₦airaland Forum

Bayajjidda:
Your hate for Christianity won't add a cubit to your height.

Awwwn. Last time I checked, judging someone's height isn't exactly a Christ-like thing to do. 😢

Plus, even if I am vertically challenged, at least I'm not reaching for the sky for imaginary friends. 🤭🤭

#ShortAndSweet
#GetTallerWithKnowledge
#ReadABookNotABible

😇

I generally don't take snubs seriously, and I hardly ever notice them in the first place. I tend not to be down-to-earth all the time, so if you really have a problem with me, maturity demands that you share your grievances politely, in a diplomatic manner, and I will respond accordingly. But if you choose to hold a bitter grudge with me in silence, it's ultimately none of my business. I'm not taking responsibility for a problem I have no idea about, when I have other things more deserving of my attention.

basilico:
There is a dress with his DNA evidence?
It must be the one NASA went to look for up there on the moon's surface.
Two witnesses who couldn't remember the year also.
Photograph? AAh Trump has a Gazillion photos with women. And he had said previously that women can let him grab them by the pussy. Whoa. Such watertight evidence.

With Fani evidence should be foolproof .

What a liar.

You fail to acknowledge the difference in context, consent, and relevance when comparing Trump's photos with women to Carroll's photo with him. This is another false equivocation fallacy you've committed here. Trump denied ever meeting Carroll, and so her photo with him was intended to at least prove that she knew Trump personally, and that he had access to her. You should be crafting fiction, not debating facts. Even a soggy tissue offers more resistance than your current position. Perhaps when you finally grow the balls to answer these questions in good faith.....

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

.....you'll finally come to the realization that you have been on a wild goose chase as far as this topic is concerned.

bemeruca:
it's your choice. whichever option you choose, it's your choice. use your insurance and get the help you need

Clearly, your expertise lies in armchair diagnoses, not interesting comebacks. Perhaps you should consider switching fields.

bemeruca:
You still haven't gotten your head checked. Sigh.
You are ignorant to say the least.

I appreciate the free psychoanalysis, but I'm afraid my insurance only covers licensed professionals, not overly sensitive amateurs on the internet.

basilico:
There is no law that prevents lovers from working in the same office..There are three issues in the case.
Did Fani and Wade lie under oath a to when their affair begun?
Did Fani choose her lover who has never prosecuted a felony case over the more experienced attorneys , initially paying him a higher rate than the other two?
With regards to cash reimbursements, Is Fani lying because as it is , She and Wade enjoyed the high life with proceeds of the $250 an hour billing that Fani approved.He used his business credit card which makes it a business expense Unless he got refunded and he banked the money , then Wade implicitly cheated on his taxes.
There are other issues wrt coordinating with the DOJ, WH and Jackboot that are not yet under scrutiny.

With Trump its she said , so it's true. With Fani you need evidence of when they started screwing. Video, audio, eye witness of subject A fucking subject B or photos. Maybe you will also demand DNA of the semen collected from her vagina. That's how high you set the bar for her.When it comes to Jean Carroll her word is enough.
When there are 2000 calls exchanged , 12000 text messages, a close friend of Fani saying they were into it back in 2019 and Wade lying about the number of booty calls he made.
You really are something.
People have been charged and jailed for lying to Congress and to FBI.
How about lying under oath? Nothing to see because it's a democrat?

There is a question of whether she fired some Whistleblower who claimed she was diverting funds (494k?) from other budgets to this investigation.
Further Wade's professional rates by other Georgia attorneys should have been $100 -150 an hour. Fani offered the special prosecutors the maximum rate she is allowed.

Stop deflecting. You can't dodge a bullet by shooting at others. You think calling Wade and Willis liars, cheaters, or democrats will make Trump look innocent? That's like saying a bank robber is not guilty because the victim was rude, or the security guard was lazy. If it weren't for your selective memory, you would realize that the case against Trump for election interference in Georgia is drastically different from the one against Carroll for defamation in New York, with different standards of proof, given that they are separate legal matters. Yes, Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, but she has provided corroborating evidence, such as a dress with his DNA, two witnesses who heard her story at the time, and a photograph of them together. You are just a joke -- and a dry one, no less.

basilico:
Recourse is well explained in that article.
Non recourse loan would be where your liability stops at the assets offered.
Recourse is where a party can go after other assets if the full amount is not enough to cover the loaned money. The interest charged on a recourse loan is much higher than of a
non recourse loan as I understood

Letitia argued Trump obtained non recourse loans because he overvalued the worth.
The disgorgement is the difference he would have paid had the loans been recourse.

This is wrong because the banks did not issue non recourse loans based on what he said the assets were worth. They did their own assessment an determined that they would grant him non recourse loans based on their own figures.

Going back to Engoron decision the difference between what he would have been offered by banks is actually Zero. Because they used their assessment values and NOT his values.

That's what I got from the article, stop playing clever.

Going ahead Engoron went on to fine him from the profit he made on that DC hotel. He argued the profit made was illegal because it was a non-recourse loan. He also fined his children from their share of that profit.
Disgusting of Engoron.The law is meant to protect the consumer not the lender, which is why this case falls flat. It stems from ulterior motives.
I have not read the judgement, Your biased anti Trump opinion shapers have read it for you.I may have mixed up recourse and non recourse interests , I'm writing in a hurry and I reserve the right to update this post.

