₦airaland Forum

raumdeuter:
How many occurrence would you be okay with?

+
None of course

raumdeuter:
Dont let them tell you lies that it doesnt happen. Watch this from CBS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky9QOHwy_Tg

+
I know it does happen hence my concerns. Nonetheless Madam cococandy is right that the incidences are exaggerated in terms of frequency.

Some of the cases I have heard also have nothing to do with children but trans women (biologically male) acting inappropriately in women's spaces or in women's jails and I think even one case of serial rape by a trans woman in a women's facility.

cococandy:
I really want them to use that energy to focus on holding people who have actually harmed children accountable

+
Lai lai. Not in this life.

cococandy:
Children are not engaging in sex change in America.

You should know by now that right wingers are nothing if not liars. If there’s nothing you can swear they’re telling the truth on, why would this be any different?

You guys really bought the right wing lies of elementary school sex changes and bathroom debacles. Name one thing the right wingers have been truthful about since you started paying attention to the things they say?

Why would this issue be any different?

Gender affirming surgeries are so rare in minors that when they occur, it’s mainly on straight boys with big chests who want to reduce their feminine appearance but removing excess fat tissue from their chests. They are 97% of the so called gender surgeries the right wingers are lying about.

If these people cared about kids the way they claim to, they would stop scapegoating trans people and focus on exposing the Epstein club!

+
Thank you m'lady. I know already you are correct in this. It still leaves me with concern because of a few cases I have come across which are very disturbing.

budaatum:
There you go again peddling your belief that I "would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible", when the truth is I do understand you. I just do not agree with you because a regression can go at least one single step further than where you decide to stop and insert your imaginary self-existent or necessary first cause god that you have no evidence for.

+
Do you understand the definition of a necessary thing in philosophy?

budaatum:
So, do you object to my they/them?

+
I find it absurd and I think it borders on one having a kind of personality disorder.
I also find it a crude abuse of the English Language.

budaatum:
Sorry, but I'm not buying your special pleading of "properly understood".

There is no reason to stop an infinite regression at a self-existent or necessary first cause god after claiming "certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist".

It leaves you open to the question, what must necessarily exist for a first cause god to exist?

Your special pleading of "certain" to justify your "infinite regress of causes is impossible" is not selling because you have no reason to stop regressing where you place your "self-existent or necessary first cause" god which you have no evidence for its existence apart from you being tired of infinitely regressing and therefore filling the gap of your unknowing.

It's what humans have always done when they claim a watch can not exist without a maker, ergo, the universe must have a maker. Then they create one in their own image and choose to believe it made them.

P.s. I'm rescinding my promise about beliefs. It is far too innocuous and underpins your reasoning for me not to flag it to you despite your attempt to disguise it.

Your self-existent or necessary first cause god is a belief that you are very free to hold on to and presume buda does not "properly understand" if you can not accept the simple fact that buda is simply not buying your evidence lacking belief. You can not logic an imaginary self-existent first cause god into existence and claim it is necessary and expect buda to pay you for it, because it is not necessary for buda, and is not how buda is or reasons.

And on checking, you and I have already been here, so know what you are persistently repeating! (I found it after my response).

I knew very well you would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. I am of the view that you have not reflected deeply on the question.

But how shall I convey it to you?

Well the simplest I can put it is this - with an infinite regress, the entire principle belies causality. There simply can't be an infinite in the actual world of causes. Let's use the Actual Infinite Paradox.

It says -

-----------
In mathematics, you can have an infinite set, but in the physical world of causes, an "Actual Infinite" leads to absurdities.

The Argument: If the past were infinite, we would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to reach "Now."
---------------
*Culled

This necessitates an Impossible Traverse.

You cannot reach the end of an infinite path; therefore, if the path to today were infinite, today would never have arrived.
---------
*Partly culled

This is the simplest I can make it. With an infinite regress, there would be no today. There would be no now.

The process to get to "now" would last forever - and never end.

Its therefore only an abstract concept and can never exist in reality.

Now let me say this - I know ahead that you will instinctively reject this obvious and clear logic. Its fine. I will not press the point. That was not the purpose of this thread. The purpose was just to hear your "truth" and your views, not to debate them.

raumdeuter:
I personally support abortion. You should only bring to the world children you can afford to(financially, mentally and emotionally) care for

I support the right to bear arms but there must be a restriction on size and minimum back ground checks

+
Phew.

