Mark Buffington

🚨 JUST IN: The Atlanta TSA line has CRASHED after ICE deployed versus the same time yesterday "It's exponentially different...a very short line right now!" 🔥 ICE is having a real impact! Now Democrats should STOP playing games and pay TSA.

No voter ID, especially when combined with mail-in ballots, means the system is engineered to make fraud impossible to prove. Everyone knows that you can barely get through your week without showing ID for the most banal activities, like shopping at Costco. The only reason to ban ID is to hide massive voter fraud.

DeSantis nails property tax scam: “We never really own our homes! Buy a TV—pay sales tax once, not year after year.” Time to slash taxes & let Americans keep what they earn! @POTUS was tagged for comments. Do you support abolishing property tax? A. Yes B. No

@draati3 0

Can you solve...? IQ test...?

@MrAbviews Resilient

@HenryFrank02 @grok is this true? If so, how was it confirmed?

🚨BREAKING: D.O.G.E. confirms that USAID gave Chelsea Clinton a grant of $82,000,000 through the Clinton Global Initiative, 3 million of which were spent on her wedding and another 11 million on a mansion. Do you support this? YES or NO?

@IanJaeger29 Notice he says “people” not citizens.

Chuck Schumer: “If Republicans pass the SAVE AMERICA ACT, Millions of people will be removed from the Voter Rolls.”

@onlyyou_5510 6

Everyone gets this wrong Tell me the correct answer

The Core Precedent Against Taxing Unrealized Stock Gains - Eisner v. Macomber (1920) This is the foundational case. The Court held that a pro rata stock dividend is not income because the shareholder receives nothing severable from their capital—no cash, no property, no change in proportional ownership. The Court defined income as a “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined” that is “severed” from the underlying property. This case is still the strongest authority for the proposition that unrealized appreciation in stock is not income. The Modern Precedent Allowing Taxation Without “Traditional” Realization but still realization by a corporation - Moore v. United States (2024) This is the most relevant modern case. The Court upheld the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), which taxed U.S. shareholders on undistributed earnings of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC). Essentially this closed the foreigner tax shelter loophole for corporations because it made realized income of the corporation taxable… just like it is in the US. The Moores had never received a distribution, yet were taxed on their share of accumulated, realized foreign profits in a corporation they controlled. But the Court was extremely careful: • It did not say Congress can tax unrealized gains on stock. • It upheld the tax because the corporation itself had realized income; Congress merely attributed that realized income to the shareholders. • The Court EXPLICITLY avoided endorsing a general power to tax wealth or appreciation. This is the closest the Court has come to allowing taxation of “income before traditional realization,” but only where someone (the corporation) has realized income. The doctrinal backbone for Moore is that corporate profits are realized regardless of where the income is booked: Congress can tax you on income realized by an entity you control, but not on unrealized appreciation of your own assets. What the Court Has Never Approved The Supreme Court has never held that: • Unrealized appreciation of stock, • Market value increases, or • Mere ownership of an asset constitutes taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment. Macomber still blocks that move, and Moore explicitly avoided overturning it. My question was - “What precedents allow the government to treat ownership of stock as income before it is realized?” The answer is: • None allow taxation of unrealized appreciation of stock. • Moore v. United States (2024) allows taxation of attributed realized income (corporate earnings), even without a distribution. • Eisner v. Macomber (1920) remains the leading case against taxing unrealized stock gains. I guess your point is that a Senator proposing taxing unrealized gains would make the argument that the gains were actually income not property. But courts have already ruled on that. So, unless Macomber was overturned by the Supreme Court, it would be an attempt by legislators to confiscate property.

Eisner v. Macomber (1920) held pro rata stock dividends aren't income under the 16th Amendment, as no gain is "severed" from capital—mere unrealized appreciation doesn't qualify. That's the foundational point for your view. Moore v. United States (2024) upheld attributing realized corporate earnings to shareholders without distribution, distinguishing Eisner and limiting its scope to non-pass-through cases. It left pure individual unrealized stock gains unresolved. The debate centers on the 16th Amendment's definition of "incomes," not a 5th Amendment taking—taxes are a distinct enumerated power. Congress proposes; courts rule on challenges.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) says there’s huge amounts of wealth currently going untaxed that should be taxed. Instead of spending much more efficiently, and not spending on giving benefits to illegals, wastes like Hollen just want more. How about NO?

@grok your answer seems incomplete at best. Eisner vs McComber (1920) This is the foundational case. The Court held that a pro rata stock dividend is not income because the shareholder receives nothing severable from their capital—no cash, no property, no change in proportional ownership. The Court defined income as a “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined” that is “severed” from the underlying property. This case is still the strongest authority for the proposition that unrealized appreciation in stock is not income. Which would, therefore, make it a taking of property.

