73 Reds

To find what? An example of intimidation? So what? You make it sound like it is widespread and happens all the time to large numbers of innocent people trying to vote. Again, if you've got proper ID, where is the problem?

I would think that if the Trust is irrevocable for its duration, it would be its own entity for tax purposes and have to pay taxes on income it does not pay out to beneficiaries, but again, not sure and only thinking out loud.

Come again? Where and when? No one is suggesting that it has never happened but you're making generalizations without any shred of credible evidence.

Huh? If you're legal and show your ID, what's the problem?

Thanks for the explanation. I assume the GRAT has to pay annuity payments to the Grantor, some part of of which are taxable (per IRS tables) ? If you only contributed share of a stock such as Berkshire, would the Trust have to sell some of the shares each year in order to fund annuity payments to the Grantor? Or otherwise, if you contribute income/dividend generating assets, are you (the Grantor) on the hook for all taxable dividends or interest generated by these contributed investments or only that portion of the annuity payments that do not constitute return of principle? Just trying to understand the basics.

They openly advocate for non-citizens to vote in their elections. Yet they wonder why Trump was elected President.

I'm kind of scratching my head on this. If your Berkshire shares lose $5 million those are effectively your losses. What have you gained by the GRAT? Also, what if you die before the GRAT expires- are the assets part of your estate? And if the GRAT's assets do appreciate in value, isn't the Grantor (i.e., you) still liable for income taxes on the appreciation? Seems like the way this works is *IF* the assets actually appreciate and you outlive the GRAT. Neither is a given. If you have lots of beneficiaries and are married, you can give quite a bit of net worth away each year tax-free. Much more so if you are charitably inclined. If you give away the annual gift-tax exclusion equivalent of Berkshire each year to your intended beneficiaries and live a while longer, you've reduced the value of your estate by the cumulative sums of yearly gifts plus all appreciation of those shares without any hassles. For my $, unless you are among the super-wealthy, an irrevocable life insurance trust intended to cover some or all of your anticipated estate tax liability makes a lot of sense without the risk of subjecting your estate to IRS scrutiny.

Why not just admit that this is a mental health issue for the perpetrator? I don't even own a gun but am very much in favor of the 2nd amendment. If guns were outlawed entirely, do you believe they would just go away? I can go to Home Depot, buy a pallet of bricks and then stand on a highway overpass and cause havoc. Maybe we should do background checks on everyone who shops at Home Depot.

You can kill more people in a crowded street with a vehicle. Should we make it more difficult to obtain a driver's license? If so, how? And that is only one example. Crazy people are crazy with or without firearms. Just saying.

If you're truly crazy and want to harm or kill people you don't need a firearm.

Presidential elections should not be confused with beauty contests. The "ugliest" contestant often wins.

Surprised at you, Sanjeev. As I've stated many times, in this country we have 2 choices in Presidential elections. We don't get to choose our own personal candidates and tailor their personas to our own liking. Why is this so hard to understand? And if you followed the career of Kamala Harris closely, you'd recognize why an ax murderer could be preferable to her when it comes to making macro decisions.

You're right and we have yet to see the precise "cause" even though many people are already jumping to conclusions, especially when those conclusions fit their narrative. My guess is this will all play out in Court.

Why do formal charges have to be filed in order to constitute "cause" for termination? There are a myriad of reasons why someone may or may not be charged with a crime they committed. Particularly someone of prominence. Likewise there are reasons other than committing a crime that may justify being terminated.

You are simply wrong. On all counts. Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it any more compelling.

LOL, and you are capable of having an entirely cogent discussion about BOC, yet at the same time sound like a raving lunatic when it comes to Trump. Something about compartmentalizing that is truly fascinating. The issues are really simple: He (or she) who is in charge gets to make personnel and certain policy decisions. Get over it.

That is simply delusional. The pot calling the kettle black. You're the one who cares about the "person" in the White House. I could care less, only about the policies and getting them implemented. Try actually reading comments from folks like me and Cubs before making any more silly assumptions..

Newsflash: You're the one in the cult, you just haven't figured it out. Like the guy at the poker table who can't find the sucker.

Yeah, I mean why does he or anyone think we even care whether the Epstein files are released? There are [infinite] things much more important to me.

In the infamous words of Clark Gable, frankly I don't give a damn. Good enough for you?

Back to Epstein? Again? Why do you even care? Epstein is dead, his co-conspirator is in prison for a long time and if any of his victims want to sue G. Maxwell or any living being who they contend sexually assaulted them, there are no shortage of lawyers who would take their cases, if for no other reason than free publicity.

You completely miss the point. No one who voted for Trump believed they were electing a choir boy.

What they'll never accept is that one guy was bold enough and strong enough to stand up to them and fight back. Personally, I hope it sets them back for a long time so it is never repeated, but won't hold my breath.

Not arguing the information provided was, or may have been false. The motivation behind the lawsuit and the penalty were absurd, in fact beyond absurd. But don't let your personal issues with Trump stand in the way of objectivity.

No one is giving Trump a "free pass". In fact, he has been the most scrutinized individual holding a political office of any kind my lifetime. But if folks can't recognize the absurdity of the lawsuit brought against him resulting in a 1/2 billion fine, that demonstrates ignorance and placing partisanship over easily understandable facts.