The first sensible post I have ever seen from you.

nateevs:
To put it mildly, he's a disgusting, lying, fat-faced dishonest, abusive, child-defiling, morally- bankrupt, low-life ninjah....

+
GBAM!

Thank you.

And yes, this is putting it very mildly.

Given what is publicly known of him, heaven knows what unspeakable monstrosity will emerge if one had a peep into his private life.

raumdeuter:
We currently have a supreme court judge who cannot define what a woman is. Its now anyone who feels like a woman is a woman even you can feel like a woman today

If you cannot tell what every 3yr olds know then why should we trust you on other complex policies

+
I agree. I find it embarrassing myself.

So what exactly do you agree with the left on?

1. Immigration
2. "Stronger Together" - A multicultural outlook of unity as opposed to the obvious white Christian Nationalism of Trumpism
3. Abortion'
4. Women's Rights
5. DEI
6. CRT
7. Non discrimination against the LGBTQ Community (This is different from the crazy wacko stance of the extreme left on these issues as I have mentioned above re: issues such as children engaging in sex change, use of bathrooms, participation in particular sports for women, use of gender pronouns, etc.) - I am also opposed to gay marriage or a gay couple adopting children.

It is not by accident that the left has produced the only "black" president, female vice president, two female candidates for president while the right has never even attempted this.

raumdeuter:
When you are extreme left, a centrist will look extreme to you

+
Are you trying to say you are a centrist?

raumdeuter:
You have to be insane to be a leftist in this current climate, A party that cannot even define what a woman is

+
The LGBTQ matter is the one matter I generally agree with the right on. Especially the matter of Trans issues such as children engaging in sex change, use of bathrooms, participation in particular sports for women, use of gender pronouns, etc.

raumdeuter:
At least you can recall that I didnt support Trump till recently.
When I considered the alternative left I saw that Trump was the better option. I supported Biden and he became the biggest let down in history

Unlike you, I change my opinion based on the facts available to me, I dont stick to it. I hoped Biden would be a better president would rule from the center but he was a big disappointment

I can acknowledge that Jan 6 was a terrible day in the countrys history and still see that the left are insane people who should never be in power. If a centrist Biden can be that bad, then there is no trusting any leftist

+
At least you should have arrived at a somewhat balanced, centrist position rather than become a MAGA Cultist who sees no wrong in anything Trump does and defends racism.

nateevs:
Are you serious bro?

We were side-by-side on Jan 6th on this same platform, criticising the hell out of Trump. He even thought that was the end of Trump in the Conservative Party at the time, when I told him Trump was going to make a comeback.

He was mentally healthy.

Then he became the greatest MF'ing shape-shifting ninjah I know.

+
Are you sure someone else has not taken over the moniker.

raumdeuter:
US came to bail out our European friends in 1945 who were getting run over by those screaming Death to UK, France Netherlands etc

+
Know your history. For World War 1, the USA joined due to Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. For World War 2, Hitler declared war on the USA after the USA declared war on Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbour. This is was because of the Treaty Germany had with Japan and Italy.

Go school, you no gree. I keep telling you.

raumdeuter:
They are smart enough to recognize that these are the inconveniences to get a greater America where Iran does not have weapons to wipe us out nor trade partners take advantage of us

+

I swear you should try a career in comedy.

budaatum:
I do very much dispute this your "perfect reasoning" indeed, though I do understand the human rationale for it. It is generally presented as the Watchmaker Analogy, and is a popular argument against atheism

+
As I mentioned above, the watchmaker analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophical principle of self existence, which is an argument for the existence of necessary things as opposed to contingent things. The watch maker argument is an argument for intelligent design from complexity, purpose and form.

The philosophical argument for necessary things is different. It postulates that certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist and these we call necessary things, as opposed to contingent things. Contingent things are existent based on the existence of some other thing, but a necessary thing is by nature self existent.

If we start from the presumption of causality which we observe around us in our world, we come to understand that whatever begins to exist has a cause. This would lead us to an infinite regress of causes if we proceed with this and properly understood, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. This leads us to the first cause argument, and such a first cause must be a self-existent or necessary thing.

Please see here for an intro into necessary vs contingent things in philosophy -

https://pathofmystics.com/existence-of-god-avicenna/

seunmsg:
fergie001

There is no need for any long post. Status quo ante bellum is the situation of things before the hostilities started. In this case, the situation of things before the David Mark group attempted to takeover the party. In addition, the court also ordered all parties to cease all activities till the FHC decides the matter. So, why should the David Mark group be allowed to continued carrying out activities in violation of the court orders?

