₦airaland Forum

raumdeuter:
The United state understands that different states have different views on issues and left it to them to decide based on what their voters want

The standard for Massachusetts should not be for Alabama

You don't really have a real understanding of this topic. So most of what are writing stems from that.
The Constitution decides what issues are Federal issues, leaving the rest to the state. The states just don't get to decide things because they want to.

The only reason it is back at the state is because the current far right Supreme Court decided in all it's nuttery that the 14 Amendment which says, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. didn't include the right to Reproductive Health.

budaatum:
I can not only "immigrate to another country". As I said, I can also stay in the country and break the law!

Your "Collection of States" is not the Federal Government"! And that's just not what the current (corrupt, my opinion) Scotus has decided should be done. And to be honest, I get to laugh at their stupidity, since no state so far has decided "my body state choice". And if/when any state does say "my body state choice", I'd be delighted to see what they'd do to the woman who says fuq the state and aborts.

The United States is a collection of states run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government's laws hold Supremacy over the State laws.

Scotus's decision is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing why you and Raumdeuter believe that Democracy through majority of people in a state dictating what people can do with their bodies is Ok. Yet Democracy though the majority of people in a Country dictating what people can do with their bodies is not actually Democracy and not OK.

raumdeuter:
I wish you luck in your quest to educate him

I don't need education on any matter vis a vis US politics from you.
Lol.
You're trying to have a grown up discussion but haven't gone through puberty yet.
It's frustrating and exhausting hearing you ramble on pretending you have a clue.

budaatum:
He said, "They (as in, the people in the state), should decide in their states and whatever they decide is good". That, after all, is democracy, as in, we the (majority) people decide. And yes, it is against my body my choice, since the majority should not be deciding for me whether I abort or not. But the majority are not deciding whether I abort or not. At best, they are deciding if I can abort or not in that one particular state.

This is somewhat convoluted. The majority refers to the majority of the electorate or the majority people making the laws. You are jumping from State to Federal in an odd way.
By your similar logic the Majority wouldn't be deciding for you as you can just immigrate to another country.

The question is why you consider a State deciding through a majority of voters, Democracy. Yet the Collection of States(Federal Government) deciding for the Country through elected officials not Democracy and not good.

You can't have it both ways.

raumdeuter:
How does the state dictate when they send it to their voters to decide instead of having one Trump Oprah Biden dictate what every state needs to do

If you can't understand that's your problem

The failure in understanding seems to be on your end. You aren't even understanding what you are writing and how contradictory it is.
You keep talking about sending it out to their voters to decide but that is not how lawmaking works in any state. The elected legislators would decide, just like on the Federal level. Except in those situations where the voters organized to push a Constitutional Amendment.

You seem very comfortable with people dictating dictating what people do with their bodies as long it's a state majority and not a Federal Majority.

Your logic is broken, convoluted, discordant at at times contradictory.
I can clearly see your logic and all the holes in it. And I wonder why you can't as you keep repeating the same holy arguments.

ono:
Trump made a comment about Josh Shapiro’s speech at the ongoing DNC. He claimed he’s been the best friend the Jews have had in years. It’s the typical Trump style of passing a message across. Straight to the point. No mincing words and telling it as it is.

What happened? Josh went out to sing the “all are welcome songs” no hating people because of their faith and religion - even if they are terrorists (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and all those who want Israel wiped off the face of the earth), murderers, rapists, mentally challenged individuals, paedophiles, child groomers, queer and LGBTQ people - they’re all welcome and free to roam the US. He said Trump is all about hate and divisions, all about what’s best for himself.
But we know how it all ends. We know evil when we see them. We know what God loves.

Most of the failings in the societies in the West today that we are witnessing goes all the way back to when they decided they know better than to believe there is God. The West turned their backs against God. Now He in turn has brought to them the people that will give them what they want - strong delusions, such that they will believe a lie and reap the rewards.

Some of us do know what God loves. Your support of Trump screams that you don't.
You seem blinded by whatever dogma you learned about Chsitianity.
You might want to revisit the Bible esp. the Gospels.

ono:
Despite the rulings from the Supreme Court of the US that Trump is immune from prosecution for actions committed as President, even actions that are outside of his “reach” and that “official” evidence should not and are not to be admitted and used against him in a court of law, you’re here spewing thesame hate against an innocent man, thesame hate you claim you don’t want for others.

I don’t believe you. You’re just one of those who are blinded by hate for Trump because of just who he is. You have TDS - like the rest of you lot in this group chat!