When will it seep through to your fragile brain that Engoron based his ruling on the Martin Act, which does not require proof of intent or reliance, only that the defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the offer or sale of securities? Letitia James sued Trump and his companies under the Martin Act, a law that gives her broad authority to investigate and prosecute securities fraud in New York. Engoron did not fine Trump for the profit he made on the DC hotel. That's just a complete misinterpretation of the case. He ordered him to disgorge the profit he made from the fraud, which was the difference between the amount of money he borrowed and the amount of money he would have been able to borrow if he had told the truth about his assets. The disgorgement order was not based on the type of loan (recourse or non-recourse), but on the amount of money that the defendants obtained by fraud.

The Martin Act is not meant to protect the consumer or the lender, as you falsely claim. It is meant to protect the public and the integrity of the securities market from fraud and deception. It is not a partisan or political tool, but a powerful and effective weapon against white-collar crime, and the case against Trump and his companies was driven by overwhelming evidence and compelling arguments. Of course you have not read the judgment, because you are all too comfortable making up specious suggestions that cater to your own narratives.

basilico:
I said I'll beat the valuation dog first. Then I'll circle back.Are we in agreement that Letitia used tax assessment to evaluate the value of Trump properties, which is not the same value one would give to banks when requesting for a loan? Yes or no.

This is a loaded question proceeding from a simplistic characterization of Letitia's investigation. She did not use tax assessment to evaluate the value of Trump properties, she used it to compare the value of Trump properties with the value of similar properties in the same area. She did this to show that there was a significant discrepancy between the values that Trump reported to the tax authorities and the values that he reported to the banks. This discrepancy suggests that he either inflated or deflated the value of his properties depending on his interests, which could amount to fraud. You're also ignoring the fact that Letitia did not rely solely on tax assessment, she also used other sources of information, such as appraisals, financial statements, loan documents, and expert opinions to corroborate and cross-check the data and provide a more comprehensive picture of the value of Trump properties.

@basilico

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

Surely you didn't think I'll let you forget.

basilico:
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/23/judge-engorons-inflation-of-trumps-ill-gotten-gains-is-a-financial-crime-in-itself/

This is a well explained article relying on Judge Engoron ruling.
Pay close attention to recourse, non recourse and disgorgement explanations.
The article should clear your biases.

Applies to Jessicarabbit too.
Judge Engoron seems likely to have wanted to fine Trump's parents for siring him.

It's unfortunate that you weren't paying attention. Casually name-dropping irrelevant and misleading terms that the article used like recourse, non-recourse, and disgorgement, serve no further purpose than wilful obfuscation. Stop trying to be clever by half. Recourse and non-recourse are types of loans that differ in how the lender can recover the debt from the borrower in case of default. Disgorgement is a legal remedy that requires the wrongdoer to return the profits obtained from illegal or unethical conduct. These terms have NOTHING to do with Judge Engoron's ruling, which was based on the New York Martin Act, a law that prohibits fraud and deception in the offer and sale of securities. Trump's recourse loans were not based on his actual risk, but on his false representations of his wealth and creditworthiness. This is just another cheap and misleading rhetoric from you.

basilico:
Trump team filed motion in Georgia detailing geolocation data of Fani Willis boyfriend Nathan Wade cellphone.
Both said under oath they begun the affair long after she appointed him as the lead Inquisitor. Wade claimed to have visited her home 10 times only.
A wiitness testified she was sure they had a thing going back 2019.

Cellphone data shows he visited her at least 35 times in 2021. Some visits were booty calls, where he spent the night.
In 2021, they texted 12000 times and exchanged 2000 calls.

Conclusion. Both lied under oath. Have to be removed from the case.They need to be disbarred and jailed yesterday.

In 2021 Fani Willis said she would fire staff members having interoffice affairs. She promised to restore integrity to the office
Another charge. Did she profit from payments she personally approved ? She claims to have reimbursed Wade in cash. In her other cash reimbursements she used an app CashApp which has a money trail. With Wade she used cash.Wade has no records where he banked the cash to offset the business expenses he incurred taking Fani to cruises, shopping, buying dinners and flowers etc. These were business deductible expenses.😄😄😄😄
She got laid, he got paid.
With that kind of cash this brother should have been dating hot girls, not some divorcee with control of his income. I could kick him if I met him.


Trump has those call records, I bet there are calls to White House, DOJ and Jack Smith who are coordinating the Trump take down efforts.

dahighlife and Jessicarabbit Spin this development.
I think if this case was with the FBI they would indict the witness for telling lies and close down the Telco operator who provided the data while declaring the data inadmissible.

I'm impressed by your ability to write so much without saying anything at all. Did you forget the "evidence" chapter in your handbook on righteous indignation? The cellphone data showing that Wade visited Willis' home 35 times in 2021, does not prove that they lied about when their affair started or that it affected their professional judgment. It's still within the realm of speculation, as far as legal processes are concerned. You really don't have any idea how this shit works, do you? You also mentioned that they profited from the prosecution, without evidence no less! You just shamelessly speculated that Willis reimbursed Wade in cash for his business expenses, which were allegedly used to fund their personal trips and gifts. However, this is not a solid basis for accusing them of fraud or corruption. Also, you ignore the fact that Wade's fees were approved by the state attorney general's office and that he has submitted detailed invoices and receipts for his work. Let's hold off on the jail sentences for Willis and Wade until we have something more substantial than feelings to go on, shall we?