+
You don't even know the meaning of the word "bellum" in that phrase.

Pretending to know a subject way above you.

AMINDA:
Nigeria is a nation of over 200 million people. It will be disingenuous for any one man to think he can impose himself on the people by being the only candidate on a ballot. International pressure groups are already paying attention to the matter. We all now understand Obasanjo when he tried to prevent INEC from declaring Tinubu as president.

https://x.com/batten_von/status/2039806668351906006

+
As things stand, it may be only the International Community who can pressure the govt to remove its boots from the neck of the opposition.

gabbasin:
Status quo: the situation currently
Status quo ante bellum: the situation before the war. Anyone who's claiming INEC's interpretation of the Appeal court decision is wrong is either playing the ostrich or just being mischievous. If the Appeal court wanted the current ADC leadership to be at the helm pending the determination of the case at the High Court would have just said the parties should maintain status quo.

+
But the Status Quo Ante Bellum was INEC recognizing and interacting with the David Mark Leadership.

seunmsg:
Definition Of Status Quo Ante Bellum

Source

+
Why then didnt INEC recognize the previous Ralph Nwosu leadership?
Because it is sabotage to leave a party leaderless so close to deadlines for conventions.

But wait - No - No one shoud discuss law with you since you made it clear that law and courts are meaningless to you.

helinues:
They are all failures who would rather blame others for their misfortunes than take responsibility by themselves

+
Did they increase your stipend or something?

ibabz:
One of the “big wins” constantly advertised by this administration is that state governments now receive more allocation than ever before. And somehow, whenever anyone asks a simple question about accountability, like what exactly all these loans have achieved in the lives of citizens, the conversation magically shifts.

Suddenly, it’s no longer about federal responsibility. It becomes: “But states are getting more money now!”

We are told, repeatedly, that allocations have “increased.” But this has quietly become one of the most misleading narratives in recent times.

Yes, allocations in naira have increased.
But when you factor in inflation and the collapse of the exchange rate, states are actually receiving far less value than before.

So the real question is simple:
Has state allocation truly increased or does it just look that way on paper?

Let’s step away from emotions and look at the numbers.

2014 (Before the decline began)
Average monthly FAAC: ₦600 – ₦700 billion
Exchange rate: ₦165/$1
Dollar value: $3.6 – $4.2 billion per month

2022 (Before the current administration)
Average monthly FAAC: ₦700 – ₦800 billion
Exchange rate: ₦430/$1
Dollar value: $1.6 – $1.9 billion per month

2025 (Current reality)
Average monthly FAAC: ₦1.1 – ₦1.3 trillion
Exchange rate: ₦1,500/$1
Dollar value: $730 – $860 million per month

At first glance, the naira figures look impressive. Trillions instead of billions, it sounds like massive growth.

But in real terms, the value has collapsed.

So when it is said that “allocations have increased,” it is technically correct but economically misleading.

This is a simple arithmetic: while FAAC has increased in naira terms, its real value has dropped by over 75–80% since 2014.

Meanwhile:
Government borrowing is at unprecedented levels
States are receiving less real value than ever
The cost of governance has risen sharply

And yet, one uncomfortable question remains:

Why are state governors not speaking up about this reality?

Are they unable to see the difference, or is there something else at play?

To make matters worse, while allocations have lost value, the burden on citizens has increased. The minimum wage, for instance, has effectively dropped from over $100 in 2014 to barely $40 in 2026.

Where exactly has all the borrowed money gone after three years without even a single block of classroom to point to?

And those “savings” from subsidy removal, where exactly are they hiding? Because from everything we can see and verify, they’re clearly not with the state governments… and definitely not reflected in the lives of ordinary citizens.

These are the questions many Nigerians are still waiting to have answered.

Iree o!

+
Aside from the forex rate change, consider the actual inflation on ground and you will see that the whole thing is a mirage.

cococandy:
So if they come and bomb America in retaliation for the bombing we are doing to them, will this administration call it a terrorist attack?

+
But of course!

Same US kept Nelson Mandela on their terrorism watchlist till 2008.

Dwell on that!

He became President of SA IN 1994 FOR HEAVENS SAKE.

