Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@FishChaser
The most intersectionally oppressed group is straight, white, cisgender males specifically because they are the only group that isn't seen as oppressed.
lol, the group that gets the most power, money and best treatment in society is the most oppressed group. That is the most white nationalist statement I have ever heard.
Nobody cares about them, whereas every other group has a pity party in their honor.
are you insane? Everyone cares about them, that is the whole point. They hold the vast majority of wealth, power and status. Those other groups get a "pity party" because they are systematically mistreated while white people aren't. Those other groups just want to be treated the way white people are.
Everyone else can be treated better and get away with more because not being racist against whites is racist and not being sexist against men is sexist etc.
being treated like white people is what they want. It's what they have been fighting for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Idk what you're talking about at this point. I have heard it with Nazis and Germans or something but generally you don't get people going up to randomly associated ethinicities and holding them responsible for the atrocities done in the past by their ethnic ancestors except for white people.
my point is that the discrimination of those people is still ongoing. The nazi's actions towards jews was a one time event and then it stopped happening. White people mistreating black people happens constantly to this day. The slaves may have been freed, but they have never been treated as fully equal.
To anyone who is proud of their ethnicity their ethnicity has to be somewhat superior in their prideful mind
this is just objectively false. You can be proud of your history and culture without deciding it is superior. It's just that the people who shove that pride in your face believe that.
How exactly? At the moment they're committing disproportionate crimes and if that's due to systemic poverty and fatherless households that's a separate argument to saying the system is still rigged against them actively rather than passively.
This is a bigger debate. But they also get charged disproportionately. A white person might get a warning or charges dropped, while a black person gets the book thrown at them. Saying they are charged with more crimes does not prove they commit more crimes.
Unless you support completely eradicating inheritance and forcing all people in the nation to be collectively parented by state upbringing, there will always be an unfair edge to whoever is raised better and that is somewhat correlated with having wealthier parents not that wealthy parents can't be shit-tier parents.
again, this gets into a bigger argument, but it's alot deeper than that. Black areas tend to have poorer schools. They less likely to be hired for jobs, be approved for renting a home etc. Trump himself had a scandal where his company was systematically refusing to rent to black people. Arguing the only problem black people have is upbringing is super shitty.
Yes there will always be an unfair edge. But our society systematically increases this edge in countless ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Another example of selective morality.
my answer didn't even reference morality at all. I don't see the purpose of executions. They have no value. They are expensive, time wasting endeavors whose only upside is revenge. I'd rather the court system focus on processing cases faster instead of countless appeals for people on death row.
So you had consensual sex with a woman.Then she goes to the Police and claims rape.She pops the morning after pill.Tough shit for both you, and your zygote.
I have no idea what this has to do with this conversation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of JoeBiden and his Justice Department."
and countless people were charged with crimes while trump was president. Do you think trump was telling them to and charge people? The president has no authority to order investigations or charges against people. And there is no evidence he has done so. It's just more conspiracy theory nonsense so that trump cultists can explain away his crimes without thinking about it.
Well except the verb changed. The verb there is "win", when the verb in the question was "stop" or "wants to stop"
ok. and? if your opponent is a criminal who is finally being brought to justice for his crimes, I'm sure you'd be happy he is being stopped by going to prison. It makes your life easier.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, because winning an election is not a crime.
no, the dozens of crimes he committed are crimes. And he used the powers of the president to help him commit a bunch of them.
It's like "if a private prison makes $100,000 off someone being convicted of rape, and hires and directs prosecutors, does that private prison want to convict people"
it's actually nothing like that. Biden does not make decisions about criminal cases.
"do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail"
uh huh. I don't see how this is confusing you. Another way of saying that is "would you like to win by trump going to prison after being found guilty for all those crimes he committed."
The poll didn't ask "do you think biden ordered trump to be arrested and sent to prison". It didn't ask "do you think trump is innocent of the charges". I'm sure many of the people who answered yes to that question would be perfectly happy to see trump in jail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have to pay more money because so many opposite it that appeals end up disproportionately driving up the price.
see, this is definitely a debate that can be had. You clearly either already knew information about the topic, or looked it up. We can have a discussion about why the cost is so high and if it is justified. The OP however clearly doesn't know anything about the topic and is just pulling shit out of his ass.
As to your point, yes you are right. The cost is high because of the number of appeals they get. The danger in reducing their ability to appeal is that there is no undoing the damage you do if you get it wrong. If you imprison someone for 5 years and then they manage to prove their innocence on appeal, you can't give back the 5 years, but you could potentially compensate them financially for their loss. If you've executed someone and then find out they were innocent, there is no compensation that can change that. This is why there is so much emphasis on appeals for death row cases. I personally don't know if you could shorten it without increasing the risk of execution innocent people. But I don't find that the death penalty adds any value anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are Nigerian, Indian or whatever else, nobody at all who isn't racist would hold you at all accountable for what some corrupt people of your race even if in your family's ancestry did.
I don't think this is true. Holding people accountable for what family members have done is sadly quite common. Banks do it every day.
It's wrong and unfair.
agreed.
Yet this is what is being done to white people. We don't hold all Japanese responsible for what some Samurai psychopaths did, not do we to Peruvians for cannibal tribes nor rapist invaders of the past if they're down that bloodline. It makes no sense to specifically target white people for this bloodline guilt.
you are comparing a one time event, to something that has gone on for centuries. The nazi's were horrible. After the war, the Germans admitted their guilt. Made attempts at restitution and haven't continued those types of things. Black people are still systematically mistreated in America to this day. They get arrested at higher rates. They get longer prison sentences for the same crime than white people. I can go on and on. This isn't some historical event that happened hundreds of years ago that people won't let go. This is an ongoing issue that has it's roots hundreds of years ago. Your examples are simply fundamentally different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's racist pride all over the world for the majority tribe/race and natives in general.
this is equally wrong. Being proud that other people are "less than" you is wrong. Whether the person doing it is white, black or chinese.
It's literally the privilege of being the 'in-crowd' that your pride is based on.
you have accurately described racism, yes. is your point that racism is good?
Why are you proud to be anything unless it's a winning thing to be in your eyes?
lots of people are proud of their heritage without it being a "winning" thing. Irish history is not exactly full of winning, but there are millions of people proud of irish ancestry. I'm sure lots of people are proud of the "winning", but many people are just proud of knowing where they come from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think where his point falls off is " I'm proud to have this privilege." You can be proud of being white. But being proud of the fact that other people get treated like shit makes you a shitty person. If everyone got treated the way white people get treated, then white people wouldn't have any privilege. So being proud of your privilege means you are proud that others are discriminated against.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I didn't distort anything. I put the exact question asked.and then you distorted it by leaving off Biden's motivation.