The couple has already admitted to their affair and have apologized for it, but have denied that it influenced their decision to pursue the case against Trump. That's as far as we know. If you are going to suggest any sort of foul play, then the burden is on you to present the conclusive evidence. For now, your objections have just been a complete and utter waste of time and effort. So you can keep crying about the case until the cows come home, the fact remains that there is no evidence of any improper influence or interference from the federal government or any other party.

Serendipity2023:
SMA GOLD is about 30k today because of exchange rates. So are other baby items, food stuffs, transportation, medicals.

While salaries remained constant.

Our mothers managed resources and adjusted between plenty and lack.

I remember when my mum would take me to Ose Okwodu in Onitsha, Anambra, to buy yams, crayfish etc in bulk.
This was to save cost.

In plenty we slaughtered goats and made merry, dried some and kept.
We adjusted in lack.

There was equilibrium.

Some of us grew up taking pap and soy milk garnished with crayfish.

We all turned out fine with skin like miliki and full brain development.

In fact, my elder brother was almost expelled in school for taking too many first positions.

He was so precocious and smart that he declared his teachers du.mb, took SSCE in SS2 and gained admission to study Law at the university.

This same foods nurtured men like Chinua Achebe, Chuba Okadigbo etc.

We were physically fit as well.

WHAT ABOUT WOMEN TODAY?

They can't breastfeed exclusively because they don't want their breasts to fall. Of course, ashawo still dey their eyes.

They would rather feed babies with SMA gold, Aptamil, Peak 123 and nothing else.

No soy, no pap.

Most women today can't cook properly.

Most can't go to market to haggle and buy stuffs.

They would rather stay at home and order at outrageous prices online, further depleting scarce resources of their husbands.

They can't even push out babies because of unhealthy lifestyle and food choices.

They will have to rely on CS Operation and demand for push gifts thereafter as though they gave birth to Messiah.

They want expensive houses, cars, weavons, clothes just to keep up with the jonses and belong, even when their husbands can't afford it.

They end up pushing these men to crimes.

OP, there is absolutely no basis for you to compare economic hardship today to a romanticized past. It's true that our mothers back then were resourceful, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred access to modern conveniences if they had them. You are letting nostalgia bias cloud your thinking. The success of people like the great Chinua Achebe wasn't solely due to their childhood diet. With all due respect, that's a rather silly oversimplification. What about his talent and hard work? In tandem with access to quality education? Unless you have ulterior motives with your post, I don't see why you should readily handwave these factors away since they play arguably far greater roles than nutrition alone!

The problem with most people like you is that you're all too happy to make insensitive generalizations about the opposite gender. Plenty of women today are skilled cooks, savvy shoppers, and financially responsible partners. How does it make sense to paint them all with the same brush, in spite of the incredible diversity of experiences and choices modern women face? It's very easy for you to blame women for the economic woes in their families, but conveniently turn a blind eye to economic factors, systemic inequalities, and individual circumstances that bring about these societal problems. Your post reeks of thinly veiled misogyny.

The suggestion that women who choose formula feeding are somehow inferior mothers is borne out of pure scientific illiteracy. Both breast milk and formula can provide adequate nutrition for babies.

I'd advise you to stop letting nostalgia blind you to the realities of the present. Today's challenges are different, and solutions require nuance, not emotional finger-pointing.

cutecommend:
Jesus Christ is the way. Jesus loves you

Love is a beautiful thing, but I prefer to find my path through reason and exploration, not divine intervention. Thanks for the sentiment, all the same.

Well, well, well, isn't this a smorgasbord of logical fallacies served on a platter of historical amnesia? Painting entire cultures and their deities with such a broad brush demonstrates a profound ignorance of the rich tapestry of human belief systems throughout history. From the philosophical and scientific advancements of ancient Egypt to the artistic and cultural achievements of the Aztec Empire, attributing societal progress solely to specific religions betrays your staggering naivety on this subject. Furthermore, your assumption that because some societies with traditional religions haven't achieved the same level of technological advancement as the West, their deities must be inherently inferior, is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Factors like geography, resource availability, and historical circumstances play a far greater role in societal development than any specific religious belief system.

Perhaps the most stupid thing about your post is its' appeal to colonial apologia, conveniently ignoring the exploitation, oppression, and cultural destruction often inflicted by colonizers in the name of spreading their faith. The fact that you are all too happy to credit the technological advancements of the West solely to Christianity while ignoring the contributions of countless other cultures throughout history, shows that you are not only wantonly ignorant, but terribly insensitive.

Your "Jesus Christ is the way" rhetoric holds absolutely no weight. It's a subjective belief statement, not an objective truth. Instead of seeking to rank religions based on personal beliefs, don't you think a more constructive approach would be to appreciate the unique contributions each faith makes to the richness and diversity of human spirituality?

