This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
Depends what you mean by "do business". So the answer is really yes and no. In this instance I think they would be free to send cash (subject to the risk of not being re-elected for doing so), but not enter into an agreement like the Paris one to do so. It would purely be a voluntary waste of public funds. They could enter into a commercial arrangement, but it would be hard to cast anything in the Paris agreement as a commercial deal. What would they be buying for the cash?
[–] 9390006? ago
Hmm.
That seems like a very complete answer. And I'm not sure what they would be getting in return.
Stupid Paris Accord, mucking everything up.