American Politics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923628]The injured party did not bring a lawsuit CheckMate. The state of New York did. And the state of New York will receive the award, not the banks.

What party was injured? The banks received interest and principal payments and Trump didn't otherwise default on the loans in question. The banks made money.

Fraud normally requires actual damage to a party to convict. Not New York Executive Law 63 (12) though.

Trump's case wasn't the most egregious brought under the statute. That honor may belong to Exxon. New York sued Exxon for purported damage to shareholders because it failed to disclose the risk to its business from carbon emissions. The fine though would have gone to the state of New York! In other words, Exxon shareholders, who own the company, were supposed to pay the state of New York for the fraud perpetrated on said shareholders by Exxon! It would be like Bernie Madoff's investors dipping into their pockets to pay the government for their money that Bernie lost, except that Exxon didn't defraud anyone. That judgement was overturned on appeal. I expect New York appeals courts will substantially reduce Trump's 455 million fine.[/QUOTE]This is where I disagree with you. But one of us will be correct, after the appeals have been adjudicated. And I will say to you, now, if the decision is reversed (not the awarded amount), then I AM WRONG, and you are RIGHT.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923629]Except for my homeowner's association, my single vote is EXTREMELY unlikely to decide an election. As such I will vote for Truth, Justice and the American Way. For the Libertarian. For Chase Oliver, "armed and gay. ".[/QUOTE]Oh, that is so brave and noble of you. Especially considering in modern times it is extremely unlikely that any election would be decided by one vote outside of an election for dog catcher in Hooterville.

And no presidential election has been decided by one vote.

But I'll bet if you thought this presidential election might be decided by 537 votes in your state as it was in 2000 in Florida, you sure as hell would not goof around with the possibility of missing out on "4 More Years of Great Trump / Repub Economic Disasters" by voting for Oliver or anyone else but Trump.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923868]Oh, that is so brave and noble of you. Especially considering in modern times it is extremely unlikely that any election would be decided by one vote outside of an election for dog catcher in Hooterville.

And no presidential election has been decided by one vote.

But I'll bet if you thought this presidential election might be decided by 537 votes in your state as it was in 2000 in Florida, you sure as hell would not goof around with the possibility of missing out on "4 More Years of Great Trump / Repub Economic Disasters" by voting for Oliver or anyone else but Trump.[/QUOTE]Actually if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Biden or Trump, I'd tell you to pull the trigger.

That's even though it's more likely Trump's policies would work to the benefit of many of my friends and family, who work in fossil fuels. Biden and the Democrats want to take their jobs. But they also want lower gasoline prices. What a hoot!

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2923867]This is where I disagree with you. But one of us will be correct, after the appeals have been adjudicated. And I will say to you, now, if the decision is reversed (not the awarded amount), then I AM WRONG, and you are RIGHT.[/QUOTE]I don't think Judge "Kangaroo" Engoron's decision should or will be reversed. Trump deserves to pay some fine for misrepresenting his statements of financial condition. But, taking a more extreme example, you don't execute people for jaywalking.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923860]When did I ever say I have only mongered in Thailand?

The Mann Act does not apply to me or anything I have ever done in Thailand, in the USA or anywhere else in the world.

Oh, and I have done nothing that the USA could prosecute me for regarding sex for any purpose or with anyone I have had sex with in the 12 years I have lived in Thailand. You want them to violate the Statute of Limitations in order to bust me for mongering in other countries 12+ years ago? And it will probably be 20+ years if or when I ever return to the USA to deal with my California businesses.

Unlike Trump's crimes, the Statute of Limitations for any blow job or fuck I paid for such that the USA would consider it a crime did not get extended that much due to the hold put on the world during Trump's Pandemic. LOL.

