I have umbrella for my main residence, investment properties, and car.  At least mine doesn't cover firearms for loss and liability.  Not sure of all umbrellas, but my friend (and insurance agent) indicated that most are quite focused.  I looked into insuring my firearms against loss (fire and/or theft) a while back and couldn't find anything, but don't recall if it was not availble or not worth the $$$. 

Aside, my buddy also advised separate insurance for valuables.  For him, stuff like Rolex and other watches, jewelry, etc.  Where most insurance coverage is usually quite limited.

State farm had a small amount of coverage for firearms loss but the limit was $1,000 I think. I paid a little extra to raise the limit on my firearms.

Next time I call State Farm to pay my bill I will have to ask specifics about the umbrella coverage. I know they said it won't cover me for something I do at work but it covers other things including on top of my car insurance. Definitely have to ask about the limitations like whether it will cover a criminal case or just a civil case and then what it covers like CMO said, the damages if I lose or just the attorney fees.

You are responding to my post with an argument but asking me why I am arguing?  Asking why you think he's a dirtbag isn't arguing.  You keep imagining things that aren't there.

SWOOOOSSHHH to everything else you posted in the other 2 paragraphs.I assume you also haven't read the bills he killed.  Maybe you will get lucky again like when you posted HI law about sharing pics, instead of the federal one.

What if you don't respond anymore to this thread?. This is rhetorical as I know you cannot help yourself. So I'll wait and your reply will prob get either swoooshed or be wrong like usual.

I said why I thought he was a dirtbag and you argued with me. #projecting

Feel free to go read the bill he killed and tell me why he was correct in killing it. Feel free to go show me the good reason for voting against the bill despite large bipartisan support for it. Before you do though I will point out to you that he never provided any reason for killing the bill or voting against it the next year. If there was a good reason to vote against it you would think he would justify his decision...

Flood is typically a national program (fed).  But there are some who operate outside of this program.  But they too have a 30 day clause. So you can buy flood insruance if a flood is coming, but you gotta wait 30 days for it to take effect. But there is an exclusion to this, if a mortgagee is requiring it. As in you're buying a home and need to close on it, but have to get the proof of coverage 1st.  Also, the national one, there is no refunds. So even if you foresee a flood event happening say on 31 days later and it doesn't happen, you cannot cancel and get a refund.

I remember reading that the reason the flood protection is often a national program is because the private insurance companies were refusing to sell it to customers in high risk areas so the feds took over. Problem is now all the houses that get flooded in the high risk areas end up costing the government (aka taxpayers) a lot of money because the government doesn't set the premiums high enough to cover the actual cost when a disaster strikes.

What an idiot. Just the cost of getting them here would be a month(s) of rent as places driving distance from the fires.

Is that your position/understanding?  Or what you gleaned from the "spat"?

The spat was useless, but entertaining with Musk dropping the F bomb in a tweet.
I tend to look for more in-depth, less passionate, discussion of the issue.

H1B/H2B are nonimmigrant visa that are intended to allow foreign nationals to work in the US (and Territories) for a temporary period.  While they MAY be used for immigrants, they are not 'visas for immigrants'. 

Touche.

It's been a while, but I have a lot of experience with both H1B and H2B (mostly with H2B) for supplementing construction work force in US territories.  How those programs work is a separate issue, but the issue itself is often twisted and used as political leverage for other things.  I've seen that first hand for my former projects in Guam.  My point is that there's often a LOT of things going on behind the scenes, closed doors, etc and often not reported in the news.  Many times I found out the "truth" when having attorneys for the Gov't and contractors looking into the actual verbiage of "local laws", the actual provisions, etc. 

H2B has also come up recently in my current project(s), which are more domestic and that adds many more layers to this issue.  Including unions, availability, etc on top of politics.

What is YOUR position?

I support H1B visas as a concept, I think it is a necessary tool in some situations. The hypothetical example I use to explain why it is necessary is to imagine that we were short on doctors leading to people not being able to get medical care. We wouldn't stand by letting Americans die while we wait 6 years to train a bunch of new ones.

The abuses though cannot be denied. If companies can find ways of hiring H1B visa workers a lot cheaper than American workers then they will. Without knowing the intricacies of how H1B visas work I can only suspect that there are a number of fixes that need to be made to the H1B program but I would not eliminate the program altogether. I heard one suggestion that wages should be tied to American wages so that hiring a H1B worker would not be so much cheaper and that makes some sense.

And according to 1 person (EEF), I should use this conviction of 34 counts to factor in if I want Trump as a POTUS or not.  Cause you know, there's no such thing as targeting people for political reasons.

InB4 Lawfare isn't a legal term.

You are either lying or just completely failed to understand my point. Good job.

OMG, now you double admitted it. I think you now get a swoooosshh to the 3rd power.