So they considered him a terrorist threat for 14 years after that!

basilico:
It's a well orchestrated campaign..A judge blocks , knowing the case will take months before Supreme court throws it out. Judges overruled constitutionally by appeals court should be sent back to law school.
There is another one who ruled that the ballroom construction be stopped pronto. Congress must give approval. The ballroom is privately funded
In court filings it was revealed that the ballroom was also a cover for a massive military bunker construction underneath. It should be something that bunker bursting bombs can't penetrate.
The executive doesn't have to ask Congress on such matters I think when some of them have Chinese wives for example (Mitch McConnell)

+
Extracted Answer:
-----------------------------------
A U.S. President does not have the unilateral legal power to make extensive structural changes to the White House, such as building a new 90,000-square-foot banquet hall, without Congressional authorization.While presidents have historically made minor updates (like Richard Nixon’s bowling alley or Barack Obama’s basketball court), major structural modifications fall under a different legal standard.

1. Stewardship vs. Ownership: The core legal principle, recently reaffirmed by federal courts, is that the President is the steward of the White House, not its owner. Because the White House is a federally owned historic structure, the executive branch must identify a specific statutory authority (a law passed by Congress) to justify large-scale construction.

2. Required Approvals: For any significant project, several bodies typically provide oversight:Congress: Must expressly authorize the erection of buildings on federal land in D.C. and usually controls the funding (unless private donations are used, which creates its own set of legal and ethical complexities).

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC): Has review authority over new construction on federal properties in the capital.U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA): Provides advisory reviews on the design and "aesthetic integrity" of the landmark.

3. Historical and Modern Precedents: The Truman Reconstruction (1948–1952): When the White House became structurally unsound, President Truman did not simply order a rebuild. Congress had to pass legislation and appropriate roughly $5.7 million for the project.The 2025–2026 Ballroom Controversy: In late 2025, a project began to demolish the East Wing to build a massive $400 million ballroom.

In March 2026, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt construction, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was likely to succeed in arguing that no law gave the President the power to authorize a project of that magnitude on his own.4. Exemptions and LoopholesInterestingly, the White House is expressly exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act (specifically Section 106), meaning it doesn't have the same "protection from demolition" that other historic sites enjoy.

However, this exemption does not grant the President the power to build new structures; that authority still rests with the legislative branch's control over federal property.In summary, while a President can pick the wallpaper or add a putting green, building a new hall requires a "green light" from Congress.

yarimo:
David mark even if all the 36 state governors are in APC, you don't have rights to appoint yourself in a party you were never officially a member as national chairman

+
Why do I always imagine y_o_u as red eyed, broken toothed and with a sinister one legged pirate limp.

bemeruca:
I am talking about what you referenced. You said this

The bold is your reference

+
I asked you to give me instances yes. I didn't say there weren't any. I cited one myself. Alas the instance you gave was absurd because they were the ones fraudulently attacking another country. Aside from that, i still haven't confirmed your claim. Not that it matters because regardless, they were the ones fraudulently attacking another country. Where they killed millions.

basilico:
I've been saying for months that Trump sees China as a bigger threat than Russia. He is willing to work with Russia to move it away from Chinese influence.
China friendly regimes , Venezuela and Iran are his current focus. Cuba is on the pipeline .
Finally I'll think he'll throw Zelensky under the bus and cozy upto Putin to completely isolate China.

+
He is very possibly a Russian asset.

bemeruca:
You see how yeye you are 😂 now that you know Iran has been killing the Americans outside the one you cited, see the nonsense question you dey ask me.

+
No, I dont count what you cited as anything. I havent even double checked your claim because for me its irrelevant. You made it sound like the Americans and NATO members were minding their business innocently and Iran was just killing them over decades. This is false and a fraudulent depiction. They went into Iraq on fraudulent claims which they have admitted and killed millions. If they lost 600 to counter attacks from neighbors that is nothing.

bemeruca:
Yes, Iran killed at least 600 us soldiers.

So they have been attacking the US for decades

+
And what was the US doing in Iraq?
I trust you know even they admitted the WMD thing was a hoax/ false.

bemeruca:
What does Iraq has to do with Iran targeting and killing American servicemen?

+
You are the one who brought up Iraq. You said Iran was placing IEDs in Iraq.

bemeruca:
Facts and you are like water and oil
They don't mix

Thousand of US casualties

+

How many Iraqi casualties?