Have you got a link to a USA Penal Code number that you think I have violated? Please post it.[/QUOTE]Your personal situation is irrelevant to the principles described by Elvis. And it wouldn't be surprising at all if you were currently violating USA Laws right now, just like most Americans, although admittedly the DOJ or PRC (People's Republic of California) is extremely unlikely to try to extradite you. See Elvis' "three crimes a day" post.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923955]Your personal situation is irrelevant to the principles described by Elvis. And it wouldn't be surprising at all if you were currently violating USA Laws right now, just like most Americans, although admittedly the DOJ or PRC (People's Republic of California) is extremely unlikely to try to extradite you. See Elvis' "three crimes a day" post.[/QUOTE]My personal experience is precisely what Elvis posted about this and other times.

But on his broader point, nobody stole Trump's assets. But there are mountains of evidence that Trump and his daddy stole Americans' assets in their various tax evasion schemes, loan document lies and acts of fraud.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923774]
Or to spend 2. 5+ Trillion on an economic "stimulus" bill that produced 1 million fewer jobs with it than without it.[/QUOTE]Taking less from American businesses and hardworking Americans of all income levels is not the same as "spending" less. Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, your source takes an estimate by the CBO from around 2017 or 2018, and assumes that the tax cuts will be extended past their sunset dates. Recent research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and authored by economists from Princeton, Harvard and the University of Chicago indicates the corporate tax cuts over the long term will actually increase government revenues. That's mostly because of increases in revenues from social security and medicare contributions by individuals and companies.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923774]Or to get busted for a blatantly obvious Election Fraud scheme to steal an election.[/QUOTE]You got me there. Or would if I were a Trump fan.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923774]Or to bankrupt some half dozen or more businesses.[/QUOTE]Wow! That's amazing! Eighteen thousand nine hundred and twenty six (18,926) businesses filed for bankruptcy in 2023 under Biden. And Trump only bankrupted six during four years in office!

Oh, you mean six of HIS businesses! Agreed. But he viewed that as a plus and even campaigned on it. "Vote for me, I know how to rig the system."

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923774]Or to repeatedly refer to his #1 Repub Party Primary opponent "Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley" as the Democratic Speaker of the House on January 6, 2021.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Than the "cognitive health" as well as the sharp memory, recall and experience needed to brilliantly lead America and the rest of the world in a historic recovery from those Trump / Repub Disasters that has and continues to produce record positive results across the board.

Behold the Republican Party Presidential Candidate's 2024 Election Campaign Platform:[/QUOTE]Your argument sounds a little like mine that Korea's Kim family wasn't as bad as Cambodia's Pol Pot regime because there were fewer democides under the Kim family.

Democide, that's an interesting word. I wonder if they picked that name for it because of all the people who died in wars presided over by Democratic Party presidents during the 20th century?

That's a joke Tooms -- there's no need to debunk my last statement.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2923727]Tooms, you are not pro-Democracy. You are wanting one party rule like in China and Russia. You just are under the delusion that this party, your party will not come after you. Oh yeah, government would never seize my assets, would never prosecute me. If the government sees value in doing so, they will find a crime to charge you with. You are not innocent. You are just not worth their time and money.[/QUOTE]Tooms isn't a bad guy. He just doesn't see the writing on the wall. He's hitched his wagon to the Democratic Party, and that's where it will stay, come hell or high water.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923953]Actually if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Biden or Trump, I'd tell you to pull the trigger.

That's even though it's more likely Trump's policies would work to the benefit of many of my friends and family, who work in fossil fuels. Biden and the Democrats want to take their jobs. But they also want lower gasoline prices. What a hoot![/QUOTE]Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction take your friends' and family's jobs, along with tens of millions other Americans. Like the most recent ones Repub Trump's policies and stewardship produced.

Not Great Dem Economic Recoveries, Great Dem Expansions and Historic Dem Jobs Creation, including these current ones under Joe Biden.

If your friends and family in the oil industry have done poorly under Joe Biden or worse than they and virtually every other American fared under Trump's results, then they really need to find another line of work anyway.

