Posts made by hubrys

LINK: How Anti-LGBTQ+ Is Newly Elected House Speaker Mike Johnson? Very.

2005

Too bad he was a frequent opinion writer. Just google and I'm sure you can find many more than I did in just 5 minutes of searching.

2004

@blablarg18 I don't have to. Your argument is irrelevant. You're trying to use the concept that people change SOME opinions over time to prove that, for certain, he's changed THIS SPECIFIC opinion over time.

Except you have no evidence for that belief. The vast examples of his recent commentary and actions prove otherwise. He's still a homophobe.

@blablarg18 Seeing as he tried to pass a Federal equivalent of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, I don't really think his opinions of the gays has improved. In fact, he's one of the most homophobic members of Congress.

You should know who you're celebrating.

LINK: A President, a Billionaire and Questions About Access and National Security

"Their interactions were ultimately swept up in one of the two federal criminal cases that the special counsel Jack Smith brought against Mr. Trump. Prosecutors have interviewed Mr. Pratt in the case in which Mr. Trump is charged with taking classified documents with him from the White House when he left office and obstructing efforts to retrieve them. Mr. Pratt is listed as a potential witness who could testify against Mr. Trump at a trial next year.

In his interviews with prosecutors, Mr. Pratt recounted how Mr. Trump once revealed to him sensitive information about American nuclear submarines, an episode that Mr. Trump denies."

@raphjd Why? Why didn't all of Trump's lawyers just find one of these trustworthy appraisers you guys are relying on? How could they have been so negligent in his defense?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-nuclear-submarine-classified-documents.html

Oh geez! What a goddamn moron! No wonder the government was afraid of him having classified documents.

@blablarg18 said in USSA watch: Mar a Lago worth $300 million plus; judge lies & calls it $18 million as threat to Biden's opposition leader:

For generations, before him, people done real estate appraisals wrong.

I'm not sure why the Trump defense team didn't call you two brain-trusts as witnesses for the trial. As it was, they didn't produce any credible appraisal witnesses during the trial to corroborate your theories on the property's values.

Why? Why didn't all of Trump's lawyers just find one of these trustworthy appraisers you guys are relying on? How could they have been so negligent in his defense?

@blablarg18 said in Most shamefully stupid person in USA congress?:

You really didn't watch the Crockett clip, did you?

I don't need your crackpot videos screwing up my algorithm.

Is it Matt Gaetz? Anyone stupid enough to pay for his barely legal prostitutes using a public VENMO account has to be the stupidest one.

Votes for the stopgap spending bill:

Republicans: 126
Democrats: 209

Huh? Isn't that interesting? It's almost as if it were the Democrats that were trying to get the bill passed. Funny how you missed that little statistic.

@raphjd said in USSA watch: Mar a Lago worth $300 million plus; judge lies & calls it $18 million as threat to Biden's opposition leader:

There are plenty more condos in NYC that are well over $18 million and most do not have any land use.

Do you think the legal phrase "land use" means usable land?

Land use restrictions mean legal restrictions on the purposes or uses to which the land can be put. For example, if a parcel of land is restricted to single-family residence use, then that means you cannot built on that land something like an apartment building or a Walmart. It can only be used to construct a single family household building.

If a parcel of land has a land use restriction on it limiting it to use as a church, then you can't do anything else with it. You can build a church on it and it won't matter whether it's a Baptist church or a Catholic one, but it better damn well be a church building. You can't just decide you want to sub-divide it up and build condos.

That's Trump's problem. He put restriction after restriction onto the property (restrictions which will flow thru to anyone who purchases the property from Trump) that the Mar-a-Lago property can now only be used as a social club. It cannot be used as a private residence. It cannot be divided up and used to build luxury condos.

It's a social club. It MUST be a social club. That means anyone evaluating it for purchase would have to take those onerous restrictions into account.

It's like arcade tokens. Arcade tokens have SOME value, since they can be used at that specific arcade to play skee-ball. If you found yourself with a handful of extra tokens, you could probably find someone inside the arcade willing to buy them from you nearly at what you paid for them ($0.25/token). However, hop on a plane and fly to another city, and you're going to have a real hard time finding someone to pay you the same amount for tokens that can only be used in an arcade in another city.

The utility of the tokens affects their value. The less the purchaser can use the tokens, the less he will be willing to pay for them. The same is true for anyone evaluationg Mar-a-Lago. The usefulness of the property is less than an unrestricted parcel of land; therefore, they aren't going to pay the FMV of land in that area.

But you two dumbfucks keep comparing Mar-a-Lago to the unrestricted parcels of land around it, ignoring the difference between those unrestricted parcels and Mar-a-Lago.

@raphjd said in USSA watch: Mar a Lago worth $300 million plus; judge lies & calls it $18 million as threat to Biden's opposition leader:

$18 Million is a townhouse in some areas.
$18 Million is a condo in the building in Chicago that Oprah used to live in.

Except that you two dumb-fucks can't seem to understand what I was trying to tell you.

YOU. CAN'T. USE. MAR-A-LAGO. AS. A. MANSION. That would be using it as a single-family residence, a right which Trump contractually gave away in exchange for lower taxes.

Because of the land restrictions, easements, and covenants that Trump put onto the property..... land restrictions, easements, and covenants that will be binding on any purchaser of the property from Trump..... the property, and this is the most important part so I'm going to write it out multiple times for you:

It can only be used for the existing social club.
It can only be used for the existing social club.
It can only be used for the existing social club.

That means, of the entire world of potential purchasers, you have to find someone who simultaneously has the money and desire to purchase the property AND the money and desire to run the property as a social club. That severely limits its marketability and narrows the scope of purchasers.

It's why churches, though grand they be, have much lower FMVs when they've been zoned exclusively for use as a church.

Wow, are you two stupid or what!!

@blablarg18 I'll take your nonsense response as an admission that you realize you were wrong in the OP, and now you're just desperate for a red herring distraction.

@raphjd said in Non-binary Law professor at @UAlbertaLaw tells people on tiktok to “be gay and do crime.”:

What, no link?

The sentences above ARE links.

@raphjd

The actual substantive TikTok that explains what was meant by the TikTok, posted the same day.

The TikTok mocking conservative asshats for not understanding the TikTok they ranted about.

@blablarg18 You might have been right about the value of Mar-a-Lago if the purchaser of it could do whatever he or she wanted with the property; however, Trump has burdened the property with an extensive amount of land restrictions, conservation deeds, and preservation easements.

In 1993 - "Declaration of Use Agreement" with Palm Beach to obtain permission to use the property as a "social club," wherein he burdened the property with having to obtain governmental permission in order to use the property for any other purpose than the existing social club. So, if you wanted to use the property as a private residence, you can't without the explicit permission of Town Council of Palm Beach, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the State of Florida, the United States Government, and any relevant agencies.

In 1995 - Trump signed a "Deed of Conservation and Preservation Easement" within which he gave up all rights in the property to use it as anything other than the existing social club.

In 2002 - Trump signed a "Deed of Development Rights," wherein he granted an easement over the property to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and agreed to forever extinguish rights to develop and use the property for any other purpose other than the existing social club. This Deed specifically prohibits changes to the property, including dividing it up, using any of the property for single family use, construction of new buildings, internal renovations inside the building, or obstructing any existing natural vistas. Trump likely signed this Deed because it allowed him a massive local tax cut.

If you read the actual opinion, you will see that the judge disputed Trump's SFC valuation and Trump's expert at trial because neither of them took into account the extensive restrictions on the use of the property in the valuation of it.

TLDR: Trump's values didn't account for land restrictions which are so restrictive that any purchaser could only be buying the property to continue running the existing social club. Basically, the FMV as land is irrelevant because if you bought the land, all you could do is keep running Trump's club.

@blablarg18 If you think we should stop using electric cars because production of Green energy has negative effects on the environment, then I have news for you and your gas-guzzling cars....