No, the original post distorted it. saying "56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail." is a lie. That is not what the question asked. It asked if he was convicted of a crime, does he want to stop trump from winning by putting him in jail. It's like saying, "if a rapist is convicted of rape, do you want him to be put in jail to stop him raping again". Of course you do. Everyone wants that. Trump is criminal. He used his office to help him commit those crimes. If he is convicted of those crimes, he should go to prison. And I'm sure biden would be happy to watch the cell door swing shut and cruise to an easy victory. Why wouldn't he?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What happens when the cult is bigger than the non-cult?
it becomes a religion. But trump cultists make up about 35% of the country. And since trump is going to lose the election and then probably go to prison, thankfully we will never have to find out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
they would favor executing them to save taxpayer money.
ironically, the opposite is true. It costs far more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. If the goal is to save taxpayer money, then you would ban all executions.
If one is AUP, then they want more money going to help teachers. Enough money is spent taking care of murderers and those that commit r*** in jail to give every public-school teacher an $8400/year raise. Even one that is AUP would want to help our teachers and students more than murderers and those that commit r***, so the logical penalty would be death. Every state, even the bluest ones have many of their teachers wanting a higher salary and the state can't afford to give them one. An $8400/year raise by not spending on murderers and similar frees up a lot of cash.
obviously, all of this is bullshit since your underlying point is wrong. Trying to execute more people would mean you have to pay way more money.
Although the republicans have no core ideology, I believe they are mostly correct on this issue.
since you didn't bother to look up whether what you were writing was true before writing it, it doesn't surprise me you would agree with republican talking points since factual information obviously isn't important to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
so your post is that being a complete asshole upsets people? my god.... this is a revelation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't know what kind of idiot you expect to impress with that kind of obvious distortion.
I didn't distort anything. I put the exact question asked. Then said that most of the country wants to see him convicted, which is a fact.
Which is a microcosm of the 91 indictments themselves, 56% are saying "what kind of idiots do you take us for?"
what are you talking about? everyone knows he is guilty of many of those charges, if not all of them. For example, that he stole classified documents. That isn't even debatable. The FBI had to raid his property to get them back after he swore he returned them all. No one who isn't a cultist can say he didn't commit those crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
False:Trump has already been convicted and he is still set to win 6 out of 7 swing states with the 7th one being a coinflip.
Trump hasn't been convicted of anything... yet. He has been found civilly liable. That is not a criminal conviction. And the republicans have underperformed in pretty much every election since 2016. Democrats have been out performing polls by large margins since then. Remember when every republicans was getting ready for a "red wave" that would give them a huge majority in the house? then they got a tiny majority. And they used that tiny majority to be the least productive congress in all of american history (not an opinion, a fact).
Trump is going to lose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You may want to put the full context. Here is what they were asked.
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of JoeBiden and his Justice Department. If convicted of these charges, do you think thatJoe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by puttinghim in jail?"
So the question was, if he is convicted of crimes, do you think biden would want him put in jail. And of course biden wants him in jail if he is convicted. So do most of the country.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. Because the wealthiest districts in the country also tend to have the best education in the country.Thank you.
you're thanking me for pointing out that smart people don't vote republican? The less education you have, the more likely you are to believe the nonsense republicans spew.
They are the same party, it's just that the Democrats have gotten better about lying about taking care of the rich.
lol no. There are definitely places where they overlap. Taking care of the rich is certainly one them. But in most ways that matter, republicans are basically just evil.
Trump makes the rich nervous, but it has nothing to do with "protecting Democracy"... the wealthy care about something else entirely.
Of course they care about democracy. In large part because their wealth and power guarantee them a say in democracy. Who knows what their position would be in a trump dictatorship. Of course that makes them nervous. It should make everyone nervous.
the republicans are every bit as bad. They talk a big game, but refuse to actually address the issue.Correct. This is why the establishment GOP fears Trump. Because he might actually do what he promises.
you are serious? trump was president for 4 years. He accomplished nothing. Trump doesn't do almost anything he promises. He only keeps the promises that benefit him personally. Like tax cuts for billionaires.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats represent only the wealthiest districts in the country.
Yep. Because the wealthiest districts in the country also tend to have the best education in the country. The more education people get, the more they see through republican lies. But a district being wealthier, does not mean it is "elite". A wealthy district means it has more middle and upper middle class people. Is that who you mean when you say "elite"?
The latest research on where the Democrats are getting their campaign funding shows they have around 2 to 3 times more 2000+ dollar donors.
because Trump is a psycho that tried to overthrow democracy. People who aren't coolaid drinking cultists see that and don't want to support him. Also, trump has been bleeding money from the republican party and funneling it into his own campaign. He then spends that money on his lawyers for all his criminal and civil trials. Lots of donors don't want to fund trump's lawyers.
If you break down every policy passed in the last 50 years, you can clearly see that the policies have only helped the poor and lower middle class in name only while the actual outcomes helped the ultra- rich.
by all means. Tell me which republican policies have helped the poor. The dems do things like pass healthcare, student debt relief etc. The republicans do things like cutting taxes for the rich.
The best example of this is illegal immigration, a policy that only helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
lol the republicans are every bit as bad. They talk a big game, but refuse to actually address the issue. For example, when they pass laws to go after illegal immigrants, they never target the businesses hiring them, just the immigrants. Because the businesses hiring them are the republican donors. They want to drum up hate against immigrants, but they don't want to undermine the profits of their donors.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody really denies the Democrat party is the party of the wealthy elite.
most intelligent people deny that. The current leader of the republican party is literally a billionaire who was handed a fortune by his father. He is the definition of "wealthy elite".
Also, republican policies are heavily designed to make the rich richer and screw over everyone else. The democrats are often rich assholes who look out for themselves. But they occasionally do helpful things for average people. The republicans never do anything for average people other than try to stoke up hate. The entire party platform is designed to give the poor people something to hate so that they don't notice the republicans are giving more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting anything that helps regular people.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now that the american justice system is a battleground I don't care about precedent. I care about counter-attacks.
lol now there is some logic. The candidate you support is a criminal. Therefore he turns the courts into battlegrounds as he is tried for his crimes. And you believe that means that you can break the law in support of the guy on trial for breaking the law.
No, more like I wasn't convicted of anything because it was a civil case. Also there was a line item that say "battery" and the jury said "He didn't do it". Also there isn't a shred of evidence.
what? The jury said he did it. That is why he is liable for the sexual assault. And the actions he was found liable meet the definition of rape.
Except I was charged with battery, and found not to be liable. And you knew it. You just don't care what the legal definition of battery is and decided that chewing gum now meant "beating up a guy"
what are you even talking about. Trump was found to be liable. IE the jury found he did it. So you are just rambling about nonsense.