Adakintroy:
Open your mind.

Already ajar, just waiting for something interesting to peek in.

Adoption, is by the way borrowing a child of a man and a woman. In simple terms..it still the offspring of male female binary. So you still stuck with dependency.

This isn't about ownership, my dear. It's about creating families, not replicating biology. It's about love, commitment, and forging deep bonds that transcend the limitations of DNA. And yes, while adopted children may have biological parents, their adoptive family is the one they choose, the one that nurtures them, and the one they build a future with. As for dependency, we're all interdependent. It's the very fabric of society!

Surrogacy is a woman having a child for another couple..but still a man and woman binaries. Artificial inseminations are sperms of men into a female. Same male female order. Just different re twist. Yet you brought that up so like you found a glitch.

It's cute watching you express unwavering commitment to tradition, even in the face of inconvenient facts, but let me enlighten you. Surrogacy and assisted reproduction challenge the rigid binary you cling to, rather than enforce it. They showcase the beautiful complexities of modern families, where love and commitment, not rigid gender roles, dictate what constitutes a family. It's not about men and women fulfilling their "biological destinies," but about creating loving homes for children, regardless of the path taken. And yes, I brought it up because it dismantles your narrow argument about inherent bias stemming from procreation. Perhaps, instead of fearing possible "glitches" in your worldview, embrace them as opportunities to expand your understanding. If you really want to have this conversation honestly, you must be willing to engage with facts and logic, not outdated biological determinism.

You consider human evolution as something petty..independent of procreation. With a wave of hand you casually dispose it as nothing. See how you stepped over it as nothing. Human existence and continuity is tired to procreation. There are no evolution without procreation. Certainly no modern era.

What do you know about evolution really? I'm afraid you've mistaken evolution for a cosmic game of hot potato. It's not a relay race where the baton must be passed on at all costs. Evolution is a complex dance of adaptation and environmental pressures, not a linear march towards ever-increasing numbers. Suggesting that my stance on social issues somehow disrupts this grand evolutionary ballet is, well, let's just say it wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Besides, focusing solely on biological continuity paints a rather uninspired picture of human existence. Don't we, as a species, strive for more than just perpetuating ourselves? We create art, push the boundaries of knowledge, and build cultures that transcend mere procreation. To suggest that these endeavors hold no evolutionary value is not only shortsighted but frankly, a little insulting to the ingenuity of humankind.

Old stale information but true and who is responsible these? Male/ females. Not gays.

Attributing societal advancements solely to "male/females" erases the contributions of countless individuals who defy such rigid categorization. Intersex folks, non-binary individuals, and those existing outside the gender spectrum have all played vital roles in shaping the world we know today. You need to revisit your argument because it suffers from a distinct lack of nuance.

They are weak sterile and incapable of making meaning contributive progress. Only in times of social stability ado we need them. Pro gays laws are regressive laws as I said. In a count from zero to complexities they are static.

Pro-gay laws promote equality and basic human rights, something I would hope we can all agree is a fundamental good in any society. I suspect you'd be more comfortable in a bygone era, clutching your pearls and fainting at the sight of someone who doesn't conform to your narrow definition of normalcy. It's really unfortunate that your comments on this topic so far are rife with the same tired tropes used to marginalize countless groups throughout history, and if you are at all capable of honest introspection, you'd see how it speaks to your own baselines. I also find it hilarious how you boldly claim that LGBTQ+ individuals are incapable of contributing meaningfully to society. The LGBTQ+ community has consistently enriched the world with their talents and perspectives, from scientists to entrepreneurs and activists. Maybe you've simply chosen to ignore their contributions, blinded by your own prejudice.

isolate the whole gay community in an island and withing a century they all die off with no continuity. While heteros stay striving .

Frankly, your obsession with procreation as the sole measure of societal value is tiresome, and based on redundant ideals. Adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies are just a few terms that reveal the thoughtlessness of your hypothetical.

"Progressives" my royal ass!

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone clinging to the past to understand the value of progress.

Nitong:
Men who are over 33 years of age and unmarried should be arrested. They are a time bomb waiting to explode and always prone to participate in several crimes.

They have refused to help their society and take a wife and care for women in order to reduce ladies stress and misdeed in the society.

Men control the society and the world at large and not we women. Men who are unmarried at over 33 are always irresponsible both spiritually and physically.

The moment men decide to change their life and grow with a woman, financial progress surface because they start to see why a man should work hard, be responsible and care for others.

Men over 33 and unmarried are a menace. They are always stucked to themselves masturbating. Instead of them to leave their room and go out there, look for a woman they can be climbing as NATURE has commanded it. You cant fight NATURE, you'll endup destroying yourself. There is a reason life is Designed this way

When I read posts like this, I'm reminded of Poe's law. The internet is truly a funny place.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Interesting topic.

