BIGUN

I'm not sure I understand your point.

VAT & GST are basically the same as sales tax. The primary difference between sales tax and GST lies is how and when the taxes are applied throughout the supply chain. VAT and sales tax are also basically the same. It’s just that VAT is the most common consumption tax system in the world, while sales tax exists only in the United States.

This. Why so many Americans are now moving to the Independent Party - myself included. The crevasse has grown way too wide. I hate it. I saw my former party getting worse about it. "Independents are a growing cohort of voters—according to Gallup, more Americans identify as independents (40%) than as Democrats (29%) or Republicans (30%). Independents overwhelmingly identify as “moderate” and state they agree with both major parties on certain issues. For example, independents tend to trust Democrats more on abortion, healthcare, and climate change, while they prefer Republicans on the economy, gun rights, and immigration.** Despite their numbers, millions of independents are excluded from primary elections across the 15 states with closed congressional primaries and the 22 with closed presidential primaries." https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-growing-cohort-of-independent-voters-becomes-critical-segment-of-electorate ** I don't necessarily agree with this paragraph. There has to be a leader out there somewhere that can bring both aisles back together with some common sense legislation, or lead the new Independent Party to growth.

I see him as creating chaos, stepping back and watching people gravitate to the chaos while he rubs his hands in delight.

Jakee, We're done here. I'm putting you on block again. Do the same to me.

Antagonistic Narcissism Traits: Aggressive and Confrontational Behaviour: The antagonistic narcissist will always be in a state of competition. They may interrupt others, dismissing their ideas in a very demeaning expression, and as a result, constantly be engaged in power struggles. Intentional Manipulation and Gaslighting: They will also engage in manipulation to an extreme degree, which will often involve denying any hurtful actions and insisting those things either didn’t happen or that their partner is just too sensitive. Exploitation of Weaknesses for Personal Gain: In the workplace, to further their own agenda, if they notice a colleague has a fear of public speaking, they might intentionally put them on the spot during presentations to make themselves look better by comparison. Deliberate Provocation of Conflicts: They might also stir up animosity within their friend circles, pitting friends against each other and watching the fallout, often using this to divert attention from their own flaws and missteps/mistakes. Lack of Empathy and Remorse for Harm Caused: In a family dynamic, an antagonistic narcissist may bully their younger sibling, completely unmoved by their distress. Even when confronted, they will show no remorse, gaslighting and blaming their sibling for being ‘too sensitive.’ https://theprivatetherapyclinic.co.uk/blog/5-types-of-narcissism/

Afternoon, Jerry. Thank you. It is a different level of Due Process called Substantive Due Process. And, to yours and Joe's point, while legal - is not very high on the bar of morality. Course, we have a new "Department of War" And a trillion dollar budget to flex. What could go wrong. Department of War - Jesus. ~Keith

The Coast Guard has the authority to enforce U.S. laws and regulations on vessels under specific conditions: Flag State Jurisdiction: If a vessel is registered in the United States, the Coast Guard has full authority to board and inspect it, regardless of its location. Hot Pursuit: The Coast Guard may pursue a vessel that is suspected of violating U.S. laws, even if that vessel is in international waters, provided the pursuit begins in U.S. waters. Interdiction of Illegal Activities: The Coast Guard can stop vessels suspected of engaging in illegal activities, such as drug trafficking or human smuggling, even in international waters. This often involves cooperation with other nations and adherence to international law. Safety and Environmental Concerns: The Coast Guard can also take action if a vessel poses a danger to navigation or is causing environmental harm. There is an extension of 200 miles from US soil of a vessel headed toward the US afforded under the Monroe Doctrine and recognized by International Law.

My shit is backed up with source citations - yours is just noise.