This post is quite unhinged.

raumdeuter:
Who wants to dictate what they do with their body? Seems you have a major issue with understanding

They should decide in their states and whatever they decide is good

So, you mean you want the states to dictate what they do with their body?

You're exhausting.
Chock full of intellectually dishonestly.
You vacillate from one position to the other sometimes in the same post.
And I'm not even sure you are aware of the inconsistent positions.

Or maybe your motto is dazzle and exhaust them with nonsense.

raumdeuter:
Its not my responsibility to dictate or rationalize peoples traditions. They have their belief and traditions and I have mine. Mine does not invalidate theirs. In a few months most families in US will celebrate Thanksgiving, Some will celebrate Hannukah and some will do Diwali. while some wont do any. Because its not part of their traditions

If they want abortion, they are free to do so and if they do not they are also free to choose

You don't want to dictate people's traditions but want to dictate what they do with their bodies?
You are all over the place.

raumdeuter:
The United States. States have different traditions and what works in one state will not work in another. They are leaving it to residents of the state to

Tradition is usually used to help people in Power rationalize their Power when no other rationale exists. To fall back on tradition is weak.
It's clear you don't really know why you believe it.

raumdeuter:
Why dont you let each individual set their own traffic rules, set their own medical laws, set their own tax codes, and abide by their own laws

You are the one arguing Fed. elected officials shouldn't push their views on others when it comes to Personal Freedoms.
But you think state elected officials should be able to push their views on others.

I'm asking you to explain the difference. Esp. why you believe it should stop at states and not cities/towns or even neighborhood councils.
You seem not to be able to answer so you're obfuscating as usual.

raumdeuter:
Can you also decide to kill yourself since its your personal freedom
Anti abortion argues that the baby is a separate individual and you cannot decide to kill the baby. The baby is denied that choice on what happens to it

You didn't answer my question, let's try again.

This states rights argument when it comes to Personal freedoms is quite odd to me. You argue that others shouldn't impose their views on a Federal level but are comfortable enforcing your views on Personal freedoms to others on a state level. Why don't you allow each city to decide if they want to allow abortion or better yet each neighborhood. Explain why you stop at the state level.

Good article on the Buy/Borrow/Die strategy.

The United States federal income tax contains a flaw: Because it reaches capital gains only after a “realization” event, it permits owners of highly appreciated assets to defer their tax liability by holding them and refusing to sell. Worse yet, easily available debt allows those owners to consume from their “unrealized” gains while continuing to defer tax. As Professor Edward McCaffery identified in 2012, consumption and deferral through secured borrowing, coupled with the stepped-up basis death benefit from section 1014 of the Internal Revenue Code, create an opportunity for individuals to avoid lifetime income tax and net estate tax. This strategy, known as “buy/borrow/ die,” contributes to consumption inequality and, by extension, America’s growing wealth inequality.
https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-99-number-2/taxing-borrow-in-buy-borrow-die/

Quicker read
https://www.dcfpi.org/all/how-wealthy-households-use-a-buy-borrow-die-strategy-to-avoid-taxes-on-their-growing-fortunes/

raumdeuter:
Let every state decide what they want. I will think thats simple enough

I genuinely dont know how to make this simpler to you.

I dont know 2 people who wont understand the sentence "Let each state decide"

Why limit it to the state when it comes to personal freedoms?
Why not just let each person decide about their own bodies?

This states rights argument when it comes to Personal freedoms is quite odd to me. You argue that others shouldn't impose their views on a Federal level but are comfortable enforcing your views on Personal freedoms to others on a state level. Why don't you allow each city to decide if they want to allow abortion or better yet each neighborhood. Explain why you stop at the state level.

raumdeuter:
You seem to have a problem with American democracy?
SCOTUS say let each state decide, States are deciding you still have a problem with it
Are you just a whiner in life?

If the majority of State A want abortion they should have it, If the majority in state B dont want it they shouldnt be forced to have it

How difficult is that

I have to say you lack basic understanding

Gotta admit, it really seems you don't have any core principles.
You seem to make up sometimes contradictory arguments to suit whatever you're trying to argue that minute.

raumdeuter:
Create your own tax shelter too if its paining you

Its always easy to know the hypocrite and those who are selfish in their personal lives yet claiming others are selfish

Does this work with all things people complain about?
Ex.
For those complaining about corruption in Nigeria, should they just strive to get into power so they can be corrupt as well?

I hope you realize how ridiculous your point is.

raumdeuter:
The majority get their will when its on the ballot and they choose as they want in their different states. The majority in deep red Kansas wanted abortion and they are getting it. That is Democracy

So, you are in fact comfortable with people enforcing their personal views on others as long as they are in the majority. Got it
But when the majority votes a PResident and a Congress who runs on Reproductive RIghts, it is wrong for them in that situation to enforce their personal views?

Gotta admit, you ain't making much sense.

raumdeuter:
States put it on ballots and the majority win, We have seen in deep red Kansas where the abortion bill was put on ballot and lost

That is what democracy is about, No one should enforce their personal belief be you Oprah, Trump you or me.

Its your personal belief

Umm.. you do know that Democracy is about the will of the majority. So by definition, in a Democracy, people(majority) are enforcing their personal views on others.

raumdeuter:
You pay your tax as intended, your friends pay as intended, billionaires pay as intended yet you seem to have a problem with theirs and not yours. Isnt that selfish?

Tax shelters aren't paying taxes as intended. They are cheating the system.

raumdeuter:
You live in a comfortable house, drive a comfortable car, Drive towards Roxbury when you are going to that Carribean food store, Tropical foods, you see thousands sleeping on the roadside, why has the unselfish you not moved these people into your house which is probably too big for someone who lives alone

Oh I get it, selfishness for you, Selflessness for others. The same Democratic hypocrisy

Can always tell when someone is losing their argument.

raumdeuter:
What position did he change? He believes in abortion yet believes its a state right to choose. Should Oprah become president she will enforce her personal beliefs on places who dont share the same culture as her?

You typed this and probably didn't even realize the contradiction.

You are against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her' but are for Governors and State houses who enforce their personal beliefs on people and places who 'don't share the same culture' as them.

You don't see the contradiction there? Why limit it to the states? Why do you think anyone should be forcing their personal beliefs on anyone else?

raumdeuter:
Trump supports abortion which is his personal view and still does, Yet believes individual state should have the right to choose what works for them

It is basic common sense. You cannot force your personal belief on everyone

Yes, and that is one of the reasons they didn't support him.
People like Oprah do not believe individual states should decide, they believe that people no matter where they live should have access to reproductive rights. So, he changed his position.

Again, you have gone far upfield of your original point.
Let it go. You were wrong.

ObaIgwe1:
Now I understand. I think there should be a better way to tax those taking advantage of the gain for personal benefits instead of applying general tax on unrealized gains.

Even if this only affects those with assets over 100 million, I agree with you. But I think it opens the door for that discussion.

raumdeuter:
You included?, then have you offered to pay more in taxes and it was rejected by the IRS or you are just an internet hypocrite? If you want to get yours do what they did

Again, you seem to miss the point. I pay my taxes as intended. I see my salary as the post tax salary as the rest never really existed. Everyone in my situation gets paid equally, post tax so why do I care. If I want to make more money, I need to get more sources of income, not bitch about taxes.
What I do care about, is those who cheat the system as it puts a burden on the rest of us.

raumdeuter:
I am not looking into other peoples pocket and bitching about what they make, if it pains me, then I will try to do what they do and make what they make not just hating endlessly

You seem to read things and then filter it through whatever you have gotten going on in your own head.

Quote where I said I thought life was unfair to me.
Quote where I was bitching or hating about what others make? That guy happens to be one of my best friends, he's family. What I am not a fan of is how his company skirts the system to give him tax shelters and I tell him that. And he thinks the tax shelters he himself uses are wild to.

raumdeuter:
If life is unfair to you, then thats your own problem.

This is one of the most selfish things I've ever read. Seems to be Republican creed. Tell me how that is working out in Nigeria.

raumdeuter:
You are the one who is being dishonest

1. He appointed judges and the judges did their jobs.

2. The Judges referred it back to the state which is the right decision as every state has different views on abortion which their electorates should decide.

State A want abortion in week 30 go for it, State B want no abortion beyond week 4, go for it

More intellectual dishonesty.
If these word games work for people you talk to, you should question who you are talking to.

This is what you said.

raumdeuter:
What views did they learn about Trump or what changed about Trump that made them change their views

I gave you a view that he changed. People who supported Roe v. Wade believed his new position was different that what he originally expressed. And they were right. Roe v. Wade is gone. It wasn't gone until Trump was elected.
You are now trying to subject your view about the abortion policy on what they believe.
Not here to argue that with you.

ObaIgwe1:
Hmmmnn I doubt that proposal will pass, even many democrats in congress will fight it. Anyways if implanted it will only affect billionaires like you and your friend Trump Those of you with excess money

When I first heard about it, I didn't like it. But I heard a good discussion on NPR about it while driving. It spoke about billionaires using these unrealzied gains to skirt the system by just taking loans on that unrealzied gain to finance their lives or projects. All the while never actually paying taxes on it as it's only taxed when they sell it. And if they are taking a loan on it, they never have to sell it.
And it gave me pause. Not sure if I still agree with the proposal, but the argument is not meritless and does deserve real discussion.

raumdeuter:
What is fair? Is it fair that Nah Lyles is able to become a billionaire because of his God given gift and I am not able to run as fast? Is it fair that Steph Curry can hit a 3pointer from 20ft and I cannot which made him a billionaire?
Is it fair that JayZ can bust a rhyme and I cant?

So why is it unfair that your boy made 1.5m and I cannot? Why should he be punished for making his 1.5m, if I want to enjoy the benefits he gets, I should do what he did. Go to the school he went, get the job he got, work the long hour he does. Or do you think they pay him 1.5M for smiling and looking cute?
which is what I told you. Instead of whining ad nauseum why dont you go do what billionaires do so you can get their benefit

This post is odd.
The reasoning here is odd.
I'm talking about fairness in that people that make more shouldn't pay less. In fact, those who make more should pay more, because they use more of the resources. Me included.

That you are talking about why he makes the money is odd, weird and has nothing to do with anything I brought up.
It seems like an internal strife you should sort out.

My best understanding of your argument seems to distill to this.
"Noone should complain about wealthy people cheating the system because of their wealth. Instead, you should just get wealthy yourself and cheat the system as well."

Seems to be very broken logic.

bemeruca:
I am surprised you did not say you girlfriend or your ex this time

Fortunately, I'm not you.
No need to lie. I've been consistent about my circle since I've been here.

raumdeuter:
Trump position on abortion is far left of the Republican party position

When he was president, he proposed a 20week ban which is in line with most Left European countries

Everyone knows this except for hypocrites

Except he said he would appoint justices who overturned Roe V. Wade.
And he did. And they did.
You are being intellectually dishonest here.

raumdeuter:
Since you don't have it then hate on those who do and take it from them? Makes sense. The Democrat way. It has to be someone elses fault for whatever is wrong

Why not work your way to that level and take advantage of those tax breaks too if its easy. Create losses for yourself too and pay less in taxes

Someone has been asking if you also took advantage of Trump tax cuts too? Or you refused it and offered to pay more in taxes so you can put your money where your vote is

Because those tax breaks are shady and unfair. My boy made 1.5 Million last year (salary and Bonus) and pays an effectual tax rate less than half of what someone who makes 60k would. Why? Because his employer (bank) can afford better lawyers, better lobbyists and bribe donate to politicians

The question is about what's fair. And I think those who through the benefits of what the US offers(security, infrastructure etc etc) make more money have the obligation to pay it forward. We talk about patriotism when we ask 18 yo's to die to support the US in a Foreign Country. But what about the economic patriotism to support the US from those who benefit. Or did you think the wars the US fights isn't to support these Multi National countries and protect our economic interests.

raumdeuter:
What views did they learn about Trump or what changed about Trump that made them change their views

You spend too much time on Politics to be asking that question.
Trump was basically a Dem before running for President.
Or he just told people what they wanted to hear.

Here he is on reproductive rights in 1999

October 1999: 'I am very pro-choice'
In an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump said, “I am very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. ... I just believe in choice. Again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in some different parts of the country. ... I was raised in New York and grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly pro-choice."

Asked whether he would ban any abortion, including “partial-birth” abortion, Trump said: “No. I am pro-choice in every respect in as far as it goes. But I just hate it.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-many-abortion-positions-timeline-rcna146601

LordReed:
Can you explain why it shouldn't be taxed

You should ask any of them if they even have unrealized capital gains.
The proposal is to tax unrealized capital gains of people with assets over 100 million.

One of the problems with the current system is that some of these people just borrow money off that unrealized gain. So they are never taxed on it. Someone like me would have to realize that gain (sell the asset), then get taxed if I wanted to use that money.

I don't think a lot of people here understand the depths a lot of wealthy people go to not to pay taxes. My boy was telling me about how his Bank has financial instruments for MD level and above employees to help them pay less taxes. Of of them was "creating losses" to help them offset their taxable income.

bemeruca:
Right.
People with brain(something you lack) would not let the elites dictate who they should love and hate.

If you want to attempt to insult someone's intellect, at least use proper English in doing so.
You're an absolute illiterate.