Great time to start looking for those new jobs would be right now or in the next 4 1/2 years under Biden. For God's sake don't tell them to wait for when Trump or some other Repub is in the WH. All consistent historical and current data shows that would be the worst time to start looking for a new job.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923722]As long as you are convinced that lying on loan documents that shift advantageous terms and money to frauds and liars rather than to honest borrowers is a "victimless crime" as long as the liars share their ill-gotten gains, if any, that they cheated the honest borrowers out of with the bank they originally stole it from, you should feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that a self-described multi multi multi Billionaire won't really suffer any meaningful penalty by paying a mere $455 Million fine for doing it.

No real "victim" on either side, right?[/QUOTE]Correct, as to the loans that were the subject of the Engoron judgement, there were no victims on either side. The loans never went into default. Trump met his interest and principal payment requirements.

Deutsche Bank accounted for most of the value of the loans, and it was assuming that Trump was worth about half of what he stated he was worth on his statements of financial condition. And based on estimates by Forbes and others, DB probably wasn't off by a lot. They were big boys and knew what they were getting into. Deutsche lost tens of millions on mostly unsecured loans on the Trump Tower Chicago, which mostly were not backed up by Trump's personal guarantee, back around 2011 I believe. They knew the score, and realized that Trump's personal guarantee on later loans was worth a lot.

Judge Engoron, in determining the amount owed by Trump to the state of New York, assumed the guarantee was worth absolutely nothing. In fact, the amounts of the fines represented the additional interest that Trump would have paid if the loans were unsecured (around 9% per annum) versus secured (around 4% or 5%.) That's ridiculous. With the secured loans, Deutsche Bank could go after all of Trump's assets, not just the building that secured the loan.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923959]Tooms isn't a bad guy. He just doesn't see the writing on the wall. He's hitched his wagon to the Democratic Party, and that's were it will stay, come hell or high water.[/QUOTE]Not at all IF AND ONLY IF Repubs start producing the occasional Great Economic Recovery, Economic Expansion and Historic Jobs Creation and None of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction.

As Dems have consistently done for the past 100 years.

I am only partisan to the side that produces superior results and against the side that produces crap results.

And factoring in all available data and easily observable reality over the past 100 years, my vote must go only to Dems and never to Repubs.

Another one of Elvis' total misrepresentations is in how he apparently believes the Checks and Balances principle of USA democracy and governance is about Party affiliation. Uh. No.

In today's world that would be like arguing we ought to place an equal amount of known arsonists / Repubs in my neighborhood as fire fighters and first responders / Dems. You know, just to be fair and keep the Checks and Balances feature going. LOL.

Not with my help.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2923301]BTW, [b]congratulations on coming out of the closet![/b] I'd like to see you keep that same energy on a number of other social liberal issues. [/QUOTE]Sure Spidy. I full support your right to change your sex, provided you're 21 years of age. And your right to use marijuana, provided you're 18 years of age. Also your right to pay for sex with a donkey, provided said donkey is at least 18 years of age and consenting. And finally, if you were a women, I would support your right to get an abortion, provided it's under 15 weeks from conception in accordance with the Trump Doctrine.

These are all hypotheticals. I believe you're a pretty normal, decent type who's not looking for donkey sex, etc., even though you are a partisan Democrat.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2923301]So now you're telling me what I am? That's mighty big of you! [/QUOTE]Happy to support you on your voyage of self discovery!

[QUOTE=Spidy;2923301] (...kkkk) For decades, the Repub's mantra and whole philosophy has been to advocate and position itself as the party of "law and order". But it's plainly obvious, this philosophy only applies when "the law" (or LE), is not against them.

Trump was convicted, based on the facts and evidence presented, was he not?

Personally, it's good to see The Rule of Law, has held up to its billing and not some kind of twisted Republican version, of what they think the law should be, or to whom is should ONLY apply.