Your only reason to exist seems to be to come on here and try to push people's buttons. You could have done a simple Google search. The U.S. Coast Guard has the authority to board your boat in international waters if it is a U.S.-flagged vessel or if you are planning to re-enter U.S. waters, but their jurisdiction over foreign-flagged vessels is more limited. The Coast Guard does not need a warrant or probable cause to board a vessel under U.S. jurisdiction and can inspect for safety, registration, and enforce national and international laws on the high seas. When the Coast Guard can board your boat in international waters: U.S.-Flagged Vessels: The Coast Guard can board any vessel flying the U.S. flag in international waters. Foreign Vessels and Re-entry to U.S. Waters: The Coast Guard has authority to board foreign vessels if they are suspected of illegal activity and plan to re-enter U.S. waters, as this falls under the U.S.'s jurisdiction. Enforcing International and National Law: .The Coast Guard's authority extends to enforcing national and international laws on the high seas. Reasons for boarding: Safety Inspections: The Coast Guard may board to ensure the vessel is properly registered and has necessary safety equipment. Law Enforcement: The boarding can be to enforce federal and international laws related to the vessel, its crew, or its cargo. Authority for Boarding: The Coast Guard's authority to board is based on federal law, such as 14 USC 89, and does not require a warrant or a suspicion of a crime. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches does not apply to vessels in the same way it does to homes. Consequences of Refusal: Refusing entry to the Coast Guard during a boarding can lead to significant fines. The Hearing Office often receives responses from charged parties demanding that their cases be dismissed because the Coast Guard “lacked probable cause” to stop and board their vessel. Moreover, they argue that any violation discovered during the boarding cannot be processed because the boarding was improper and in violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. VESSEL BOARDINGS AND COAST GUARD AUTHORITY Written by CDR Mark Hammond The courts have long held however, that it is not unreasonable for the Coast Guard to exercise plenary authority under Title 14 United States Code (USC) section 89 to stop and board vessels on the navigable waters of the United States to conduct safety and documentation inspections, even in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity is occurring. The Coast Guard exercises its broad authority to conduct vessel boarding's for the purpose of enforcing U.S. laws and regulations to promote marine safety, security and environmental protection. This authority extends to any vessel over which the United States has jurisdiction. This essentially means U.S. vessels anywhere outside the territorial waters of another country, and foreign vessels in U.S. waters. Title 14 USC § 89 states in part: “(a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance…” For civil penalty cases forwarded to the Hearing Office, the Hearing Officer reviews each case to determine if there is sufficient evidence in the case file to make a preliminary determination that a violation has occurred and proceed with adjudication. This includes ensuring the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the matter and the elements of the alleged violation are met based on the evidence. There may be cases where a party could reasonably argue that a denial of fundamental fairness, or actions that shock the conscience, undermine the credibility of the officials involved in a case and the reliability of the evidence those officials have offered. Arguments that the Coast Guard “did not have probable cause to conduct the boarding,” however, most often just show an unfamiliarity with the relevant law, as discussed above, and have no bearing on the determination of whether a violation of law or regulation was committed.

You're right. There is a difference between Policy, the Person exercising the policy, and the Process by which it is served. I endorse the policy, but need to remember that I have nothing but disdain for the person and should have assessed his process. The act was legal, but a different process could have been used.

No argument. Employers who do not fill out the I-9 should absolutely be held criminially and financially responsible. Otherwise, why even have an I-9

While concurrently upskilling 700,000 employees - including a robotics apprenticeship program. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-employees-upskilling-education-training

Or, fill out the obligatory I-9 Form. What's the point of building a factory in the US if you're not going to employ American workers.

I corrected myself, Joe.

Then you understand my ire

I can see why you asked that. I didn't communicate that very well. In the US; due process.

Familiar enough to see how people die from illicit drugs?

Afternoon, Jerry. Except those Americans that would buy the drugs. In the US; I do agree. I posted earlier about the difference between due process and substantive due process. To Joe's point, the USGC cannot do drug interdictions in International waters unless it flies an American flag. Then, because they are US citizens - they get US due process.

Does that mean we wouldn't have to see anymore celebrties with super puffy lips :)

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.

I will agree with you on the justification of Iraq, but that is a separate issue. The war on drugs is no where near made up.

Quite the history question you've proposed. We've been using the military to do this since the 80's war on drugs - including in foreign countries. It does not violate Substantive Due Process (where the courts have decided govermental regulation trumps regular constitutional norms (see what I did there)) and has been heard at the Supreme Court several times. I think most people don't give a shit when it comes to protecting the borders from an influx of drugs. I don't. Don't want to die; don't attempt to bring drugs into the country.

I don't think it would work today. It would require a bill passed by those in power in both houses and the President - and power is not going to let go of said power.

It's recognizing the racist light. Not really. Bad use of association. Not even sure how this compares. Well, unless one is a racist rapist.