That's rape.Strange that the pseudo-jury disagreed.
they did not. That's why trump was found liable.
Soon all facts will be "legal" facts as it becomes clear that authority of partisan juries is simply another weapon in the culture war.
Man trump cultists are sad. It doesn't matter what trump did, you will defend him no matter what. You just believe it's the "deep state" is out to get him each time his crimes are exposed.
Say the democracy trashing dangerously deranged soon to be owners of a mountain of regrets...
no idea what any of that means. Trump is the one who tried to overthrow democracy.
Created:
In DC or New York maybe.This is in Florida.
and? he has no case. A journalist said something about a politician. It is extremely hard to ever successfully sue a journalist for defamation against a public figure. And in this case, the journalist said something truthful. Something that was stated outright in a legal decision of a court of law. Trump has absolutely no case. This case isn't intended to win. It's the same as most of his lawsuits, a distraction. He will lose. His case might even get thrown out early if he doesn't get a trump loving judge.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whether or not they admit it to themselves I don't know or care, same with the TDS pseudo-courts that started this fight. Too crazy to know better while stabbing you, or evil enough to stab you are both 'stabbing you'.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here other than "trump=good so courts that punish his crimes are bad".
The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used.Let's not let legal definitions get in the way. After all evidence is now completely optional so why should laws matter? What is important is that orange man is very bad.
Why would legal definitions get in the way? Is George a lawyer? Did he make this statement in court? Trump committed what any rational person would describe as a rape. That is a fact.
Your argument is childish. Like if you got convicted of battery and I said "he beat a guy up" and you sue me because you weren't charged with "beating a guy up". Trump inserted part of his anatomy inside a woman against her will. That's rape. And since this action is a legal fact, there is no grounds to sue someone for saying so.
what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get.What is that some legal definition? We don't need to follow those anymore.
you keep pretending like the right doesn't have to follow the law anymore because of the left. But it's trump who constantly breaks the law. The thing you're pissed about is the law actually being enforced. So your argument is "we don't have to follow the law, because the guy we cultishly worship breaks the law and he sometimes gets punished for it."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump's not a public figure, he is now a private citizen.
what? He is running for the nomination of the republican party. That is as public as you can get. Even if he wasn't, as a former politician he is still a public figure.
This is probably likely to end up like the Dominion lawsuit, Nick sandman lawsuit, and the deadspin race-baiting lawsuit. All settled for a tidy sum quietly.
lol, no this will end like all of trump's lawsuits. It will get shut down. To be clear, his lawsuit has no merit. He is going to lose.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear.That was when there was rule of law. This is war disguised as legal proceedings. The juries of Manhattan and DC understand this. The juries of southern Florida, Texas, and West Virginia will at some point too.
Are you trying to argue that juries in southern states will intentionally break the law to allow Trump to silence journalists and violate the 1st amendment?
It is nice that the pseudo-judge contradicts the jury (whose instructions he approved).
no, he didn't. The judge said he was found liable for sexually assaulting her. But the actions he was found liable would meet the definition of rape as it is commonly used. IE penetrating an unwilling person. That is what the jury found him liable for.
Helps filter those who believe a real court hearing occurred down to the most dangerously ignorant or malicious.
It doesn't appear that you are capable of understanding even basic facts without putting them through the lens of "trump=good, therefore anything bad about trump=false"
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
At last the blessed day has arrived. The counter attacks are occurring.
lol seriously? By "counter attack", you mean trump bleeding even more money on lawsuits that aren't going anywhere. Trying to sue Journalists as a public figure is an extremely high bar to clear. The judge in that case said in his ruling "Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood."
Trump has absolutely no chance of winning this lawsuit. It is just another expensive distraction for his base. But it also helps to put the fact that he is a rapist back in the news.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One points out that people have a hard time understand people who aren't like themselves. The other implies that one way of thinking is superior to the other. And jordan peterson is a lunatic.They are though. Read the article if you are still confused.
So your position is that the article thinks one way of thinking is superior to the other? Here are quotes from the article showing you didn't read it or understand it. The article is saying people have different ways of thinking and that the different ways have pros and cons. It is not saying one is better than the other.
"Hulburt said having an inner monologue can make it easier for people to create a sequential plan and solve logical problems, but other ways of thinking have benefits too."
"People who don't have an active inner monologue can teach themselves to, Hulburt said. But he doesn't think it's necessarily a good or bad thing."
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Without any evidence beyond the word of one person.
nope, there was other evidence.
Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident, a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987,[a][b] testimony from two women who had separately accused Trump of sexual assault, footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape and his October 2022 deposition.
If the objective contents of precedent and law don't matter then:
you can choose to pretend the results of the trial don't matter. but he is a rapist. That is an established fact. He also has to pay almost 100 million for lying about it.
So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.You're now liable for defamation. As a legal fact.
nope. A jury found that he sexually assaulted her and penetrated her. That is rape. Him being a rapist is a legal fact. Therefore it cannot be defamatory to say. In fact, him saying otherwise is defamatory.
Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election.Another legal fact? No, an assumption made by frightened bigoted fools.
no, that is just the obvious conclusion after years of investigation. There is no evidence that fraud played any part in the results of the election despite years and years of investigations looking for said evidence. Pretending that the evidence is just invisible is just the childish desires of trump's cultists.
Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.You were 100% wrong.
we were where having a discussion about trump's attempted overthrow of the government. Trump's argument was that fraud changed the result of the election. We were discussing whether there was evidence for this. My point was that there is no evidence for trump's ridiculous claims. I am correct that there is no evidence for trump's claims. you are choosing to split hairs to pretend I am somehow wrong, when my point is still correct. There is no evidence fraud affected the election in any meaningful way. I acknowledge I framed that sentence poorly.
Why would I pat myself on the head because of your ignorance?
you pat yourself on the head because you are wrong, but managed to point to a single poorly phrased sentence to try to claim some sort of moral victory.
even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.The evidence that you won't bother going into.
You're expecting me to prove a negative? If fraud never happened (on a scale to affect the outcome) then how would I prove it didn't happen? You are pretending an event occurred and then putting the onus on me to prove your make believe isn't real. Everyone can see Biden won the election. Republicans have spent like 3 years trying to find evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome and have failed miserably. If trump wants people to believe fraud changed the election he needs to show evidence of that. but he can't, because it didn't happen. The evidence that there wasn't fraud affecting the outcome is that there is no evidence that any such thing occurred.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't what the discussion is about. Some people have internal voices. The other half of the world thinks having internal voices makes you crazy.
you said this, but you also said this:
Jordan Peterson talks about this, in the sense that when you think in your own head, you’re allowing yourself to practice ideas that are dangerous or unsuccessful, thus allowing the ideas to internally die rather than killing yourself with external experimentation.
these two paragraphs are not talking about the same thing. One points out that people have a hard time understand people who aren't like themselves. The other implies that one way of thinking is superior to the other. And jordan peterson is a lunatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Otherwise,if the minimum wage is $14 an hour in a state and it bumps up to $15/hour on Jan 1, 2025, then you would have to punish all companies that pay below $15/hour even before Jan 1, 2025.
that isn't even remotely comparable. The job of a judge is to make impartial rulings. Their code of conduct isn't supposed to allow them to do anything that could even call the impartiality of the court into question. Taking bribes from people who have cases before your court isn't technically illegal for the supreme court. But everyone knows that is a terrible thing to do. So your comparison is rediculous.