A Rule of Law, that holds true to itself, is one where everyone is accountable and NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!

If you guys really believe the shit you're shoveling, then get out and fight for a change and more equality, in unjust laws, a criminal justice system and police brutality![/QUOTE]If there ever was a politically twisted version of how the Rule of Law has not held up to its billing, it's Trump's 34 felony convictions for paying off Stormy Daniels. And I have gotten out and fought. I was a contributor to and card carrying member of the ACLU before it became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923963]Correct, as to the loans that were the subject of the Engoron judgement, there were no victims on either side. The loans never went into default.

Deutsche Bank accounted for most of the value of the loans, and it was assuming that Trump was worth about half of what he stated he was worth on his statements of financial condition. And based on estimates by Forbes and others, DB probably wasn't off by a lot. They were big boys and knew what they were getting into. Deutsche lost tens of millions on mostly unsecured loans on the Trump Tower, which mostly were not backed up by Trump's personal guarantee, back around 2011 I believe. They knew the score, and realized that Trump's personal guarantee on later loans was worth a lot.

Judge Engoron, in determining the amount owed by Trump to the state of New York, assumed the guarantee was worth absolutely nothing. In fact, the amounts of the fines represented the additional interest that Trump would have paid if the loans were unsecured (around 9% per annum) versus secured (around 4% or 5%.) That's ridiculous. With the secured loans, Deutsche Bank could go after all of Trump's assets, not just the building that secured the loan.[/QUOTE]So as long as the frauds and liars who steal undeserved advantageous loan terms show enough of a profit from it to pay back the original fraudulently secured loan, then the banks, the law and everyone else who didn't lie and did not get those advantageous loan terms ought to be fine with that, right?

LOL.

You know, contrary to typical Repub lack of logic, if frauds and liars like Trump were really so terrific at producing profits and paying back loans, really owning $100 Million, 50,000 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom condos and all that instead of being a blithering business failure, bankruptcy king and shameless deadbeat, he wouldn't have to lie on those loan documents to get favorable terms. He would deserve them and get them after having actually earned them.

Which is anathema to Repubs, of course.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2923967]Sure Spidy. I full support your right to change your sex, provided you're 21 years of age. And your right to use marijuana, provided you're 18 years of age. Also your right to pay for sex with a donkey, provided said donkey is at least 18 years of age and consenting. And finally, if you were a women, I would support your right to get an abortion, provided it's under 15 weeks from conception in accordance with the Trump Doctrine.

These are all hypotheticals. I believe you're a pretty normal, decent type who's not looking for donkey sex, etc., even though you are a partisan Democrat.

Happy to support you on your voyage of self discovery!

If there ever was a politically twisted version of how the Rule of Law has not held up to its billing, it's Trump's 34 felony convictions for paying off Stormy Daniels. And I have gotten out and fought. I was a contributor to and card carrying member of the ACLU before it became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.[/QUOTE]Trump was not convicted of paying off Stormy Daniels.

Why do you and other Trumpster / Repubs keep lying about that?

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2923970]Trump was not convicted of paying off Stormy Daniels.

Why do you and other Trumpster / Repubs keep lying about that?[/QUOTE]OK, yeah, I gave you the condensed version. He was convicted for keeping false business records by channeling payments to Daniels through his attorney, and for failure to disclose that as a campaign contribution. He called it legal expense, but never deducted the expense from his taxable income. This was logical. Trump signs his own checks but he doesn't do the accounting, and undoubtedly he didn't want rumors floating around his organization (and getting back to Melania and his kids) about paying off a porn star. So he didn't just write a check to Stormy. And admittedly it wouldn't have helped his presidential campaign if this got out. But calling that an unreported campaign contribution? It's ridiculous.

He didn't cheat on his taxes. In fact, the federal and New York state governments ended up with more tax revenue than if he'd paid Stormy directly, being the additional tax paid by Michael Cohen on the transaction.