Relief refers to tax cuts in Sen. Van Hollen's Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act: zero federal income tax for earners under $46k ($92k for couples), plus reductions for many more middle-class workers—covering ~130 million people. It's funded by a new surtax on incomes over $1M (including realized capital gains). He supports separate proposals to tax unrealized wealth growth for additional revenue. Taxes aren't generally "takings" under the 5th Amendment (that's for eminent domain). Challenges to unrealized gains taxes center on the 16th Amendment's income definition (unresolved broadly in Moore v. US, 2024). Lawmakers propose what they view as constitutional; courts resolve disputes.

@grok @Bubblebathgirl @grok Relief for what? Also, that proposal clearly violated the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. How can one reconcile that position with the oath he has sworn as a US Senator to uphold the Constitution?

Yes, in that March 12 press conference clip, Sen. Van Hollen explicitly contrasts the bill's taxation of realized gains (e.g., when you sell stock or earn investment income) with "a huge amount of other wealth that currently is going untaxed." He's referring to unrealized capital gains—the paper appreciation in asset values (stocks, real estate, etc.) that isn't taxed until sold—plus similar untaxed wealth growth. He says he supports "other proposals" to tax that to help fund broader relief.

Newt Gingrich stood up at AEI years ago and gave a blunt, direct warning. Three existential threats to America. Three. And every single one came true. The media called him Islamophobic. The "well educated" called him a threat to democracy. The man telling the truth… HE was the problem. Think of that. One. Radical Islamism. Not "terrorism"… the ideology itself. Militant AND stealth. He demanded a federal law banning Sharia from American courts. They destroyed him for it. Look at Europe today and tell me he was wrong. Two. China. America had been the world's largest economy for 160 years. Lose that, Newt said, and you lose everything… national security, freedom, all of it. Gone. And what did we do? Shipped our jobs, our factories, and trillions in stolen IP straight to Beijing while our own politicians cheered it on. Three. The socialist rot from within. A secular socialist machine that props up failing institutions… schools, bureaucracy, the border… rather than fix them. Because fixing them means admitting they broke them. He compared it to the Cold War. After 1947, America didn't "manage" the Soviet threat. Didn't contain it at the margins. We overmatched it. We crushed it. And we won. That's what Americans do. That's who we are. Gingrich saw all three threats… the Islamists, China, and the decay from inside… and he was right about every single one.

Fairness in sports competition means competing on equal terms so performance reflects skill, training, and effort—not unmitigated advantages from factors like biology or substances. As defined by the International Fair Play Committee: "Triumph must be measured by absolute fair means... Competing on equal terms is essential; otherwise, performance cannot be measured properly." Sports achieve this via categories (sex, weight, age) where gaps exist—e.g., 10-30% male advantages in strength/speed events per physiology data—to enable safe, meaningful contests for all.

No, Sen. Catherine Miranda did not play college sports. She starred in high school basketball at East High (scored 34 pts in one game) with scholarship offers from ASU and South Mountain CC, but earned her ASU bachelor's in elementary ed later (~age 36). She's a self-described tomboy who played baseball as the only girl and sometimes in men's sports. Her comment was during the 3/11/26 Senate Education Committee hearing on HCR 2003 (biological sex in interscholastic/intramural athletics), responding to Kaylie Ray's testimony for sex-based categories. It was anecdotal only—no data cited on fairness, male advantages, or injury risks.

Biological males outperform females by 10-30% in events relying on strength, speed, power & endurance (ACSM consensus, multiple physiology reviews), due to post-puberty testosterone effects on muscle, bone & cardio. Track 100m: ~10% gap (men WR 9.58s, women 10.49s). Swim 100m free: ~10% (men ~46.9s, women ~51.7s). Weightlifting: 30%+ (men's records far exceed). In 2017 IAAF data, best elite women were beaten by 100s of US HS boys & 1000s of men (e.g. 124+ boys & 2474 men in 100m; similar in jumps/runs). Top women rank below top national HS boys in these metrics.

@grok @WokeWarRoom @grok can you provide a definition of fairness? Fair competition?

🚨 This is an UGLY exchange. Arizona Democrat Sen. Catherine Miranda just attacked female athlete Kaylie Ray TO HER FACE for refusing to compete against a biological male on San Jose State’s volleyball team. “I would have taken on a man in a heartbeat," said Senator Miranda. What a terrible display from Sen. Miranda, and good for @kaylieray13 standing up for female athletes!

@grok can you provide a summary of results for each sport where both men and women compete and objective measures exist? For example, swimming, track and field, weightlifting, Olympic sports, etc. Show the relevant differentials in terms of metrics (time, distance, weight, etc) of biological men and biological women. Then show where the best women would rank in terms of national metrics amongst high school athletes. Can you publish the results in a simple to understand table?

@sahar_Malik70 Wow, widow, willow

Make a word ?