| |
| ▲ | cheonc720 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good. | | |
| ▲ | mgkimsal a day ago | parent [-] | | Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. | | |
| ▲ | cheonc720 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. Yes, they are the same category. In US$10,000 property damage, nobody is physically harmed. Here’s another example, expanded rights: Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. We expanded rights! Take a guess what this does to the homeless population. | | |
| ▲ | kappar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. I am not sure on pensions, but this is not true for a 401k. Only an IRA can be used without paying capital gains taxes for a home purchase. Including first time home buyers. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way the benefit you are describing applies only to an IRA. To be clear, you are saying that theft of <10k is not a crime..? If you steal an iPad in an airport, you are charged with theft. I don't know where you got that idea. People are charged with theft for much less than 10k daily. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | skinfaxi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad. | |
| ▲ | koolba a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. | | |
| ▲ | r2_pilot a day ago | parent [-] | | >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly? | | |
| ▲ | koolba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed. | |
| ▲ | disorder2025 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
