Post by: ren on August 02, 2023, 08:06:45 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-withholding-key-funding-schools-hunting-archery-programs (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-withholding-key-funding-schools-hunting-archery-programs)
The Biden administration is blocking key federal funding earmarked under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 for schools with hunting and archery programs.
According to federal guidance circulated among hunting education groups and shared with Fox News Digital, the Department of Education determined that, under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) passed last year, school hunting and archery classes are precluded from receiving federal funding. The interpretation could impact millions of American children enrolled in such programs.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 02, 2023, 08:22:31 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: astroboy on August 02, 2023, 08:39:43 PM
Cmon Man Don't be shy. Here is your chance to stand up and be counted.
You might even get some respect for at least being honest.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 02, 2023, 10:06:39 PM
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 03, 2023, 08:18:50 AM
Cannot be when you read the political threads.
Helloooo.......anybody out there? (we know you're out there...... :rofl:)
Post by: mrgaf on August 03, 2023, 10:30:00 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 03, 2023, 01:56:58 PM
Post by: ren on August 05, 2023, 09:21:06 AM
ironic
https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/thousands-of-hawaii-classrooms-still-need-air-conditioning/ (https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/thousands-of-hawaii-classrooms-still-need-air-conditioning/)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 05, 2023, 10:22:50 AM
I'll take all this over a trump presidency. If Trump was president it would be even worse. Biden is the lessor evil.
(https://i.imgur.com/f0mWKKa.png)
Post by: groveler on August 05, 2023, 10:35:39 AM
I'll take all this over a trump presidency. If Trump was president it would be even worse. Biden is the lessor evil.The TDS is strong with you. >:D
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 05, 2023, 10:49:19 AM
The TDS is strong with you. >:DWith others as well. Being brainwashed by the fakenews applies mainly to those who dont know how to think for themselves
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: ren on August 05, 2023, 10:50:19 AM
It was only when he became President that he was a: phobe of some sort, a racist, a womanizer, etc. etc.
Are we that dumb? Yes we are! You're fired!
Post by: hvybarrels on August 05, 2023, 11:24:53 AM
Are we that dumb? Yes we are! You're fired!
That's the problem with the current system though. Stupid people who constantly screw up continue to get promoted as long as they stay in lockstep with the party.
We need a guy who actually fires people!
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/Qf5gsqXKZAUuJjuqG505aNBadiJacAhjOB_9F86PSzo/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRp/YS50ZW5vci5jb20v/Q3FjS214V1ZFT01B/QUFBQy9kb25hbGQt/dHJ1bXAteW91cmUt/ZmlyZWQuZ2lm.gif)
Post by: ren on August 06, 2023, 04:55:37 PM
Cool Story, Bro(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/10/donald_trump_has_been_great_for_white_supremacists/494745648-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-gives-a-thumbs-up.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg)
CERTIFIED!
Remember to stay behind the yellow line during a cease fire!
Post by: macsak on August 07, 2023, 07:32:45 AM
Post by: groveler on August 07, 2023, 08:13:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl7n7taKDlAThis show was bullsh$t.
14th amendment guarantees all US debts get paid first , before housing, welfare, government operations et al.
They could sell off the vast lands that they unconstitutionally hold.
Secondly the vast majority of US debt is held by Americans. There could be no foreign held debt and we would be OK.
All foreign held debt could be dumped tomorrow and some smart Americans would do very well, because the population
doesn't understand how treasuries work. It would not cost us a cent.
:wtf:
Post by: hvybarrels on August 07, 2023, 10:08:10 AM
Post by: Sodie on August 07, 2023, 04:42:53 PM
This show was bullsh$t.
14th amendment guarantees all US debts get paid first , before housing, welfare, government operations et al.
They could sell off the vast lands that they unconstitutionally hold.
Secondly the vast majority of US debt is held by Americans. There could be no foreign held debt and we would be OK.
All foreign held debt could be dumped tomorrow and some smart Americans would do very well, because the population
doesn't understand how treasuries work. It would not cost us a cent.
:wtf:
What part of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from holding real estate?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 07, 2023, 04:59:36 PM
What part of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from holding real estate?
For one, any real estate that was seized under civil asset forfeiture where the owners were never charged and convicted of a crime that included the value of that land as a reasonable fine.
Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft, where Cops take your property and force you to sue to have it returned. Often the cost to fight it in court is not worth the effort and still risk not getting everything you sued for.
That happens at all levels of the justice system -- federal, state and local.
The part of the Constitution that prohibits this practice is the 4th amendment barring the government from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as the requirement for due process under the 14th. How can they fine you for something they never charged you with or took you to court over?
They take it, and then they keep it if you don't pay to get it back.
Sometimes they even offer to give you back part of your property to settle the case. No admission on your part of guilt, and no justification for keeping it. They just know you will spend that amount fighting the seizure. It's the definition of extortion.
One case the local cops gave the property of someone to the feds -- a process where the feds get to keep most of it and the locals receive a portion later. When ordered by the court to return it, the locals said, "But we don't have it any longer." As if that's an actual argument against complying with the court order!
Totally unconstitutional, but lawmakers don't care, and the majority of the public will never imagine themselves in such a situation. They rationalize that the seizures are "ill gotten gains" and the crooks deserve to have it taken.
Post by: groveler on August 07, 2023, 05:39:18 PM
What part of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from holding real estate?You can read it as well as I can.
I'll paraphrase for all that don;t like to read.
The only land the Federal government can own is for military or of specific government use.
Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
Post by: Sodie on August 07, 2023, 05:54:44 PM
You can read it as well as I can.
I'll paraphrase for all that don;t like to read.
The only land the Federal government can own is for military or of specific government use.
Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
We read that clause differently, and that’s ok. :shaka:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 07, 2023, 10:58:44 PM
For one, any real estate that was seized under civil asset forfeiture where the owners were never charged and convicted of a crime that included the value of that land as a reasonable fine.
Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft, where Cops take your property and force you to sue to have it returned. Often the cost to fight it in court is not worth the effort and still risk not getting everything you sued for.
That happens at all levels of the justice system -- federal, state and local.
Not a good analogy.
OJ Simpson was never convicted of a crime yet in civil court he was successfully sued to the tune of millions of dollars. Criminal court and civil court have different standards of proof and can address the same act separately. Now asset forfeiture is not quite the same thing as seeking damages for a harm suffered is different but asset forfeiture is designed as a way of denying criminals the profit of their crimes.
It also serves as a way for the government to recoup the costs that they expended fighting the crime. So imagine the government spent $1 million on manhours and equipment to take down a crime network, that is $1 million taxpayers spent to fight the crime. If the government seizes a house bought with illegally obtained money and sells it they are recouping taxpayer dollars that had to be expended because of the criminal's behavior. It is not exactly a traditional damage case with a named plaintiff but it is still collecting things of value for a harm done.
That is not to say that asset forfeiture is never abused, it is sometimes, but a blanket theft analogy is inaccurate.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 08, 2023, 05:04:12 AM
Not a good analogy.
OJ Simpson was never convicted of a crime yet in civil court he was successfully sued to the tune of millions of dollars. Criminal court and civil court have different standards of proof and can address the same act separately. Now asset forfeiture is not quite the same thing as seeking damages for a harm suffered is different but asset forfeiture is designed as a way of denying criminals the profit of their crimes.
It also serves as a way for the government to recoup the costs that they expended fighting the crime. So imagine the government spent $1 million on manhours and equipment to take down a crime network, that is $1 million taxpayers spent to fight the crime. If the government seizes a house bought with illegally obtained money and sells it they are recouping taxpayer dollars that had to be expended because of the criminal's behavior. It is not exactly a traditional damage case with a named plaintiff but it is still collecting things of value for a harm done.
That is not to say that asset forfeiture is never abused, it is sometimes, but a blanket theft analogy is inaccurate.
That was not an analogy.
It's called an example.
When the government can seize property -- say $12K you were traveling with on an airline domestically -- because TSA contacted the police to report you have "cash," and without a shred of evidence you didn't earn that money legally and honestly, that's called theft.
Any law that allows that is legalizing theft.
The government telling us why they do this doesn't change the fact that hundreds of police departments have been reported to be using CAF to fund their operations and even enrich themselves personally.
I invite you to take time to listen to/watch Steve Lehto's many videos on CAF. Maybe he can convince you this practice is wrong and needs to be abolished.
https://youtu.be/Q4TaJuRTJxg
Post by: astroboy on August 08, 2023, 11:03:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share
Post by: ren on August 08, 2023, 12:29:38 PM
from NYC
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share
I can't find supporting news that the video is real. I checked CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo even Fox. Nada.
Post by: astroboy on August 08, 2023, 05:17:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r6swdV8_05w?feature=share
Post by: ren on August 08, 2023, 06:06:27 PM
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 08, 2023, 06:44:17 PM
I'll take all this over a trump presidency. If Trump was president it would be even worse. Biden is the lessor evil.Who do you think he voted for?
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on August 08, 2023, 06:59:01 PM
from NYC
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgrUroZuKBQ?feature=share
Apparently they've had enough dumpster fire politicians for one lifetime
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 09, 2023, 12:53:52 AM
That was not an analogy.
It's called an example.
When the government can seize property -- say $12K you were traveling with on an airline domestically -- because TSA contacted the police to report you have "cash," and without a shred of evidence you didn't earn that money legally and honestly, that's called theft.
Any law that allows that is legalizing theft.
The government telling us why they do this doesn't change the fact that hundreds of police departments have been reported to be using CAF to fund their operations and even enrich themselves personally.
I invite you to take time to listen to/watch Steve Lehto's many videos on CAF. Maybe he can convince you this practice is wrong and needs to be abolished.
https://youtu.be/Q4TaJuRTJxg
Some police agency simply taking your cash without any sort of crime attached would be an abuse of the asset forfeiture process and sure, you could call that theft. But suggesting that all forms of asset forfeiture are theft or akin to theft is inaccurate. In other words, the fact that some agents of the government have abused the process doesn't redefine the whole process.
For a department or agency to us civil asset forfeiture funds is not the problem, the problem is when they seize property without justification, hold onto it too long, delay giving it back to you, damage/don't care for the property, profit personally, etc.
I know a fair bit about the process including the pros and the cons. I would not call asset forfeiture wrong however it does need to be regulated and have oversight. Having said that I will give the video a watch.
I will add the caveat that there are jurisdictions where I think the asset forfeiture laws are broken and need to be overhauled. With 50 different states and the federal government all having their own forfeiture laws I am not defending all jurisdiction's asset forfeiture laws, only the general concept/practice.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 09, 2023, 02:50:08 AM
Some police agency simply taking your cash without any sort of crime attached would be an abuse of the asset forfeiture process and sure, you could call that theft. But suggesting that all forms of asset forfeiture are theft or akin to theft is inaccurate. In other words, the fact that some agents of the government have abused the process doesn't redefine the whole process.
For a department or agency to us civil asset forfeiture funds is not the problem, the problem is when they seize property without justification, hold onto it too long, delay giving it back to you, damage/don't care for the property, profit personally, etc.
I know a fair bit about the process including the pros and the cons. I would not call asset forfeiture wrong however it does need to be regulated and have oversight. Having said that I will give the video a watch.
I will add the caveat that there are jurisdictions where I think the asset forfeiture laws are broken and need to be overhauled. With 50 different states and the federal government all having their own forfeiture laws I am not defending all jurisdiction's asset forfeiture laws, only the general concept/practice.