Every POTUS wants judges that will rule in their favor. There is a reason all the republicans voted for Kavenough and all the democrats voted against him (with very few exceptions if any).
that reason is that republicans' goal for decades has been to pack the court. Democrats ruled against him because he was unqualified. Republicans voted for him because he was a right wing hack that would vote in their favor.
Are you willing to concede any issue to the republicans where the right wing position is the majority? Most republicans according to Pew believe that whether a person is a man or woman is decided by sex at birth and cannot be different than the sex. Does this mean the left should fall lock step with Matt Walsh on this issue? I wouldn't expect them too.
I guess that depends on what Matt Walsh says, because I have no idea. The polling suggests that the majority think that a person's gender is determined at birth, but that transgender people should be protected from persecution. Basically the majority opinion is that the transgendered people are weird but shouldn't be discriminated against. I'm guessing that is not matt walsh's position.
If Kavanaugh was pro choice, then the GOP wouldn't appoint him. The constitution is like the bible; left wingers will interpret it for their best interests and so will the right.
there's the moving goal posts. The right wing has cried for years and years about how the constitution needed to be read literally. no interpretation.
Correct; and although I support getting rid of the electoral college (under the condition that the right gets something in return; otherwise it's just making it easier for democrats to win federal elections like raising the voting age to 21 so it's unknown which party has the advantage overall),
so you are only in favor of doing something democratic, if you also do something undemocratic at the same time to allow the unpopular party to have a chance at power? How does that make sense?
The left does not want to give more protection to the unborn (and this is fine, but then don't act like it's the left's consistent ethos).
the left wants to give more protection to people. A fetus is not a person. At some point a fetus becomes a person, but almost no one thinks that a fertilized egg should have the protections of a person. And that is what the right wants.
The libetarians preach small government and liberty and they give the left credit when it's due, so their ideology is consistent.
libertarianism is basically just a tool to help the rich. The goal is to cut protections and services for the poor, and keep the stuff that benefits rich people.
they support unvaccinated rights
there is no such thing. The government has had the power to mandate vaccinations for a very long time.
and gun rights
yes, they support the profits of the gun lobby who are generous donors.
Obama wanted judges that agreed with him over half of the time
obama picked centrist judges. Maybe a little left of center, but nothing significant. Trump picked judges who were as far right as possible and as young as possible so they could stay and corrupt the court for as long as possible.
Trump was very lucky to get 3 judges (and this made pro choice advocates very unlucky).
it wasn't luck. It was abuse of power by the senate. The refused to hold a vote on a candidate for a pick under Obama which had never happened before because it was "too close to an election" like a year before the end of his term. Then like a month before the end of trump's term they rammed through a pick as fast as possible before Biden could take over. They confirmed their far right wing choice like a week before the election. What they did wasn't illegal, but they definitely abused their power to seize control of the senate.
I'm pro choice, but abortion is very avoidable; if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, then she should make sure her boyfriend has a vasectomy before they have sex and that the vasectomy gets doctor approved (and pre vasectomy sperm is stored in a hospital freezer if kids are ever wanted). It solves the abortion debate.
As a rule, I don't think abortion is a good thing. We should do everything possible to make sure it isn't needed. But there is a couple of problems with your position.
1) the people opposing abortion are the same people who oppose things to prevent abortion. Such as sex ed for teenagers so they know how to safely have sex without getting pregnant. Right wing people fight against this, but then blame the teenagers when they get pregnant.
2) The right wing position is entirely hypocritical. They don't actually care about children, they care about controlling women. If they actually cared about children, then they would want to support children after they are born. Funding orphanages, child benefits etc. But right wing people fight to cut this kind of support. The moment a baby is born, they don't give a shit any more.
3) Your vasotomy idea is ok, but has flaws. Like who is going to pay for them? Most of the country can't afford a vasectomy. Or what happens when the vasectomy doesn't take? Or if the vasectomy heals itself? Both of these things can happen and lead to a man who had a vasectomy still getting someone pregnant. Having government funded vasectomies would help to address the financial issues with your idea though. But it definitely isn't a solution to the entire problem.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.The available evidence was "I say so"
you clearly don't care what the evidence was so I won't bother going into it. The relevant fact is that a jury of his peers confirmed he did it. So as a matter of law, trump is guilty (in civil, not criminal law) or a sexual assault that also met the definition of rape. So he is a rapist. That is a legal fact.
where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible.You asked for it: Ha ha ha
Yes, i did not remember how dumb you are. I am very sorry. It's like saying "I have never committed a crime" but then you point to one of those ridiculously obscure laws like eating an orange in your bathtub or something. You are technically right, but your argument is still completely wrong. Fraud played no part in determining the outcome of the election. that was my point. Your rebuttal did not disprove my point, but you will pat yourself on the head for it anyway even though you know that is what i was saying and that all the evidence says I am right.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jordan Peterson talks about this, in the sense that when you think in your own head, you’re allowing yourself to practice ideas that are dangerous or unsuccessful, thus allowing the ideas to internally die rather than killing yourself with external experimentation.
1) jordan peterson is a lunatic. Starting any sentence with Jordan Peterson talks about" is a pretty good way to get any thoughtful person to just tune you out because you obviously don't have anything interesting to say.
2) you are conflating a monologue with thought. Which is not what they are talking about at all. Some people think about things without hearing it as words. Some people need to use words in their own head to organize their thoughts. Neither means that aren't thinking or capable of thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are dodging my point. Do you want one party rule? Because one party rule (whether democrat or republican) is dangerous.
I'm not dodging your point. I'm pointing out that you only care about corruption when it is politically useful to you. When it might endanger the right wing control of the court you don't want a corrupt judge to be punished. Also, when judges aren't politicized and chosen solely to make specific rulings, then it has nothing to do with "one party rule". It is the republicans that insist on packing the court with politically chosen judges.
and 60% of the US population was pro choice, then this country on average would be about as blue as NY is in our time. If it was 55% (the pro Public option or Medicare for all grouping), this the average in the country would be like Colorado.
the issue is that people are more complicated than single issues. Most people are pro-choice. But lots of people believed republican lies when they said that they wouldn't support overturning roe. Or when they said that any laws about it would be common sense. When roe was overturned and republicans started racing to ban all abortions as fast as they could, people realized that the republicans had been lying to them and it drove them to vote in large numbers.
