Etaoin Shrdlu

23 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Never heard of a 3 strikes law?  You get due process.  And an enhanced sentence.

 

Those preceded Trump's terms by decades.

 

Three strikes laws don't mean that you don't have the right to due process.  
 

You stated that after three convictions you believe that a person does not deserve due process. You are advocating that for a fourth arrest the accused isn't entitled to defend himself in court.

 

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If you're sitting in a US prison on a violent felony for the 4th time in your life, you've already been afforded all the "due process" that you deserve, and I wouldn't object to saving the taxpayers some money by sending you to a retirement in an El Salvador prison.

 

Or if you're convicted of violence against another inmate or the guards while you're in a US prison...

 

When I read the Fourteenth Amendment, I don't see any wording that would appear to curtail its applicability based on how many times one is convicted of a crime. I also don't see any wording that states that one must "deserve" the right to due process.

46 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Impossible.  Stop hallucinating 

 

What video?  You watching AI generated videos again?

Then why didn’t Karoline Leavitt state it was impossible instead of confirming that Trump was contemplating it?
 

The video is in the link in the OP.

6 minutes ago, samtam said:

 

Indeed, it would be difficult to deport US citizens, as there is nowhere to deport them to.

If a country, let's say El Salvador, agreed to take them, what specific law would stop the US government from sending them? 

Just now, ThreeCardMonte said:

Impossible.  Stop hallucinating 

Can you cite a specific law that would prevent a US citizen from being removed from the US?

I don't think there is one.

Whether it has been done before isn't relevant. Trump is doing many things that haven't been done before and he's openly discussing the possibility of removing US citizens from the US.

8 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

You make no sense.

 

Lawful Permanent Residents can and always have been subject to deportation.

 

U.S. Citizens cannot and never have been subjected to deportation.

 

Simple as that.  Stop hallucinating.

Trump is looking for ways to remove US citizens from the US. Watch the video. 

1 hour ago, pietro998 said:

she can hire more people that is not issue, and giving me some IT or whatever position should always work right? she could use my help with many things so it could at least be official

why is the humanitarian category not a viable route if we are married, have children (1 or 2)? the investment and other categories seem too brutal 😄 

Best check with one of the firms that specialize in helping people obtain PR. They would be able to evaluate your situation and give their opinion on your chances and whether the humanitarian category would be viable. 

Deleted because link contains a banned word.

On 4/5/2025 at 2:33 AM, pietro998 said:

Sorry for not being clear. I plan to get married visa soon. how long do i have to stay on this marriage visa in order to apply for PR assuming we have a child? and how much income do I need to have in order to apply for the PR under the humanitarian category. I wondered if there is lower requirement if we have children together. My wife is taking care of me financially since it is complicated to get a job so i was curious, but she has business so she can give me some work perhaps to fulfill that requirement.

 

I don't think the humanitarian category is a viable route to PR unless there are very exceptional circumstances.

You'll need three years of work and paying personal income tax. I think the minimum salary for those married to a Thai is 30,000 baht per month. Your wife's business will need to have a minimum of four Thai employees in order to get a work permit for a foreigner and will have to be registered and pay tax, too.

Lots of information available on the interwebs from law firms specializing in helping foreigners obtain PR.

Thai workers compensation law stipulates a death benefit of 70% of a worker's monthly pay capped at 10 years. Even at minimum wage, this would generate over 700,000 baht in death benefit. There is currently no cap on medical expense benefits under Thailand's work comp law.

Employers are required to contribute to the Workers Compensation Fund and all Thai citizens and non-Thais with work authorization must be covered.

Perhaps Anutin was referring to undocumented workers when he mentioned 29,000 baht death benefit and 4,000 baht medical expenses.

23 minutes ago, black tabby12345 said:

Does he really know Who Pays the Tariff?

 

It is the importers of the foreign goods.

Not the exporters.

 

So higher tariff means, greater amount of financial burden(Import Taxes) on own population.

 

 

Of course he knows, but he's counting on his MAGAs not to know and to buy into his lies.

1 hour ago, Kinok Farang said:

Wanting as city just for Muslims tells me all i need to know about them being good Americans.