That's not correct. The CAF laws in many states are set up to do exactly that -- seize property under mere suspicion that the property is somehow linked to criminal activity. Even when you are not arrested, not charged or charged and found not guilty, the Cops do not return your property unless you sue them.
Based on your comment, you didn't bother to watch the Steve Lehto video.
You really should watch the video. It contains research and facts that show the system is abusive, not the Cops abusing the system.
Post by: ren on August 09, 2023, 03:17:36 PM
The nation’s most prominent gun safety groups are joining together to back President Joe Biden in 2024, an early endorsement that underscores Biden’s grip on key Democratic coalitions as the party seizes on gun policy as a politically advantageous issue ahead of his reelection campaign.
The endorsement, obtained by The Associated Press in advance of the formal release, represents the first time the groups have jointly announced support for a presidential candidate. The groups include Brady and its youth-led arm, Team Enough; Community Justice Action Fund; Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and its grassroots networks, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action; and Giffords.
It also follows similar joint endorsements from abortion rights groups, labor unions and climate organizations — a strategy meant to demonstrate Biden’s strength among various party constituencies as he faces nominal primary challengers and skepticism from many Democratic voters over whether he should run for a second term.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 09, 2023, 03:24:26 PM
https://www.khon2.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-major-gun-safety-groups-come-together-to-endorse-joe-biden-for-president-in-2024/ (https://www.khon2.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-major-gun-safety-groups-come-together-to-endorse-joe-biden-for-president-in-2024/)
The nation’s most prominent gun safety groups are joining together to back President Joe Biden in 2024, ...
'gun safety groups?' :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Most of the group's leaders and members have no idea how to operate a firearm, let alone do so safely.
"gun control groups" is more accurate.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 09, 2023, 03:55:39 PM
"gun control groups" is more accurate.
Groups that want to take peoples right away.
FIFY
Post by: ren on August 09, 2023, 08:32:41 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 09, 2023, 10:42:52 PM
That's not correct. The CAF laws in many states are set up to do exactly that -- seize property under mere suspicion that the property is somehow linked to criminal activity. Even when you are not arrested, not charged or charged and found not guilty, the Cops do not return your property unless you sue them.
Based on your comment, you didn't bother to watch the Steve Lehto video.
You really should watch the video. It contains research and facts that show the system is abusive, not the Cops abusing the system.
I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.
I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.
Post by: hvybarrels on August 09, 2023, 11:03:29 PM
I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.
I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.
Taxation is theft, and asset forfeiture is just another form of taxation.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2023, 09:04:40 AM
I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he prevents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions.
I am not offering a blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place, only the general practice of asset forfeiture. Just like with many practices the devil is in the details, the practice can be used justly or unjustly. When it is done unjustly it must absolutely be reformed but where it is done justly I think it can remain and be an effective crime fighting tool.
So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one? :wacko:
You most certainly are offering a "blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place," because you haven't given a single example of where it is being done according to your standard of being "used justly."
You still hold the view that the CAF system/concept/practice is not flawed -- just a few bad actors are spoiling it for the people using it properly and effectively to fight crime. But you offer no actual evidence or cases to back up your assertions.
The video details a STUDY in the STATE of SC showing not only is CAF being used as a way to enrich the operating budget of police departments, but it's being applied to people of limited means (most seizures are < $1,000 and not worth the hassle and cost to sue over) and race (65% of cases involve Black men in a population of about 25% Black men).
Your opinions and beliefs are not facts. You aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone you are right, and that Civil Asset Forfeiture is not on its face government-sanctioned theft.
Lehto's done at least 23 videos on various cases, laws, studies, and court rulings, and he's been nice enough to create a YT playlist for us. Why not do some actual research before posting here again? Or is there a reason you don't want to?
Which is stronger: your need to be right, or your need to for me to be wrong?
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIN0HaGKANpp8-Zw7NEh9XokjmzYCIRiL
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2023, 09:24:06 AM
Quote
Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process to thehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
extent that their 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are violated, in
situations where they are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent.
It has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina.[4][5] Further,
critics argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior.
There is consensus that abuses have happened but disagreement about their
extent as well as whether the overall benefits to society are worth the cost of the
instances of abuse.
Civil forfeitures are subject to the "excessive fines" clause of the U.S. Constitution's
8th amendment, both at a federal level and, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court
case, Timbs v. Indiana, at the state and local level.[6] A 2020 study found that the
median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300.[7]
Nice to know a member of law enforcement on this forum supports the concept that suspects are guilty before being forced to prove their innocence. He also seems to believe it's fine to force someone to prove a negative -- that the property in question was NOT obtained through illegal income or means. What happened to the burden of proof being on the state to provide evidence that someone is guilty?
The way CAF operates, it's not the person who is accused of criminal activity, but rather the PROPERTY. "This car is too nice and expensive for someone like you. I think we need to take it from you until you can prove your car is not part of some criminal activity." It's the property that's suspected, not the owner. Oftentimes, without even so much as a criminal charge, property is taken without any evidence a crime was committed, much less that the crime resulted in this property being obtained.
People who've had their property taken under CAF are put in the position of spending time and money (lawyer fees) to sue for their property back. If the average is $1,300 taken, how can anyone justify the expense of suing for other than pure principle? Also, ask yourself how effective CAF is if the amounts seized are only about $1,300? They aren't seizing millions and millions of dollars in property purchased by drug and human trafficking gangs or king pins. These are people whose only suspected crime is they had the temerity to carry cash on them.
A SC judge has ruled that CAF is, in fact, unconstitutional -- a FACT that most people with any common sense and understanding of the constitution has been saying since the practice began. Making an unconstitutional law to allow an unlawful practice does not mitigate its illegality under the Constitution.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 10, 2023, 09:26:25 PM
Taxation is theft, and asset forfeiture is just another form of taxation.
Agree to disagree
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 10, 2023, 09:44:16 PM
So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one? :wacko:
Strawman. I never said I didn't watch that one. I watched the one you posted then a few more that came up after.
