refuse to take you to the hospital. You are left to die on the street.

You think you deserve such foul treatment?

When a government is informed that people are dying within its waters, and the gov has the capability to respond but deliberately chooses not to because the victims are "african", you think that the government bears no responsibity for their deaths?

Is it really so different though? The outcome of both situations is the same. Migrants are dying, through direct action and deliberate inaction.

Mediterranean nations have the opportunity to protect lives, but instead they choose kill / let migrants die.

You are defending willful negligence that leads to the deaths of migrants.

Up to 1 in 13 migrants die in the Mediterranean. Italy as well as Greece have been allowing migrants to die as a part of deterrence-based migration policy. Rescuing the passengers of capsized migrant vessels has been criminalized. There are plenty of articles that confirm these facts. Here is one example.

Since higher number is obviously better, the entire world should just be like the USA.

I see no problem with this.

What do you mean "palestine"?

Do you not recognize the Palestine Authority, but instead believe the entire region has always belonged to israel via biblical predestination?

It was "palestine" before it was ever "israel", unless you mean the mythical (biblical) "Kingdom of israel", of which there is no evidence of its existence.

The fact is, Zionists invaded "palestine" and took the land and homes of the then-current native Palestinians for themselves.

But sure, free "palestine" from those who murder civilians and children.

right now

Only just recently?

Line goes up in relation to how successfully the corporation pursues the agenda of those with power (read: money).

Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?

South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.

After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn't go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?

If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.

Why are there foreign judges serving in Hong Kong?

It is a holdover from Hong Kong’s past as a British colony. After the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the agreement between the countries stipulated that the special territory would continue to operate with its freedoms and systems for 50 years- including its common law legal system which operates in several other jurisdictions worldwide. Currently there seven foreign judges remaining on the court– three British and four from Australia.

So, foreign judges who are meddling in HK affairs are upset that China (the inheritor of HK) is meddling in HK affairs?

If the West actually cared about HK independence, why do they wish to maintain colonial judges in HK courts? If they cared, shouldn't HK judges be in HK courts?

While China has been heavy handed in its effort to speed up the timeline of the power transfer, in the end, the West has concluded that HK is to be Chinese territory. By the West's own policy, these are foreign judges getting kicked out by the "rightful" new rulers, just a bit early.