Gerrymandering doesn't affect the national popular vote.
true. And donald trump has never won the popular vote. He lost to hilary by 3 million votes in 2016. He lost to Biden by 7 million votes.
The left is just as extreme as the right and the political compass test is inaccurate with what they classify as left/center/right wing.
no. the left's goals are usually about giving more protection, more services to people. The right is about stripping rights, hating people etc. Extreme left is free healthcare. Extreme right is lynching transgender people and immigrants.
Both parties are. I prefer a Supreme Court with 3-6 left wing judges and 3-6 right wing ones.
no, this is untrue. The left didn't really care about the supreme court until it became super obvious how far republicans were willing to go to pack the court. Now that those right wing judges are stripping people of their rights, it has become a literal matter of survival. But only as a response to the right's politicization of the court.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.
nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman. Trump's testimony helped to convince them.
You should be less sure what you're talking about because you haven't a clue.
When I haven't a clue, it's usually because you aren't making any sense. Like in this case.
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.
where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible. you also managed to prove that of these tiny number of cases, some of them were for trump. So even though the evidence you provided proves that you are wrong in asserting fraud affected the outcome of the election, you will choose to take this as a win.
So I accept that I worded my challenge poorly. I said "evidence of fraud" when I meant "evidence of fraud that actually matters". 4 fraudulent votes out of like 2 million. and at least 1 of them was for trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I care about curroption but I don’t want one party rule on the court. Just outlaw curroption from here on out.
your argument is "you care about corruption, but want corrupt people on the court to suit your political agenda". That means you only care about corruption when it benefits you to care. Which is the same as not caring.
If right wing policy was unpopular, then no Republican would have ever made it into the White House.
no, it does not. Look at polling on individual policies. Health care, women's rights etc. All of the "core" right wing policies are unpopular. Republicans win elections primarily on fear mongering, lies and cheating (gerrymandering etc).
If it’s 1-2 liberal judges, then it wouldn’t be one party rule. If all 9 judges are liberals, then it is one party rule.
you are equating views with political parties. This doesn't make sense.
I believe every Supreme Court judge is curropt. Just like if Trump wins in 2024, I wouldn’t want to fire all the left wing judges and have Trump give conservatives one party rule on the court.
there is conservative one party rule. Because when republicans pick judges, they exclusively pick far right loons hand picked by right wing think tanks. When democracts pick judges they tend to be centrist, maybe a bit left. It the republicans that are obsessed with packing the court. And they are obessed with it because they know their policies (like banning abortion) are super unpopular. so the need to ram it down people's throats with the courts because if they did in in congress they would get destroyed.
My position is if Thomas is the only curropt judge, then I’m cool with sacking him and replacing him. If all the judges are curropt, then just outlaw the curroption.
I think you will find most people involved in government are corrupt to at least some degree. Thomas is the only one that is obviously, overwhelmingly corrupt.
Like if Trump outlawed curroption, fired all the curropt judges if all of them are curropt, and replaced them with MAGA psychos, you (and I) wouldn’t like that.
true. But there is 0 evidence that the democrats would, or have ever, put a psycho on the bench. It is the republicans who are obsessed with court packing for political gain.
Areas with one party rule are bad places to live because politicians don’t have to focus on making the area better because they feel they will win no matter what.
you keep repeating this. But there is no evidence the democrats do this. Or that biden getting to appoint all the judges would cause one party rule. Judges aren't supposed to even have political affiliations.
The more battleground an area is, the better it is to live there (generally speaking).
no, this is really untrue. The solution is for the court to be impartial. You want judges that are not politically active. Who are not going to pick sides based on political party. But republicans exclusively pick based on how they believe they will rule on culture war issues.
Ideological diversity is a strength.
the courts are not supposed to be using ideology to make decisions. The fact that they do is a core part of the problem. The republicans politicized the court.
Created:
-->
@Amber
You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.
I have no idea what other comments you mean. But I'm guessing they didn't organize their followers to attack the capitol. And then sat watching it on TV for hours while laughing about it and refusing to tell them to stop. Those rioters were trying to kill his VP, and he loved it. But the attack on the captiol was the 2nd act of his attempt to overthrow the government. The 1st act was him illegally trying to send fake electors to stop biden being declared the winner. It was only after this failed and his VP refused to illegally prevent the counting of the votes, that trump send a mob to attack the capitol.
There were clearly ill-intended idiots in the group attending the J6 rally/protest who created the problem egged on by people like Ray Epps and the Capital Police. We've all seen the released video the Democrats tried to keep under the proverbial rug showing protesters being welcomed into the Capital through other doors where there was no violence (there is more than one door to the building) and escorted throughout the building.
yes, we have all seen footage of capitol police trying to get the protesters to move to less sensitive areas so they could evacuate the members of congress.
No one has been criminally indicted, charged, and convicted of insurrection. No one. And there is an obvious reason why...there was no insurrection. Period. It was a small riot. Nothing more, nothing less.
the stated goal of the crowd was to get mike pence not to count the votes. That is why they were there. That is attempt to subvert democracy. Rioting to stop democracy is insurrection.
And a handful of people trying to get into one door by breaking in and another handful of people being let in and escorted by Capital Police simply does NOT equal an "overthrow of the government." CHAZ comes closer to an overthrow of a government than J6.
if by handful, you meant hundreds, sure. You must have really big hands. And this was a violent attack. Police were injured. Some later died. And the stated goal of the crowd was the overthrow of democracy. They wanted to stop the results of the election from being counted so they could keep the loser of the election in power. That is an attempted overthrow of the government. The "chaz" never came anywhere close to affecting the entire country or government.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.no court said "we don't care" about election fraud.Close enough.
lol what? a court needs evidence that something happened in order to rule that something happened. You can't just go to court and say "I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison". You need evidence. Trump went to court with absolutely no evidence of fraud. He knew he was going to lose those cases. He knew there was no fraud. He did it to convince people like you that the system is out to get him, when the reality is he got caught trying to overthrow democracy after he lost.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Of course few of them addressed evidence. because there wasn't any. The kinds of things they were trying to say were evidence was nonsense. For example, when they said a mother handing her daughter a piece of gum was proof of fraud.
In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened.Like EJC did. "I said so" = proof
no idea what you are talking about.