While I don't necessarily subscribe to your "prison planet" theory, I can appreciate the exploration of alternative perspectives. You want to know something funny? The concept of a "prison planet" resonates with certain aspects of Gnostic beliefs, particularly the idea of the DEMIURGE. I've always been fascinated with Gnosticism as opposed to the bland Orthodox Christianity which is accepted worldwide. In Gnosticism, the demiurge is a flawed creator god called Yaldaboath (I think), often identified with the God of the Old Testament, who is responsible for the material world. This world is seen as imperfect and even a trap for the divine spark within humanity. Gnostics believed the material world, created by the demiurge, is inherently flawed and filled with suffering. Just like your idea of being trapped in a restrictive and unpleasant existence. They also believed the demiurge keeps humanity ignorant of its true divine nature and seeks to control them, and their philosophy emphasizes attaining gnosis (spiritual knowledge) as a means of liberation from the material world and the demiurge's control.

It's just something I remembered when I saw your post. However, you should remember that ultimately, your theory remains a speculative concept, and whether it resonates with you depends on your own individual perspectives.

Adakintroy:
A man like you born of a woman has already allude to a male female binaries position even before they wake up to it's consciousness.


The gay man has no right just granted privilege . If It can not replicate after his own kind it Will always refer to the "hetro" What's the point of independence when it's always going to be dependent.

Firstly, I'm not a man.

Secondly, equating my biological origins with inherent bias is a rather comical attempt at logical gymnastics, I must say. It's like claiming a paleontologist studying dinosaurs must secretly yearn to become a T-Rex. My existence as a product of heterosexual coupling doesn't automatically negate my ability to analyze societal issues objectively. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I donned a lab coat and delivered this lecture in a monotone to appease your desire for scientific detachment, devoid of any pesky human characteristics like, you know, independent thought? Oh, and there is nothing like inherent dependence on "hetro" [sic] reproduction. Have you ever heard of *gasp!*... adoption? Modern medicine has opened doors to surrogacy and assisted reproduction. And let's not forget, countless heterosexual couples choose not to have biological children at all. Does that somehow render their lives meaningless or dependent? Please, spare me the tired trope of equating procreation with the entirety of human existence. It's both reductive and frankly, reeks of a deep-seated fear of anything outside the narrow confines of your worldview. Regarding the supposed "privilege" of gay men. This statement is so laughably off-base that I'm almost tempted to humor it. If anything, history has shown us that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights has been a relentless struggle against prejudice and discrimination! To claim they're somehow privileged is not only insensitive but demonstrably false. In addition to biology textbooks, you might also be in dire need of history textbooks as well.

You seem to be arguing for blind conformity in the name of tradition, while simultaneously denying the very agency and individuality you claim to possess. It's a fascinating paradox, wouldn't you agree?

basilico:
Be adviced that land values depend highly on recent sales of nearby pieces/tracts of land.Try and figure out why. All those factors you mentioned determine why any land sale within the general area took place. If someone bought some land that had oil, then it affects every other sale nearby for instance.Just common sense.

A land valuer/ property agent can clarify that for you.



Jackson, chief property appraiser for Palm Beach County, told Newsweek that its assessments were "based on assessments for tax purposes only and not for financing or...for a lending institution."
He said that Mar-a-Lago was among nine clubs in the county that were appraised on their net operating income. "We look at their memberships—the number of members—their annual membership dues, the expenses that it costs to run the facility, and then we trade a capitalization rate, which includes the tax rate for that jurisdiction," Jackson explained.

"We don't look at that property any differently than we do any properties here in Palm Beach County; they're all assessed equitably and fairly...regardless of who's name is on the property," he added.

Jackson declined to comment on the reaction of Trump and his family to the assessment but said: "Everyone has an opinion. We have an opinion, and our values are set on January 1 of each calendar year and it's only for assessment purposes—not for reappraisals or private appraisals that someone would want to determine what their property is 5


How much would be Michael Jordan's sneakers tax be, were they displayed in their own museum? How much loan would a bank extend to this museum? Same amount as the tax valuation, no?
You really tie yourself up in knots.

Just look at the nonsense you're typing. You have no idea what the fuck_ you're even talking about.

First of all, comparing Mar-a-Lago to Michael Jordan's sneakers is so stupid, I can't even fathom how any reasonable person could justify this ridiculous analogy. They are not comparable items, and neither are Trump's mansion and Mar-a-Lago. You can't just use any random example to make your argument, you have to use relevant and similar ones. Context is very important to consider in these situations. You're blatantly ignoring the fact that Mar-a-Lago is not just a piece of land, it's a business. It generates income from its members, guests, events, and other sources. Therefore, its value is not only determined by the land itself, but by the profitability and potential of the business. That's why the county appraiser uses the net operating income method, which is a common and accepted way of valuing income-producing properties. Also, and I think I've alluded to this misconception of yours earlier: you're conflating TAX ASSESSMENT with MARKET VALUE. They serve different purposes! Tax assessment is based on a standardized and uniform method that applies to all properties in a jurisdiction, and it's used to calculate the property taxes that the owner has to pay. Market value is based on the actual price that a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree on in a competitive and open market, and it's influenced by many factors, such as supply and demand, location, condition, amenities, etc. Tax assessment is not necessarily reflective of market value, and vice versa.

As for your question, the answer is NO! A bank can not extend the same amount of loan to a museum that displays Michael Jordan's sneakers as the tax valuation of those sneakers. A bank would look at the market value of the sneakers, the income and expenses of the museum, the creditworthiness of the borrower, the interest rate, the collateral, and other factors. Similarly, a bank would not lend the same amount of money to someone who wants to buy Mar-a-Lago as the tax assessment of Mar-a-Lago.