IDK if I would support or not support him. It all depends what is happening at the time.  Nor have I took much time to look into the issue as of now. Lets use WMB as an example, the people were lied to and an entire war was started with bad intel. Many lives on both sides lost. BTW, same guy who said Iraq had WMD's that are worth of a war we went into also was a major part in the Russia collusion hoax.

InB4 you say "CMO is a blind trump supporter" since you stated twice that "if it X were to happen to Brandon, you would be making lots of statements about it", which I did post about his sniffing and student loan promise as an example to show you're wrong again.

All depends what is happening at the time? That is a bit of a copout. Of course circumstances could change, if Panama invaded Florida I would have no problem with us attacking them and taking the canal. The point of the question is as things are now. We have a president who has prided himself on not starting wars now saying he would consider using the military to take the Panama Canal and Greenland (aka war).

If Trump said he would like to purchase the Panama Canal or Greenland I am hesitant to spending that much taxpayer money but I would be open to considering arguments for why it is worth it. But Trump using "national security interests" as a justification to use military force on two non-hostile nations to take territory, and likely human lives, is something I could never get behind. Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a patriot or a conservative could support Trump's use of the military to achieve these goals.

We all know what you said.  And read what I said. Simple, but here you are continuing to argue about it.  Thats also a low bar you have and the DNC's plan works on people like you. Just accuse someone with lack of credible evidence and you won't want them for X job.  "I point you to the congressional investigation", which lead to no charge or arrest.

You are responding to my post with an argument but asking me why I am arguing?  I said he was a dirtbag, you asked me why and I responded. Do you want me to answer your question or not?

"lead to no charge or arrest" is an irrelevant argument since it neither means what you think it means nor does it have any bearing on whether we can judge Gaetz is a good pick. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies so does that mean you will say he shouldn't be president now or are you just using the "not charged or convicted" as a matter of convenience? People can commit terrible crimes and not be charged or convicted but that doesn't mean they are suddenly good people who have never done anything wrong. You also suggested "lack of credible evidence" but I would not agree with that opinion.

Interestingly I just came across an old news article covering the fact that in 2015 Gaetz opposed a Florida law making revenge porn illegal and he had killed the same bill the year before when he was chair of the committee... Coincidence? When it is one allegation or behavior I can give someone the benefit of the doubt but when you start to see a pattern then I think the allegations have more credibility.

Really?  You'd let someone like Garland who was held in contempt of Congress for not handing over the recordings taken of the Biden interviews babysit?  Do you honestly think he's the best person for the top cop position?

Biden was investigated for storing and passing classified information illegally, but the final report said they chose not to file charged because of Biden's poor memory and advanced age -- basically not competent enough to know what he did was wrong.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-merrick-garland-contempt-biden-audio-recordings/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-willfully-disclosed-classified-materials-but-no-criminal-charges-warranted-special-counsel-says

Funny how Trump was the target of an FBI raid, but Biden was allowed to trickle the classified documents to the investigators as they located them in several locations.

Sorry, but if Garland got confirmed after his past of covering for a fellow judge in an ethics scandal and targeting Biden's political rivals, I see no reason Gaetz can't be confirmed.  The part of Gaetz's resume that's most important is not that he was investigated and never charged.  It's that he hasn't behaved as a swamp critter.

Maybe you can find Pam Bondi suitable to sit your kids?  Any problem with her?  Maybe start a new thread for her and let this one die since it's a non-issue now?

I would say some of your criticisms of Gardland are fair and some are not however even if we agree that Gardland was not a good AG, that doesn't make Gaetz a good one.

What makes Gaetz a good pick for AG? He is politically loud and stirs stuff up but that isn't much of a qualification for the job. How much experience does he have in law enforcement, as a criminal attorney, or as a judge? (very little IIRC).

You painted this as an issue whether we want a messy attack dog or a safe but quite guard dog which creates a false dichotomy. It is not the case that Gaetz was the only choice so Trump had to settle for his moral imperfections. There are going to be hundreds of other qualified individuals capable of doing that job without the skeletons Gaetz had. They just wont be loud and proud Trump supporters.

Insurance companies are in the business to make money. They did a risk assessment and since this happens often in CA, they acted. Those affected should be mad at CA for not mitigating the risk before the carriers decided to leave or non-renew.

Imagine being State Farm and say of the 10,00 homes, they had 1,000 policies.  The average cost of a home there is $3 million.  So that's $300,000,000 they would have to pay. Either they go bankrupt or their reinsurance does. IDK if SF has reinsurance or not since they're a huge company.  Now everyone else in the state gets cancelled or even nationwide due to them going under. So 1,000 homes vs much more nationwide.

What I am wondering is if the insurance companies all stuck provisions in the contracts that allow them to drop a specific type coverage at any time they see fit or if they are trying to wiggle out of it hoping its cheaper to fight the suits than pay out. Or did they just drop the fire coverage for customers whose policies were about to renew? Makes me want to call my insurance to see if they can do this to me when the next hurricane comes our way.