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.There was and is plenty,
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
and even more that the election was illegitimate due to violating laws meant to prevent undetected fraud.
lol ah yes, the conspiracy theory nonsense. There is no evidence that anything happened, and that is proof that something happened. This is what lunatic Q anon people spew. It's stupid.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.
no court said "we don't care" about election fraud. They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud. In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened. Trump has nothing. He had nothing then, he still has nothing now. It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud. Trump's own investigators at the time told him there was no evidence of fraud. Trump was lying because he couldn't stand being what he is, a loser. And so he tried to overthrow democracy to protect his fragile ego.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"Many women are not expected to have complications, but they do."That's misdiagnosis like I said.
Not exactly. There certainly are cases where a doctor misdiagnoses and leads to complications escalating. But there are cases where there aren't warning signs to diagnose. You can't diagnose something no one saw.
"But nothing is certain. "I don't believe no thing is certain. Some things have to be certain which we call facts.
I mean medically. There is no such thing as certainty in medicine. A doctor can do everything right, and the patient dies. On a different day with a similar patient a doctor could make a mistake and they could be fine. If we had perfect knowledge of people's health and risk factors, we could make perfect decisions. But we do not have that.
"Many women die from pregnancies."They die from some reason, not for none.It either comes from misdiagnosis, unknown diagnosis or against medical advice.
All you seem to have done is confirm that I am right. Lots of women die as a result of pregnancy.
Any woman that has had a complication, something caused it. It didn't just happen. Whether it was picked up or not is another thing. If you're saying there is risk for always missing the proper diagnosis....OK.
I am saying that there is always risk. Even if you have the best doctor in the world, things could be missed. Complications can arise with no warning signs. Your point seems like it is trying to split hairs by describing why I am right. So I'm not sure what your point is.
But there are women that have successfully delivered and were never at risk themselves not counting external conflicts.
this is objectively not true. There has never been a pregnancy that was without risk. You cannot say there is no risk because it is not humanly possible to know everything about the woman's health, risk factors etc. Without being god, you cannot say that a pregnancy has no risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is right wing/left wing by your metric?
honestly, the term doesn't really mean anything any more. But broadly, you can be economically right wing, and/or culturally right wing. Economically would be things like being fiscally conservative, funneling money to the rich, pretending to care about the poor while crushing them. Culturally right wing is things like hating immigrants, hating gay people, hating trans people, hating women etc.
Trump isn't really any of those things. Economically he is totally fine with big government. He ran record deficits. He loves giving money to the rich, but that is just because it benefits him. Socially, I don't think he even cares. He just does whatever he thinks will make him popular. He was pro-abortion a few years before deciding that the republicans were dumb enough for him to trick them into voting for him.
I would answer yes to that because I don't know the alternative. If every supreme court judge got fired for corruption, then it would empty the court, meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges
what? Why do you think every judge has accepted millions of dollars in bribes? They all probably have taken the odd gift here and there. But nothing on the level of Thomas' corruption.
meaning Biden would spam it with 9 judges; 9 left wing judges, and then future conservative policy would be virtually impossible to implement
gotcha. so you don't care about corruption. Your primary goal is to shove through right wing, unpopular policy even if that means letting super corrupt judges stay on the court.
so it leads to one party rule (and places where politicians don't have to worry about re election tend to not be good places to live).
This doesn't make sense. Why would liberal judges mean one party rule?
I would rather outlaw the corruption and any future corruption gets punished with impeachment.
that's basically, "I want to sweep corruption under the rug for my own political benefit". And I'm sure when more corruption came up, you'd have the same reaction of cover it up and move on.
The right refuses to give the left credit where its due on modern day controversial issues because they are hacks. I'm not a hack.
I mean, fair enough. You certainly seem less "hackish" than most people on the right. But your position is to protect someone you know is super corrupt because it benefits you politically. How does that not make you a hack? If you actually cared about corruption, you should want corrupt people removed. Not just removing corrupt people when it is convenient for you.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In your opinion. Not Trump's or mine.
I guess value is always a matter of opinion. But a property being able to be used for multiple things makes it more valuable. A property being restricted to only 1 thing makes it less valuable. It's not a difficult concept.
So this example was to help you understand how he both cost them money, and they also made a profit at the same time.You used a false analogy to help me understand. Mission failed.
lol, you say that as if it is a comment about me. I put it in the simplest terms I could think of and it was still too much for you to grasp. The fact that I failed to make you understand is a damning statement about your cognitive skills.
So you claim, but you also claimed that it doesn't matter if he had other assets to make up the purported gap. You can't have it both ways.
he took out loans on pretty much everything he owned. and he lied about the value of those properties in pretty much all the loan applications. Every time he lied, was fraud. Even if he actually did have the assets to cover it, that wouldn't change the fact that it's fraud.
If something had gone wrong, Trump couldn't have actually repaid the loan because the assets were worth a fraction of what he said they were.The bank disagreed.
what? no they didn't. They said they got paid back in the end. They also said they relied on trump's numbers when they came to the conclusion he had the assets to cover the loan. They did not say he had the assets to cover the loan. They said they thought he did based on his lies.
He had a reputation in the 1990's for stiffing his lenders. Most US banks wouldn't do business with him. He had to go to germany to get loans. Here is an article with some information about it.Give me an article from the 1990s if that's when it happened.
ok, some examples are below. Bottom line is Trump was shitty businessman. He got rich by being handed money by his dad and trading on his name. He ran multiple businesses into the ground and had to declare bankruptcy.
The only reason he is rich today is 1) he got lots of money from daddy.
2) the bankruptcy laws in america are designed to protect the rich
3) he got famous from the art of the deal ( a book he didn't write) and getting onto the apprentice. They asked several actually good business men to be on the show 1st but they were all busy being good at their jobs. So they got trump to do it. Being on the show helped him sell his name as an asset and make money. So ironically, pretending to be a successful businessman on TV was how he started to make actual money.
here is an article where he missed a loan payment in june 1990
Here is an article where trump whines about the coverage of him not paying his debts a few months later
Here is an article from november of 1992 which discusses it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/29/trump-went-broke-but-stayed-on-top/e1685555-1de7-400c-99a8-9cd9c0bca9fe/
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait...hold up... just because 9 SCOTUS judges said so won't make me stop thinking Trump is an insurrectionist!
the court didn't say he wasn't an insurrectionist. They said it's up to congress to make rules around how that is determined.
He absolutely tried to overthrow the government. I can't believe that is even in question.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Clubs are no easier to build than houses. The value is enhanced by the potential income.
no. Most people do not want to live in a country club. So it has little value as a home, just as a business. Also, if it could be subdivided, the land could be sold as multiple homes. It can only be one club.
If it was a factory it really would be worth less, however since it's an ultra-desirable area for residences and retreats houses are worth more especially if they are clubs too.
you are just repeating back to me my point. It is a desirable area. But it cannot be made into residences. It can only be 1 club. That's it. no more, no less. that limits it's potential value.