Please stick to topics you're actually knowledgeable about. It's becoming quite irritating how confident you are in your ignorance.

basilico:
I'll come to those questions.

Just a heads up -- some, actually most of them, might require actual thinking.

Let's go on with your fuzzy logic in valuations.

I prefer to call it "nuanced understanding".

In 2008 Trump sold a property 6.2 acres for $95m MAL is on 17 acres.
Later that property was demolished, subdivided into 3 pieces that in total sold for $108m in 2016.

I posed this question some year ago. If a university was to build a campus next to your village plot, the plots value would rise. If you are to build hostels on your plot, you'd apply for a larger amount of loan than a similar undeveloped property. But you would not use that value for paying land rates.

Flawed analogy. Trump's property that he sold in 2008 was a mansion on a beachfront lot, while Mar-a-Lago is a club resort on a larger inland lot. The demand and supply for these properties are not the same, and neither are the factors that affect their values. For example, beachfront properties are more scarce and desirable than inland properties, and club resorts have different income and expense streams than residential properties. Therefore, the value of one property cannot be inferred from the value of another property, unless they are very similar and comparable.

Its not rocket science.

Maybe it isn't, but it seems to be beyond your current grasp of the situation.

You want to teach me valuation seriously.

Valuation isn't exactly rocket science, but if you're struggling, I'm sure you can find places online to point you towards some beginner resources.

Are you aware that land value is very much based on recent sales of other properties within the vicinity.

Oh really? And what about accessibility, land use, physical attributes, location, market conditions etc, hmm? Can you see how evident your lack of knowledge on this topic is?

Well, I'm not surprised that you can NOT provide any evidence or data to support the claim that recent sales of other properties in the vicinity have increased the value of Mar-a-Lago. You can only offer mere assertions without proof.

And you expect reasonable people here to take you seriously? LOL.

By the way are you using chatgpt as your source? The other day I wondered whether you are writing love letters. The kind of sweet responses from Generative AI.

Perhaps you're just not used to encountering well-written content. Don't worry, it's a rare find these days, I've observed personally.

Adakintroy:
I wonder even more about the science you have taken when you argue with exceptions and not standard rules. Yes most animals manifest exception odd mating habits. But on the whole it mostly the binaries ( male and female ) that rule the mating sphere. I go with 99.9 percent. The diverse forms mating habits you mention are not really in anywhere what can be said to constitute "diversity". Unless you are scarily ignorant of the natural world. Hyena's are led by matriarchs and they have sought of male Instruments, sea horse are hermaphrodites in some sense, while the bonobos you mention have gay orgies. But again small very minute insignificant number in relations to the broader animal groupings. bonobos predominantly mate with female and that's how they continue their own existence. So the male do not get pregnant from mating. Like seas horse do. Rather is just a tool to ease social tension. So if by any real consciouse sense we choose to rank order this acts in terms of meaning bio social habits the male female alliance still will rank higher within it's context. Since it's serve both the functions of procreation and social bonding. So no the natural world does not have much diverse habits in this context. Rather they have "odd" and "rare's". It s why they easily stand out. For the most part the male female alliances rule the plains or sea. Examples, Dogs cats goats oranguntans, silver backs, chickens,, lion, whale sharks..e.t.c. I can name 105 to every one you can come up with. These are commonly preferred everywhere by nature. So to lump everything together as one common generalities is for lack of better terms lazy "sciencing" or poor observations of the natural world.

Moving on to your take 2 with regards human social dynamism of sex and marriage. No marriage don't exist in countless form involving multi diverse genders. They exist in diverse ways between same binary genders. Little wonder you fail to site much examples in that but rather including polygamy to stretch your list. plain ignorant simple. Polygamy is a marriage between a man and woman or the reverse. Is still within same binaries mentioned. Across human history, time and space, marriage have been predominantly, I repeat predominately between men and women..if they do exist aside that, they are the exception once again not the ruling. So to draw authority from the odd exceptions or to lump it all as one common generality is plain intellectual dishonesty on your part plain and simple. I do not content with that much..it's beneath me. Historically marriage is and was mostly between a man and woman. Were you get history lesson from is were I should maybe question. ShopRite maybe.

The demography of humans are what we count as our meaningful human progress. It's human born to this world..is not a stats measured. Its a human being born. Its's easily the most transcended of all the meaning and ranks higher than all the thought and that include sex for social bonding. Notice the only reason we are having this conversation is because you are here via the male female binary meaning..even so the gay man. So for some one commenting about unoriginality of my thought, I doubt if you get your own origin.

Correlation is not causation. You have only just cherry-picked exceptions to paint a misleading picture of the natural world.

It's true that most animals reproduce sexually, but focusing solely on the binary ignores the fascinating spectrum of biodiversity. You highlight hyenas, seahorses, and bonobos as "oddities," conveniently forgetting the numerous species exhibiting same-sex behavior, hermaphroditism, and alternative family structures e.g. clownfish with their gender-switching dominance hierarchies etc. Perhaps you should crack open a biology textbook beyond the "birds and the bees" chapter. Plus, your attempt to rank animal mating behaviors based on some arbitrary "meaning" is purely subjective and anthropocentric. Nature doesn't operate on human-imposed value judgments. Every species has its own unique way of ensuring survival and procreation, and judging them based on our narrow understanding of marriage is simply illogical.

Moving on to human societies, claiming marriage has historically been predominantly between men and women ignores the vast cultural and historical diversity. From ancient Greece and Rome to various indigenous communities around the world, examples of same-sex unions, polyamory, and other non-traditional family structures existed and continue to exist. To claim these are mere exceptions is demonstrably false. Your argument about demographics and human progress being solely dependent on the "male-female binary" is not only simplistic but also offensive. Reducing human existence to mere procreation undermines the complexities of love, companionship, and societal evolution. Suggesting that same-sex couples somehow impede human progress is not just factually incorrect but also deeply prejudiced.

basilico:
You are shameless. Since when do prime real estate properties lose value over time? Especially after massive uplifts.
How did he inflate Mar a Lago. If he was to list it now how much would he get, Mr Ignorant.

You're drowning in a puddle of ignorance, and I'm tired of playing the teacher and throwing you lifelines. Why must we always hold a kindergarten lesson in your favor, and allow you come to predictable conclusions before you can join a simple conversation? You're a lost cause and a bore.

I'm still waiting for answers to these questions.

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

basilico:
A certain prime property listed 42 years ago at $20m is now worth $18-27m.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/16/garden/post-home-for-sale-for-20.html

Shove your propaganda sources where the sun don't shine.


Mar a Lago.

Normally, I'd be explaining to you how valuations were based on its annual net operating income as a club and not on its resale value as a home or its reconstruction cost, but as history has shown repeatedly on this thread, it wouldn't matter to a dumbo with the IQ of a shoelace. If truly you're honest with yourself, or had the tiniest molecule of self-awareness, you'd have subtly noticed how your irrelevant link does absolutely nothing to dispute the fact that Trump DID inflate the value of his resort. So before we get lost in the Bermuda Triangle of tangents you keep constructing, let's circle back to those pesky questions you've been tap-dancing around like a mime lost in a disco:

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

Adakintroy:
As it was in the begining so shall it be in the end.

For the science man. It's a new beginning. For the religious one it is the end.


But from natural science or observation. There is no such thing as gay marriage. A marriage implied joining of two semi half. A man generically is one half of the meaning while the woman is the other. Joining a man and a man still retain one meaning. The puzzle isn't fix that way.

But all of this will occur only in the time of plenty or population explosion. Since the male existence register as sterile birth anyway.

If Ukraine was to emerge from war as it is. There will be no pro gay law due to war and devastation. A nation who is planning rebuilding from ground up will priotise male female alliance for procreational purpose, family bond and re introducing quality new member into institution. Something mostly don by proper families. Gay union are priorities that can be afforded in times of population growth already. So this acct is mostly deliberate.

For those of you who don't know gay laws in the realest and I mean in the realest sense are not progressive..they are actually regressive.

They are laws taken when progress has been made and there is need to halt of slow it down.

I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical argument!

I have to wonder if you have taken any science classes before, because anyone with a base knowledge of science knows that it doesn't have definite opinions on marriage. It only studies the natural world. And trust me, the natural world is far more diverse and fascinating than your binary interpretation of "two halves." Some fish change genders, and even bonobos throw epic orgies!

Marriage exists in countless forms across cultures and history. It's about love, commitment, building a life together, not some predetermined puzzle with pre-assigned pieces. Two men, two women, or even a polyamorous octopus commune? Love is love, and who gets to defines its "meaning" besides ourselves? War and devastation are awful, no doubt. But suggesting same-sex marriage is some opportunistic plot to sabotage procreation is, frankly, insensitive and absurd. People's identities and desires aren't pawns in some demographic chess game. Besides, plenty of straight couples choose not to have children, and many same-sex couples adopt or use assisted reproductive technologies to build families, just like anyone else. Being progressive means moving forward, not clinging to outdated notions of societal control. Restricting rights based on sexual orientation smacks more of fear and prejudice than progress. Same-sex marriage laws aren't some sudden invention. They're the culmination of decades of struggle for equality, recognition, and basic human dignity. To call them "regressive" ignores the historical context and the countless individuals who fought for them.

Excluding people based on who they love, or using fear-mongering about population control, is not just wrong, it's downright unoriginal.

Akaujaa:
Let's not even try to bring religion into this. Same same marriage is even against the law of nature.

Who exactly wrote this "law of nature"? Was it etched on a lightning bolt delivered by Zeus himself, complete with disclaimers and amendments? Or is it more like a dusty legal code penned by folks with questionable biases?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but nature itself is pretty darn diverse, featuring same-sex relationships in over 450 species, from penguins to bonobos. So, claiming exclusivity for heterosexuals seems, well, a tad presumptuous.

basilico:
I get my info from a lot of sources..Where do you get yours. You are the one whose blatant lies I keep pointing out.
The worst you can get on is misunderstanding. Unlike you it's usually totally made up fake lies.

Put down your credible sources so we can compare notes. I most of the time provide links.

Answer the questions, or shut your trap forever. I've indulged your diversions enough.

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

You're carefully avoiding these questions because you know answering them honestly will utterly destroy your inane propaganda, and prejudiced narratives.

Get lost.

PoliteActivist:
Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.

So you truly believe that the pinpoint laws of the universe are a result of "billions of years of evolution"?
As for scientists (that you have so much faith in), you can see what the ultimate scientist (Einstein) thinks about them - they are like little children in a library full of books who can't read!
Also Einstein didn't just dabble in determinism, he actually refused to take credit for his works, insisting we all dance to a tune intoned by a mysterious player in the distance.

As for freewill, have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from? Notice your thoughts just appear without your input. How about your dreams? How about prophetic dreams? How come you can't choose what dream to have? (A friend has an entity that comes to have sex with her in her dreams anytime she lags in her Christian faith; another, a straight male friend, has someone try to anally rape him in dream each time he didn't pray). How come there are addictions, why not use freewill and immediately overide them?

"Glitches in the matrix" are very far from "confirmation bias". They are scientifically verified and documented cases of children born with memory of their past lives intact. They are confirmed and video tapped cases of time being reset - things that already happened unhappening or happening again. You can see lots of those on YouTube.
As for the shorts, those are not even tip of the iceberg. Stories abound of people's encounter with the divine and the best ones don't make it to YouTube.

Finally, human reasoning and human critical thinking (that atheism relies so much on) have proven woefully inadequate in figuring out the nature of our universe, just as there is so much that science can't even come close to being able to explain.
Example, speed of light. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a speed limit in the universe. It is the kind of constraint imposed by speed of a processor. Our geniuses who say we likely live on a simulation are not saying it based on nothing. And if indeed we live in a world simulated by an external being, atheism falls apart to that extent!

Evolution is a carefully documented and well-understood process. It's not magic, it's adaptation. Like a sculptor shaping clay over millennia, nature has sculpted the universe's laws through trial and error. Now, if you have a better explanation for gravity, magnetism, and the tastiness of food, please do share. Comparing scientists to children in a library is charmingly inaccurate. Yes, we haven't read all the books (yet!), but we're constantly learning, building upon the knowledge of those who came before us. And while Einstein grappled with determinism, he also said, "God does not play dice with the universe." So he wasn't exactly a poster boy for divine intervention. You asked about the origin of thoughts, dreams, and addictions. I think those are fascinating questions, all tackled by various fields like neuroscience and psychology. But claiming they disprove free will is like saying the existence of locks proves nobody has keys. We can explore the mechanics without negating the possibility of choice. As for prophetic dreams, well, confirmation bias is a powerful force. And let's not forget the countless dreams of falling teeth or being chased by chickens -- not exactly glimpses into the divine plan. "Scientifically verified" children with past-life memories? "Time resets" documented on YouTube? My friend, these sound more like anecdotes and wishful thinking than verifiable facts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and YouTube comments simply don't cut it. Of course, personal stories abound on YouTube. But anecdotes are not data, and confirmation bias thrives in echo chambers. If every encounter with the divine made it to YouTube, wouldn't the internet be a choir of hallelujahs? Instead, we have cat videos and conspiracy theories.

Saying the human reasoning is inadequate is like saying a hammer is useless because it can't sew. We use the tools we have to explore the universe, and science has been remarkably successful. The speed of light limit? It's not a processor constraint, it's a fundamental property of spacetime. And while simulations are interesting thought experiments, they hardly disprove atheism. In fact, even in a simulated reality, the same questions about free will and existence would remain.

To your credit, you've presented a buffet of intriguing ideas, but none of them truly hold up to scrutiny. Blind faith may be comforting, but it's a poor substitute for evidence and critical thinking. If you're truly interested in understanding the universe, I recommend ditching the YouTube rabbit hole and exploring the wonders of actual science. Start with Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, or even Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. You might be surprised by what you discover.

basilico:
Jessicarabbit and dahighlife. While I'm waiting for your credible sources Is this a credible source of Biden corruption?

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/21/james-biden-story-china-deal/

NB
Dailycaller co-founded by Tucker Carlson

For the second time, I don't remember having any conversation with you about Biden corruption! You are so dishonest and full of shit, always bringing up irrelevant nonsense to distract from the main point. In fact, I think I will refrain from dignifying you with substantive responses until you finally address the posers I presented.

basilico:
I use logic to determine my conclusions.
I also need one credible source according to you .Or better still One credible journalist from any media house.

You refused to answer my questions, and now you want me to oblige you? It seems you've forgotten how this discussion started and which party has the burden of proof here? You're not a serious debater.

Astrology: It's like saying your toaster is a reliable weatherman because it gets hot sometimes.

What will you have them do, OP? They may be Christians who claim to have "faith" in the divine and supernatural, but surely you don't expect them to anoint their iPhones with holy oil for better battery strength? What's Christianity without a tiny dose of hypocrisy? Got to abandon imaginary fantasies for reality once in a while. Tsk tsk.

Brothers and sisters in the lord, please plug in and let the spiritual amperes flow! Just remember, while your phone might be reaching 100%, your faith might still be stuck on "searching for signal". Hallelujah, indeed!

#JesusTakeTheWheel...andChargeMyPhone