Are the residents of Kiryas Joel good Americans?

For those who continually decry so-called "leftists" and "socialism", here's some MAGA socialism from Trump himself:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/31/us/politics/farmers-bailouts-trump-tariffs.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8E4.ELEm.jHfxlYcQKLJL&smid=url-share

This is welfare for Big Ag while Musk cuts Medicaid for the poor. Clearly he's not looking to cut spending or help the working class.

There were quite a few on the streets in Bangkok back in the 1990s, but Jeep's popularity must have declined since then. I don't see many new ones around.

As long as spare parts and consumables are available and the vehicle was maintained well, you should be ok if the price is right. There are authorized Jeep distributors in Thailand.

11 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

I'm fully in favor of MAGAs avoiding vaccines and instead injecting disinfectant. Make sure they inject their spawn, too. A double dose, just to be safe.

 

And absolutely no polio, smallpox or measles vaccines for MAGAs, along with mandatory home schooling just so they can avoid any chance at stumbling into a Drag Queen Story Hour.

And the UV light? Where would that go?

Some potential issues may arise as this unfolds:

Has the juristic entity updated the sums insured for the insurance covering the condo building and other community property to account for inflation? If not, then what's called an "average penalty" or "coinsurance penalty" may be applied to partial losses. For example, if a building was insured for its original construction cost 10 years ago for 8 million baht, but the actual cost to replace it today would be 10 million baht, any partial loss would only be paid at 80% of the cost incurred to repair. In other words, for a cost to repair quake damage that a contractor charges 1 million baht to fix, the insured would only collect 800,000 in claims proceeds. For a total loss, the insurer would pay policy limits, but these would would still be only 80% of the cost to replace. Some policies may grant some leeway on this, perhaps up to 20%, but many don't.

If it is uneconomical to repair a building due to the nature and extent of the damage, the insurer may simply state that the building is a constructive total loss, in which case the insurer could pay the policy limits. Now the juristic entity and the unit owners face a dilemma. It may take many years to replace a large condo complex and some owners may simply want to collect insurance proceeds and walk away. Unfortunately, the replacement value of the building, which was used as the sum insured, will likely only be a fraction of the market value of all the units. Even if all unit owners agreed to abandon reconstruction and the juristic entity could distribute the insurance proceeds, they'd likely only get a fraction of what they paid for their units. I am not aware of any property insurance policy that will pay the difference between replacement value and market value for condo units, or anything else for that matter. Homeowners' insurance certainly won't.

Let's hope sums insured have been updated and that all damages are superficial so that none of the buildings need to be declared a constructive total loss.

1 hour ago, ronnie50 said:

 

 

Second, it will be interesting to find out who insured this project. Usually a standard exemption clause in many insurance policies is earthquakes and other 'acts of God'. I wonder if the RTG as owner or 'employer' is self-insured? For big projects that usually makes sense rather than paying public funds to a third-party private insurer. Remember the 'red shirts' accused of damaging Central World and who the insurer turned out to be? (though underwritten by foreigners - smart move).

A normal contractor's "all-risks" insurance policy would insure against the peril of earthquake. So-called "acts of God", such as earthquake, windstorm, flood and wildfire, are insurable perils in most places, including Bangkok.

It appears that the project is insured under a contractor's "all-risks" policy jointly underwritten by Dhipaya Insurance (40%), Bangkok Insurance (25%), Indara Insurance (25%) and Viriyah Insurance (10%). It will almost certainly include cover for the peril of earthquake. 

One report has stated that the building was 50% complete and another says 30%. The loss may well exceed 1 billion baht.

Dhipaya's major shareholders are Government Savings Bank, Krung Thai Bank and the Petroleum Authority of Thailand. It has been reported that Dhipaya has reinsured 95% of the risk under the CAR policy, most of it probably with professional reinsurers offshore. The other insurers have probably reinsured major portions as well.

Dhipaya is frequently the insurer for projects that involve the Thai government. Bangkok insurance is one of the largest insurers in the country. Viriyah is most known for its market share in the auto insurance sector. 

The four insurers are working with the OIC to investigate this loss.