Let's say I sell you an apple for 1 dollar. It cost me 50 cents to buy the apple. You give me 4 quarters but one of them is fake.No counterfeit money is being alleged. Analogy rejected.
I was trying to find an example simple enough for you to grasp. The point is that trump defrauded them and cost them money. I'm not saying he specifically counterfeited money. But he did engage in fraud and cost them money. So this example was to help you understand how he both cost them money, and they also made a profit at the same time.
Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't)you can literally go and check for yourself.How?
I mean, google "trump size of apartment". You can find all sorts of information about it. Including Trump's team not denying this happened. It's extremely public and reported on information.
It isn't a matter of not having enough collateral to get a loan at all.If he had enough collateral then there is no reason to lie.
I've explained this multiple times. He lied to get better terms on the loan. Especially lower interest rates.
If a loan is fully secured with fixed long term assets it doesn't matter.
Except they were "secured" with assets that were over valued. Like using his apartment which he tripled the value of in order to secure loans. So the size of the assets was critically important.
The risk is infinitesimal and the only question is the underlying money market. When you put a house up as collateral they do not care how much money you make because the only thing that matters is whether they can recover the value on default.
you're kind of making my argument. He took out loans but his assets weren't worth enough to cover the loans. the banks thought they were, because trump lied to them and told them they were, but they weren't. If something had gone wrong, Trump couldn't have actually repaid the loan because the assets were worth a fraction of what he said they were.
He has a long record of being a shitty client.You probably received that as gossip from Rachael Maddow types. Neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is in fact as if you had never said it.
It's also well documented. He had a reputation in the 1990's for stiffing his lenders. Most US banks wouldn't do business with him. He had to go to germany to get loans. Here is an article with some information about it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You asked about how they determine whether someone committed insurrection. I said Congress specifically passed a law determining what insurrection is. That’s the standard.
that is the standard for criminal procedures. We are not discussing a criminal procedure. We are not discussing a court of law.
As for your southern leaders, that’s exactly what the founders of the 14th amendment intended. You can’t take away someone’s right without due process
I'm not sure what your point here is. The 14th amendment was designed to take away their right to run for office without them being criminally charged. That was what it was designed to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
But what I was asking was about something specific I may not know about that this individual did know that is a general risk within the pregnancy across the board, do you follow?
there are certainly risk factors that can be known in advance. If the woman has certain diseases or genetic history. This would make some cases more risky than others. But there are things we simply cannot detect or predict. so no pregnancy is ever risk free.
Going back to the car accident illustration, assuming my car is inspected, in well-functioning order, what is the risk with it itself other than other things outside of it to conflict?
to you, what constitutes a risk? Are you only referring to death? Medical complications of pregnancy that that temporarily or permanently harm a woman are relatively common. Tearing, bleeding, feeling loss, brain chemistry changes that can lead to depression etc. If it is only death you are considering, then on average the risks are low, but certainly not 0. If you are also including all the other forms of harm a pregnancy entails, then it is much higher.
Also, complications in pregnancy would not fit all pregnant women because there are women that are healthy, proper childbearing and birth delivering women.
if we had perfect knowledge we could predict who would and wouldn't have complications. But we do not have that. A woman who appears perfectly healthy can drop dead without any indication something is wrong before it is too late. There is no way anyone can say that a specific woman has no risk of complications.
Women expected to have problems are medically advised and diagnosed prior or misdiagnosed.
key word here is expected. Many women are not expected to have complications, but they do.
This is why constant routine examinations are crucial the same as with maintenance and inspections on vehicles.
this is true. This reduces the risk of complications and helps to catch them before they become fatal. But nothing is certain. Many women die from pregnancies. Many more are permanently harmed by the process.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I responded specifically to mar-a-lago. That's the point of quoting. So yes.
ok. well that was still fraud. He tried to value it as if it was like 50 different houses on the property. Because theoretically a property could be sub-divided and sold that way. But he legally cannot do that. And he knows he cannot do that. He signed a contract. So saying it has a value of like 50 houses, when it isn't even 1 house is fraud.
Houses to houses actually.
mar-a-lago isn't a house. It legally cannot be a house. It must be a club. If trump tried to shut down the club and live in it as a private residence, he would be violating his deal with the government.
Businesses are worth more. Commercial zoned land almost always costs more.
not in this context no. Because specifically it has to be a club. He can't open a factory or something. It's value can only be based on what it is worth as a country club.
Also it's his legal residence so it is impossible that it is illegal to live there.
he can choose to stay in one of the rooms there if he wants. But it isn't a "residence". It is a country club. it is a business. It can never be changed to being a residence.
They got more money from Trump than they gave to Trump. The sign of your answer is wrong.
lol are you being intentionally childish? Let's say I sell you an apple for 1 dollar. It cost me 50 cents to buy the apple. You give me 4 quarters but one of them is fake. I still turned a profit, 75 real cents plus 1 fake coin. But i still made less profit than I should have because you defrauded me. The banks still earned a profit off their deal with trump. But their profit was 100 million less that it would have been if he hadn't lied to them.
Well only if you assume lies are true (75 million mar-a-lago clown-world)
No one thinks it is worth what trump said it was. Even if he was right that he could subdivide it and sell it as residences (which he can't) it still wouldn't be worth the 740 million he said it was. And since he legally can't subdivide it, it is orders of magnitude less than he said it was.
But if you don't want to engage with that example honestly, how about his apartment? He lied and said it was 3 times larger than it was. There is no getting around the fraud of that example.
Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't)
you can literally go and check for yourself. It would take 5 minutes. Trump's lawyers didn't even deny that this happened.
assuming the difference was enough that he would have no other collateral to make up the value of the loan he was requesting, assuming that the bank was willing to lend without full value collateral at a higher interest rate, Trump could have just found a different bank or used multiple banks.
you're misunderstanding what he is doing. It isn't a matter of not having enough collateral to get a loan at all. It is a matter of getting better terms. If you have 1 billion dollars of assets and want 100 million in loan, you can almost certainly pay back the loan. The risk is low and so the interest rate they will charge is low. If you want that 100 million and you only have assets worth 500 million, the loan is riskier. So they would charge more interest. The reason trump was lying to the banks wasn't because he couldn't have secured a loan at all without lying. It was because he wanted lower interest rates on the loan. Paying, say 2% interest vs 4% interest saves millions upon millions of dollars when you are borrowing so much money. So Trump lied to trick the banks into offering him a lower interest rate. If they had known his actual asset values, he would have had to pay approximately 100 million dollars more in interest. So while they still made money, they would have made much more if trump hadn't defrauded them.