Quote
You most certainly are offering a "blanket defense of any and all asset forfeiture laws in place," because you haven't given a single example of where it is being done according to your standard of being "used justly."
Non sequitur.
If I pointed to a bunch of instances where cops made bad traffic stops that doesn't mean I have therefore proven all traffic stops are bad.
Quote
You still hold the view that the CAF system/concept/practice is not flawed -- just a few bad actors are spoiling it for the people using it properly and effectively to fight crime. But you offer no actual evidence or cases to back up your assertions.
You haven't proven that all CAF systems/concepts/practices are bad so why should I have to disprove something you haven't proven?
Like I said, there are 50 states with 50 different laws/rules on asset forfeiture. Are you making the claim that you read all of them and that they are all unconstitutional?
Quote
The video details a STUDY in the STATE of SC showing not only is CAF being used as a way to enrich the operating budget of police departments, but it's being applied to people of limited means (most seizures are < $1,000 and not worth the hassle and cost to sue over) and race (65% of cases involve Black men in a population of about 25% Black men).
Great, you have made an argument that SC CAF laws/rules are broken.
Quote
Your opinions and beliefs are not facts. You aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone you are right, and that Civil Asset Forfeiture is not on its face government-sanctioned theft.
So you are expecting me to prove a negative....
Quote
Which is stronger: your need to be right, or your need to for me to be wrong?
Need is irrelevant. You are making an unsupported claim and I pointed it out. You are obfuscating by trying to claim my comments opinions and getting defensive when I pointed out you are painting with too wide a brush. You can't seem to separate the concept or general practice from specific bad instances of the practice. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
As per your comment about someone having to prove their ignorance, you are purposefully selecting specific bad practices and misrepresenting them as if they are all that same way.
Post by: hvybarrels on August 11, 2023, 01:42:55 AM
Agree to disagree
The whole point of modern policing is to convince people they are helpless and make them dependent on government “services” so that elites can rip them off whenever they want and the tax cattle will think it’s normal.
Post by: Heavies on August 11, 2023, 06:06:52 AM
Don’t think it’s true? Look around you while you drive around all the filth, squalor, vandalized property, public drug use, dumping, blatant stolen property being used, etc., then look at all the tickets being given out for victimless infractions of the driving laws. Or the constant harassment of the lawful person just trying to protect themselves and their loved ones.
It’s obvious that the left run government would much would rather harass those that are easy to victimize, such as the common joe just trying to make a decent living, than to go for those real criminals that are blatantly doing serious felonies.
People need to stop voting democrat.
Post by: ren on August 11, 2023, 07:16:30 AM
Agree to disagree
Why can't you just say you disagree? That statement makes no sense.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 11, 2023, 11:37:18 AM
"Strawman. I never said I didn't watch that one. I watched the one you posted then a few more that came up after."
We could fill volumes with what you didn't say -- until after you've been challenged.
Why not be as clear in your posts to start with instead of always having to come back and defend or expound on your posts?
"Great, you have made an argument that SC CAF laws/rules are broken."
Argument? How about proof? Why must everything be about arguing with you? Just accept that at least one state that I posted about has proof their system is not only targeting law abiding citizens, but has been ruled unconstitutional?
Given that ruling, it's more likely than not that the majority of other states using people they encounter as piggy banks are also operating outside the Constitution. CAF on its face is against the law. Present day CAF began in the 80s to go after assets of crime bosses and organizations who have no documented sources of income, live lavish lifestyles, and pay no taxes on the money they spend, but are well known in the drug trade.
With the advent of electronic banking systems and stricter laws governing movements of large sums of money, illegal drug organizations found it necessary to deal in cash to avoid the money laundering detection schemes of the past.
Some states, like NY, used CAF to confiscate the cars of suspected DUI drivers. Never mind that the car might not be the driver's property. The point was to grab the property, then see if the owner has the time, resources and inclination to pursue it in court.
I realize you have an opinion, but supporting law enforcement seizing property without any evidence of an actual crime tells us everything we need to know about you.
I hope one day you get on a plane with a large sum of money that you saved for years to gamble with in LV -- and TSA calls the Cops on you/your money.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 12, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
We could fill volumes with what you didn't say -- until after you've been challenged.
Same with you. So what?
You suggested I watch his videos. I did, then you accused me of not watching them. Strawman or are you moving the goalpost?
You seem to be confused that just because you posted a youtube video doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Quote
Why not be as clear in your posts to start with instead of always having to come back and defend or expound on your posts?
My post was clear, your reading comprehension is lacking because you read things that weren't there. Lets go over it:
I said: "I did watch a couple of Steve Lehto's videos and he presents many valid criticisms and covers how broken the laws are in some jurisdictions."
You replied: "So, because you watch "a couple of Steve Lehto's videos" before, that means you don't need to watch this one?"
Please highlight where I said the word "before". Then highlight where I said I didn't watch this one.
Quote
Argument? How about proof?
Like I said to you earlier, I can give you examples of bad traffic stops but proof of bad traffic stops isn't proof all traffic stops are bad. You can "prove" that SC has a broken CAF program and I might likely agree but you absolutely have not proven that the CAF programs in all 50 states are broken.
Just accept that you overstepped and make specific defendable criticisms instead of indefensible blanket criticisms.
Quote
Given that ruling, it's more likely than not that the majority of other states using people they encounter as piggy banks are also operating outside the Constitution.
Is that your "proof"? Your opinion that it is more likely than not the majority? Not only are you just making a blind assumption here but you are even admitting you can't say that all the CAF systems are bad.
Quote
CAF on its face is against the law.
Ok, here is an actual specific statement that you can try to defend reasonable. How are any and all CAF systems illegal? What federal statute or constitutional provision makes CAF illegal?
Quote
I realize you have an opinion, but supporting law enforcement seizing property without any evidence of an actual crime tells us everything we need to know about you.
You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that all CAF programs seize property without any evidence of an actual crime.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 12, 2023, 12:59:49 AM
Don’t think it’s true? Look around you while you drive around all the filth, squalor, vandalized property, public drug use, dumping, blatant stolen property being used, etc., then look at all the tickets being given out for victimless infractions of the driving laws.
You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.
For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.
Post by: ren on August 12, 2023, 07:41:02 AM
You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.
For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.
No it's called selective enforcement.
Post by: Heavies on August 12, 2023, 08:15:24 AM
You present a false dichotomy by implying that cops must do one or the other, stop drugs, theft, and assaults OR give traffic tickets.
Not only do cops do both, it is very often the case that traffic stops lead to the arrests of thieves and drug dealers.
For example, my house got burglarized when I was young. Cops did a traffic stop on a kid a day or two later and found his car full of our stolen items.
No it's called selective enforcement.
^^This
One example. Every single day I see Stolen property blatantly being used (shopping carts), yet I never see any arrests or prosecution. Don’t tell me the police never see it going on. This is right in front of the police station! Yet they are one block over they are setting up speed traps to enforce a nonsense 25mph speed limit on a 4 lane main thoroughfare, which has no residential driveways and where the speed limit suddenly goes from 35 down to 25. I don’t speed and I’ve never got a ticket, this is just my observation. It more important to create revenue than stop thievery.
I do not blame the police. They are given this assignment. As well as if they do make any arrests, most definitely the criminals would be immediately released and not be prosecuted. Wasting all the officers time and effort.
Like I said in my post, if you read it carefully, the political leftists climate encourages and supports this nonsense.
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 12, 2023, 09:31:34 AM
Make money for the City comes first.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 12, 2023, 12:28:25 PM
Kam Hwy leading into Wahiawa right across Wheeler Army Airfield. F*ckn sign goes from 35 to 25 in a heartbeat. And a cop will be right there to give you a "speeding" ticket even though right behind him is the H2 freeway where everyone is speeding and driving like lunatics.
Make money for the City comes first.
The motorcycle cops tend to sit under or near the Ka Uka overpass of H2 between 4-6PM, looking for people racing to get home from work. Imagine the non-stop ticket writing that happens during evening rush hour.
And they seem to be more present in the final 2-3 days of the month, I assume because they haven't reached their non-existent quota of tickets for the month. :geekdanc:
They showed their hand when the traffic cams which were supposed to be used on busy streets in town were exclusively placed on the interstates to catch speeders. No intention of increasing safety -- just revenue generation in part to pay for the new equipment.
As for catching law breakers through a traffic stop, that's just dumb luck. Luck that the cop was there to do the traffic stop, and dumb on the part of the crook/druggie for giving the cops a reason to stop them. How many traffic stops of bad criminals have resulted in the cop not even issuing a ticket, much less effecting an arrest? Ted Bundy comes to mind. I bet there are more criminals who get stopped for speeding or running a stop sign and aren't arrested than those who are. They just weren't dumb enough to have stolen property or drugs and paraphernalia in plain sight.
According to EEF, there's a direct causal effect between traffic stops and solving crimes. I say it's just bad luck for the criminal, not a great side benefit of traffic stops intended to raise revenue for the state/city.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 13, 2023, 12:28:49 AM
One example. Every single day I see Stolen property blatantly being used (shopping carts), yet I never see any arrests or prosecution. Don’t tell me the police never see it going on. This is right in front of the police station! Yet they are one block over they are setting up speed traps to enforce a nonsense 25mph speed limit on a 4 lane main thoroughfare, which has no residential driveways and where the speed limit suddenly goes from 35 down to 25. I don’t speed and I’ve never got a ticket, this is just my observation. It more important to create revenue than stop thievery.
Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint and ignoring the political ones:
Yes, the cops all know these are stolen shopping carts. However, you have issues making it not as simple as it seems.
Officers have to justify detaining the person with the shopping cart, merely seeing the person with a shopping cart is pretty weak PC for a stop in most places, but sometimes it can be articulated.
Officers then have to identify who owns the cart. Not usually a big issue
Officers usually have to work without a time element or specific address of the offense
Officers then have to find an employee from that store who wants to press charges.
This isn't impossible to do and I wish they would do it more but it isn't quite as easy as it sounds.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 13, 2023, 12:32:01 AM
No it's called selective enforcement.
No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.
Post by: ren on August 13, 2023, 06:14:25 AM
No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.
I wasn't referring to your response as an example but to Heavies. You said his argument was a "false dichotomy". Your response tried to steer it away from his argument into yours. There is always traffic enforcement, never "burglary enforcement" just prevention.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 13, 2023, 07:58:17 AM
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 13, 2023, 08:32:08 AM
My opinion. Of course.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 13, 2023, 10:27:33 AM
No, no it isn't. Solving a burglary is nothing like making a traffic stop. Burglaries are not going unsolved because cops would rather issue traffic tickets.
Really? How many departments are complaining they are understaffed (HPD comes to mind), but they still find time to write tons of tickets.
Seems like HPD's priorities are on non-criminal, revenue-generating activities and less about solving burglaries and other property crimes.
It's a well-known fact that property crimes in Hawaii go to the bottom of the priority heap.
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 13, 2023, 10:45:28 AM
No wonder property crimes and shoplifting is so rampant.
Post by: Jaco808 on August 13, 2023, 03:03:51 PM
For those who voted for biden, you actually voted for barack and michelle and all those other pukes pulling biden's strings.
My opinion. Of course.
Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 13, 2023, 03:10:05 PM
Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!
You obviously are for open borders, student loan forgiveness for the wealthy, foreign pay-to-play influence in the WH, and sending billions to Ukraine and iraq.
Glad you post your prioritizes for all to see.
Post by: Jaco808 on August 13, 2023, 03:14:17 PM
You obviously are for open borders, student loan forgiveness for the wealthy, foreign pay-to-play influence in the WH, and sending billions to Ukraine and iraq.
Glad you post your prioritizes for all to see.
Trump was better on the border. But other than that he doesn't have much. Student loan forgiveness won't pass muster in the courts, non issue. Biden can't pass any gun control. Sending billions to ourselves for ukrraine, is amazing and we should do more. Taiwan next so we can defeat both our two most dangerous enemies. If you think Trump has less foreign influence the billions from Saudis and dictators around the world is laughable. Trump would weaken America by leaving nato and the world stage. We are a superpower and should act like one.
Post by: ren on August 13, 2023, 03:21:48 PM
Trump was better on the border. But other than that he doesn't have much. Student loan forgiveness won't pass muster in the courts, non issue. Biden can't pass any gun control. Sending billions to ourselves for ukrraine, is amazing and we should do more. Taiwan next so we can defeat both our two most dangerous enemies. If you think Trump has less foreign influence the billions from Saudis and dictators around the world is laughable. Trump would weaken America by leaving nato and the world stage. We are a superpower and should act like one.
Where's the declarations of war?
Is China our enemy?
Someone didn't tell Yellen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNKpvXXrqaA
When does a "super power" bow to another country?
Your knowledge of foreign policy is elementary.
How much does the US contribute to NATO and what do we receive in return? How about Ukraine? Was it a loan or was our tax dollars given for free?
Here is NATO"s purpose:
NATO’s fundamental security tasks are laid down in the North Atlantic Treaty (the Alliance’s founding treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty). They are sufficiently general to withstand the test of time and are translated into more detail in the Organization’s strategic concepts. Strategic concepts are the authoritative statement of the Alliance’s objectives: they provide the highest level of guidance on the political and military means that will be used to achieve these goals and remain the basis for the implementation of Alliance policy as a whole.
And the document that laid out its foundation:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II.
Can someone point out where is the Soviet Union now? Did it relocate?
We can argue all about why NATO exists, the most fundamental reason why it still exists is buoyed by wealthy nations like the US. Shouldn't all countries in the world belong to NATO if we all want peace?
Post by: ren on August 13, 2023, 03:29:05 PM
Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!
What are the supporting evidence?
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 13, 2023, 03:29:18 PM
Where the heck are you Biden voters?
Cmon Man Don't be shy. Here is your chance to stand up and be counted.
You might even get some respect for at least being honest.
Here's one that got drawn out in the open:
Whoever is pulling his strings, they doing a better job than Trump!
Post by: Jaco808 on August 13, 2023, 05:14:04 PM
Where's the declarations of war?
Is China our enemy?
Someone didn't tell Yellen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNKpvXXrqaA
When does a "super power" bow to another country?
Your knowledge of foreign policy is elementary.
How much does the US contribute to NATO and what do we receive in return? How about Ukraine? Was it a loan or was our tax dollars given for free?
Here is NATO"s purpose:
NATO’s fundamental security tasks are laid down in the North Atlantic Treaty (the Alliance’s founding treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty). They are sufficiently general to withstand the test of time and are translated into more detail in the Organization’s strategic concepts. Strategic concepts are the authoritative statement of the Alliance’s objectives: they provide the highest level of guidance on the political and military means that will be used to achieve these goals and remain the basis for the implementation of Alliance policy as a whole.
And the document that laid out its foundation:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II.
Can someone point out where is the Soviet Union now? Did it relocate?
We can argue all about why NATO exists, the most fundamental reason why it still exists is buoyed by wealthy nations like the US. Shouldn't all countries in the world belong to NATO if we all want peace?
Renamed to Russia. Still our #2 enemy. China is #1. Shame on Republicans, they used to stand for anti communism and strong military. How low can the GOP go? They no longer stand for freedom. What's left?
Post by: ren on August 13, 2023, 05:36:12 PM
Renamed to Russia. Still our #2 enemy. China is #1. Shame on Republicans, they used to stand for anti communism and strong military. How low can the GOP go? They no longer stand for freedom. What's left?
Renamed? Are you smoking it with Hunter?
What were the criteria for being a "#2 enemy" and " #1 enemy" is that in the National Defense Strategy?
Your posts are just full of emotions backed by no facts.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 13, 2023, 05:49:31 PM
What were the criteria for being a "#2 enemy" and " #1 enemy" is that in the National Defense Strategy?
Your posts are just full of emotions backed by no facts.
To read his posts, one would think only the Republicans have had power in DC since 2000.
Ignores the failures of the Democrat controlled Congresses and White House to only blame one party.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. :wacko:
Example; I remember Obama mocking Romney in a debate over his assertion that Russia is still our number one national security threat. China may have taken a slight lead based on economic strategies, but part of that is our own fault -- Trump was able to reverse part of that his 4 years in office. Now Beijing Biden has erased all of those fixes and then some. China, though, is not as aggressive militarily as Russia, nor are they interfering with our allies like Putin is.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 13, 2023, 10:28:56 PM
Why can't you just say you disagree? That statement makes no sense.
I don't know, it is common saying. I think it sounds a little more cordial than ending an argument simply "I disagree".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 13, 2023, 10:31:19 PM
I wasn't referring to your response as an example but to Heavies. You said his argument was a "false dichotomy". Your response tried to steer it away from his argument into yours. There is always traffic enforcement, never "burglary enforcement" just prevention.
Not sure what you mean by there is no burglary enforcement?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 13, 2023, 10:37:12 PM
Really? How many departments are complaining they are understaffed (HPD comes to mind), but they still find time to write tons of tickets.
Seems like HPD's priorities are on non-criminal, revenue-generating activities and less about solving burglaries and other property crimes.
It's a well-known fact that property crimes in Hawaii go to the bottom of the priority heap.
I guarantee you any patrolman you see driving down the street would rather catch a burglar than write tickets.
Writing a ton of tickets isn't even that hard plus traffic violations are happening constantly all around. It isn't hard to find someone driving unsafely, it is very hard to catch someone in the middle of a burglary.
HPD has detectives assigned specifically to burglaries and felony property crimes, about 48 if my math is accurate. I know a guy who is a detective there an he would get on average of 7 cases a week. He said most cases go unsolved but mostly because there just weren't enough leads to chase on them, no finger prints, poor video quality, unresponsive victims, etc. lack of staffing wasn't the issue for him.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 13, 2023, 11:14:34 PM
I guarantee you any patrolman you see driving down the street would rather catch a burglar than write tickets.
Writing a ton of tickets isn't even that hard plus traffic violations are happening constantly all around. It isn't hard to find someone driving unsafely, it is very hard to catch someone in the middle of a burglary.
HPD has detectives assigned specifically to burglaries and felony property crimes, about 48 if my math is accurate. I know a guy who is a detective there an he would get on average of 7 cases a week. He said most cases go unsolved but mostly because there just weren't enough leads to chase on them, no finger prints, poor video quality, unresponsive victims, etc. lack of staffing wasn't the issue for him.
First you said traffic stops catch thieves and drug dealers. Now you say patrolmen would rather be catching a burglar than doing traffic stops.
Think about what you just said. If writing tickets helps catch burglars and drug dealers (as you posted before), then cops should want to do traffic stops if their desire is to catch burglars and drug dealers. Now you say the two are mutually exclusive -- cops would rather catch burglars than write tickets.
Either traffic stops solve other crimes or they don't. If cops, as you say, want to solve crimes instead of writing tickets, then traffics stops do not solve crimes.
I don't think you have a clue what you're arguing about. You can't have it both ways.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 14, 2023, 02:46:01 PM
The other option to be Johnny on the spot is to have HPD walking the neighborhoods and condo floors and knock on every door and look into every window. (sarcasm).
Post by: Sodie on August 14, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
First you said traffic stops catch thieves and drug dealers. Now you say patrolmen would rather be catching a burglar than doing traffic stops.
Think about what you just said. If writing tickets helps catch burglars and drug dealers (as you posted before), then cops should want to do traffic stops if their desire is to catch burglars and drug dealers. Now you say the two are mutually exclusive -- cops would rather catch burglars than write tickets.
Either traffic stops solve other crimes or they don't. If cops, as you say, want to solve crimes instead of writing tickets, then traffics stops do not solve crimes.
I don't think you have a clue what you're arguing about. You can't have it both ways.
Both can be true. Yes, traffic stops do result in catching drug dealers and other serious criminals. Yes, a patrolman would rather arrest somebody for a serious crime rather than write a citation for failure to signal a lane change.
I used to think I was the most contrary person I knew… I think you’ve got me beat.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 14, 2023, 06:22:26 PM
Both can be true. Yes, traffic stops do result in catching drug dealers and other serious criminals. Yes, a patrolman would rather arrest somebody for a serious crime rather than write a citation for failure to signal a lane change.Add in arresting/citing a ccw holder who replied questionings incorrectly. Which is why they added in a duty to inform.
I used to think I was the most contrary person I knew… I think you’ve got me beat.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Sodie on August 14, 2023, 06:49:35 PM
Add in arresting/citing a ccw holder who replied questionings incorrectly. Which is why they added in a duty to inform.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Did that actually happen, or are you saying it might?
Good reason to not answer questions… #TheFifthIsAlsoAGoodAmendment
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 14, 2023, 07:28:34 PM
Did that actually happen, or are you saying it might?Waiting for it to happen.
Good reason to not answer questions… #TheFifthIsAlsoAGoodAmendment
U dont answer then the cop gets an attitude and looks for more stuff to charge u with. Ego is greater than 1 right to remain silent.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 14, 2023, 08:20:01 PM
Both can be true. Yes, traffic stops do result in catching drug dealers and other serious criminals. Yes, a patrolman would rather arrest somebody for a serious crime rather than write a citation for failure to signal a lane change.
I used to think I was the most contrary person I knew… I think you’ve got me beat.
Am not.
:geekdanc:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 15, 2023, 12:14:04 AM
First you said traffic stops catch thieves and drug dealers. Now you say patrolmen would rather be catching a burglar than doing traffic stops.
Think about what you just said. If writing tickets helps catch burglars and drug dealers (as you posted before), then cops should want to do traffic stops if their desire is to catch burglars and drug dealers. Now you say the two are mutually exclusive -- cops would rather catch burglars than write tickets.
Those two statements are not contradictory. I never said writing tickets help catch burglars, I said that sometimes burglars are caught because of a traffic stop. I never stated that traffic stops are a means of solving burglaries, I only gave an instance where a traffic stop ended up solving a burglary. The point was to show that catching burglars and writing tickets are not mutually exclusive, it is a false dichotomy to say that a cop can only do one or the other.
The statement about how cops would rather catch a burglar than write a ticket is a separate aspect. It was rebutting the idea that cops rather issue tickets than solve a burglary. It is not the case that burglaries are going unsolved because cops are too busy writing tickets.
Quote
Either traffic stops solve other crimes or they don't. If cops, as you say, want to solve crimes instead of writing tickets, then traffics stops do not solve crimes.
I don't think you have a clue what you're arguing about. You can't have it both ways.
Your statement makes no sense. Either traffic stops solve crimes or they don't? Sometimes they lead to crimes being solved, but preferring to solve a burglary instead of writing a ticket has no bearing on whether a crime is solved through a traffic stop.
I know you don't have a clue what you are arguing about.
Post by: ren on August 15, 2023, 07:51:14 AM
Post by: Kalikikopa on August 17, 2023, 02:29:09 AM
Where the heck are you Biden voters?
Hawaii memorial,
Mililani Cemetary
Valley of the Temple
Post by: hvybarrels on August 18, 2023, 10:59:53 AM
Post by: astroboy on August 30, 2023, 12:13:30 PM
by linking it to billions more for Ukraine. Mean while FEMA employees are staying at
5 star hotels in Maui. FEMA claims that they are getting a special rate therefore
your tax payer funds are being well spent. As Leslie Nielson said: Nothing to see here
folks, just move along.
The optics behind all of this are absolutely horrible.
This is all happening while US citizens are barely getting by thanks to a crappy economy, and
the Maui survivors who lost everything including friends and family have nothing but the clothes
on their backs.
https://youtu.be/C9dErnkLVcE?t=106
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 30, 2023, 12:20:49 PM
Many people in Hawaii have no idea that Joe is holding up disaster relief funds for Maui
by linking it to billions more for Ukraine. Mean while FEMA employees are staying at
5 star hotels in Maui. FEMA claims that they are getting a special rate therefore
your tax payer funds are being well spent. As Leslie Nielson said: Nothing to see here
folks, just move along.
The optics behind all of this are absolutely horrible.
This is all happening while US citizens are barely getting by thanks to a crappy economy, and
the Maui survivors who lost everything including friends and family have nothing but the clothes
on their backs.
I wonder if only 5 star hotels are available or FEMA and other are staying at a collective of 5,4,3,2 star hotels. But it's the ones at the 5 star who are getting the bad attention. I am assuming many hotels have burned down in Lahaina. IDK how far the drive is from Kahului or Wailuku, but it would be easer to be "on site". Then add in all the people who lost their homes who are paying or trying to pay for a cheap hotel to live. So 5 might be plausable as to what's available.
When Mrs.CMO was traveling for work, she had to stay at a 3 star or better hotel and not just the cheapest one. And during summer or spring break, only 5 star hotels had availabilities due to them being expensive. Tourist like cheap hotels. ALso she wasn't allowed to stay on the ground floor of any hotel. So if a 3 stary only had 1st floor availability, she had to look else where. Even if it was a 5 star.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 30, 2023, 01:25:21 PM
I wonder if only 5 star hotels are available or FEMA and other are staying at a collective of 5,4,3,2 star hotels. But it's the ones at the 5 star who are getting the bad attention. I am assuming many hotels have burned down in Lahaina. IDK how far the drive is from Kahului or Wailuku, but it would be easer to be "on site". Then add in all the people who lost their homes who are paying or trying to pay for a cheap hotel to live. So 5 might be plausable as to what's available.
When Mrs.CMO was traveling for work, she had to stay at a 3 star or better hotel and not just the cheapest one. And during summer or spring break, only 5 star hotels had availabilities due to them being expensive. Tourist like cheap hotels. ALso she wasn't allowed to stay on the ground floor of any hotel. So if a 3 stary only had 1st floor availability, she had to look else where. Even if it was a 5 star.
If you're a government employee, you're provided a per diem amount for the area you're visiting. Some areas barely afford a Holiday Inn Express, while other per diem rates are massive. Hawaii has some of the highest per diem amounts.
As long as the visitors are within their per diem, we can't complain about how much they are spending. It's preset by the GSA lodging rates for the 48 states. AK, HI and overseas locations are set by the Dept of Defense.
Locality Seasons Lodging Meals Proport'l Meals Incidentals Maximum Effective
ISLE OF MAUI 01/01-12/31 354 122 70 31 507 02/01/2023
Many hotels/motels offer rates for government workers to spend within the per diem amounts. If the traveler exceeds the per diem amount, they have to have exceptions approved to get reimbursed. Otherwise, the differences are out of pocket.
Per diem covers lodging. meals and incidentals combined. For Maui, that's $507/day.
In cases like this one, I imagine they can submit receipts and be reimbursed over the maximum because of the emergency situation. if FEMA has that amount in their budget and the managers approve it, they can afford whatever they want, but it takes away funding for other travel.
Rental cars and air fare are also included in their travel funds. It takes additional approvals to fly business or 1st class unless you pay the difference or use your personal frequent flyer miles to upgrade. Same applies to rental cars. I always got a free 1-class upgrade, among other perks, for being a Hertz Gold Plus member. provided by my company. i liked having my name and space number on the electronic board -- no check-in lines. Just walk to your assigned space, load up your car and drive out. The security guard at the exit checked your ID, and you were gone.
Post by: astroboy on August 30, 2023, 03:06:42 PM
and stated that the FEMA employees frequently live in tents as part of their job. Well maybe so
but not this time.
Mean while Joe sees no problem holding up funds in order to get his Ukraine billions passed.
You would think that he had a personal stake in this money, but that can't be the true Right?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 30, 2023, 04:20:57 PM
The thing that got me was that the FEMA spokesperson responded in a very defensive manner
and stated that the FEMA employees frequently live in tents as part of their job. Well maybe so
but not this time.
Mean while Joe sees no problem holding up funds in order to get his Ukraine billions passed.
You would think that he had a personal stake in this money, but that can't be the true Right?
Most "spokespersons" are not qualified to be speaking. They are often PR people who don't have the experience of doing the actual job. They were hired into the job, and their knowledge is limited.
Arguing about tents is a clue they aren't ready to answer questions. You need more than the current executive summary to regurgitate.
Post by: astroboy on August 30, 2023, 05:14:25 PM
Most "spokespersons" are not qualified to be speaking. They are often PR people who don't have the experience of doing the actual job. They were hired into the job, and their knowledge is limited.
Arguing about tents is a clue they aren't ready to answer questions. You need more than the current executive summary to regurgitate.
That is absolutely correct Flapp. Instead of rationally explaining the FEMA process of housing employees the
spokesperson took another approach that deflects instead of informing us of the facts.
The FEMA spokesperson is just like the current WH spokesperson KJP.