* edit. Just an added note about trump and banking. He has limited options when it comes to banking. Many banks won't do business with him any more. He has a long record of being a shitty client. deutsche bank is the primary one that will still do business with him.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
saying your apartment is 3 times larger than it is, is not "high end of plausible". It is fraud.You pretended the context was different. Now restored. A little bit fraudulent of you.
nope. Trump engaged in several kinds of fraud. I used 2 examples. 1 where he lied about the footage of his apartment and 1 where he lied about how mar-a-lago could be used and then said it was worth 10x it's actual value.
Yes that is exactly what you just suggested. Try not to lie about lying.
nope. As in everything in life, context matters. If he wants to go on fox news and say he is king of the world, he is free to do so. No one will punish him for lying. But if you fill out a legally binding financial form and lie, now you can and should be punished. It's not that he lies, it's how and where he lies.
That's what 110 million dollars on that road looks like. 3.58 acres 12k square feet.
you're comparing apples to oranges. Part of the reason mar-a-lago is worth less is that trump gave up the right to convert it into anything other than a club. He made a deal years ago to get out of paying some taxes. In that deal he gave up the right to change the property into something else. So you are comparing private residences to a club. they are not the same thing.
Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100?I'm saying it's zero.
what is your argument for that statement. Trump lied on those documents and massively over inflated his net worth. The banks used that inflated net worth to decide how much interest to charge him. Because he lied, they charged him less. That is why he lied to them in the 1st place. So how do you think you can justify that he didn't cost them money?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If that actually happened, the Bank would be suing the other banks that provided a false record, or be suing Equifax and Experian for providing false data.
what are you talking about? Trump submitted these documents directly to the bank. He gave them forms telling them exactly what he owned and a wildly incorrect value of those properties.
Of course, that did not happen. The banks NEVER sued Trump for any document. Nor did the bank sue anyone else. There was no damage, no aggrieved party, and no fraud.
The banks didn't know he had defrauded them. And if they sued him, other rich criminals might decide to do their banking elsewhere. So it isn't in their interest to sue, even though he defrauded them and shorted them 100 million.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. He cost the banks 100 million dollars. They gave him loans at better rates because he lied to them. That is damage. You keep repeating there is no damage, but you have yet to actually argue why you think that. Did he no lie to them? Did they not give him better terms based on his lies?
The court should have zero standing in a private trade agreement between 2 willing parties. Period.
this is incorrect. Those documents are legally binding. Filling them in correctly isn't optional. It is required by law. And the government has the authority to enforce those laws. Saying that it's fine for businesses to lie on these documents would be hugely damaging to the economy.
O' Leary was right when he said it is no longer safe for 2 private individuals to do consenting contractual business in New York anymore without the courts taking a side when nobody asked them to.
I mean, he's right. It is not safe for 2 private individuals to do consenting contractual business while one of them is defrauding the other. And I don't see why anyone would want that to be safe.
Furthermore, the punitive fine is so obviously exaggerated beyond normalcy it makes it clear to all that this is a personal vendetta and not actual justice.
It's not. Part of it is punitive, part of it is depriving trump of the profits of his crime. Defrauding the banks saved him 100 million. He used that criminally obtained money to make more money. The law says that both the originally ill gotten gains can be seized as well as the profits he made off of it. The punitive damages are also large, but only because he made them so. If he did what anyone else would have done and said, "oops, we made mistakes and won't do it again" he would have gotten off much lighter. but by saying he did everything perfectly while obviously having committed dozens of counts of fraud, he proved he would continue his criminal behavior.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you are extremely ignorant about how private banks work. Equifax and Experian apply to everyone, no matter what item walks into the pawn shop of loans.
Hey! you're actually right for a change! Good job!
you have correctly pointed out why trump is guilty. Trump was required to report on his financials, by law, in order to apply for the loan. He lied in those financial filings. That is why he is guilty.
Me saying it is not the same for you as for him is basically everything else around that. When you fill in those documents, they question them much more thoroughly than they do for billionaires. The bankers testified that they relied heavily on the information trump provided.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea, almost like it's not lying to pick a number on the high end of plausibility like everyone else in the universe does....
saying your apartment is 3 times larger than it is, is not "high end of plausible". It is fraud. Square feet are not negotiable. An apartment is the size that it is. Tripling the size of the apartment to triple it's value is not even questionably fraud. Saying mar-a-lago is worth 10 times what anyone else thinks it is worth is not plausible. His defense of why it was plausible was because some day he might make it into a bunch of different residences and that would make it worth more. But he hasn't done that, so it's irrelevant. And he legally can't do that because he signed a deal giving up that power in exchange for tax write-offs. So again, it's just straight up fraud.
That's why Fani Willis is going to jail along with Hilary Clinton.... oh wait... no "lying" suddenly means something quite different for those types.
No one is suggesting trump should go to jail for lying. He has lied thousands upon thousands of times. Probably hundreds in the last few weeks alone. No, the crime is lying on financial documents. Everyone knows that you are legally liable for them being accurate. Trump definitely knows that. He lied on them anyway.
Or saying mar-a-lago is 10 times more valuable than it is (which trump also did).False
He said it was worth 739 million dollars. Actual estimates say it is in the ballpark of 75 million.
They cost banks around 100 million dollars.False
lol, it is legally accepted fact in court. Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100? Or are you pretending like his fraud didn't cost them 10's of millions of dollars?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But we are talking about a private seller of loans who has every responsibility to assess their own value because they would be out of business if they did not.
that is not how the law works. You are not allowed to lie in these documents. It is a crime. There is a warning on each and everyone one of these documents trump and his business signed that says that it is true to the best of their knowledge. Signing that it is true, when you know it is not is a crime. It is not optional to fill these in accurately. It is not a "negotiating tactic" to lie on these forms.
And O' Leary is right, not a single buyer would now dare to walk into the pawn shop of real estate banks in New York now that it is open season on non-establishment political supporters.
Kevin O'Leary is talking out of his ass because he is likely guilty of the same crimes. If we were talking about small errors, then there wouldn't be an issue. Property is hard to value. It could be worth 20% less than you think. It could be 30% more. It's hard to say without actually selling it. If that was the margin of error here, it wouldn't have been prosecuted. The reason it was, is that the lies are HUGE. Like saying your apartment is 3 times bigger and 3 times more valuable than it is. Or saying mar-a-lago is 10 times more valuable than it is (which trump also did). And it's not like these lies had no impact. They cost banks around 100 million dollars. These are serious financial crimes that have been going on for decades. If companies (like banks or insurance companies) want to be able to do business properly, they need to know roughly what things are worth. That is why what trump did is illegal. He prevented them from being able properly assess the risk they were taking. That is bad for business. But he did it anyway to illegally benefit his own business.
Created: