Too male, too pale, and too stale!
Good morning:
It was a busy Monday. Let us begin with the big guy being maliciously prosecuted. Yesterday we had the openly biased judge in the NYC case say that he was not there to hear what the defendant had to say. We had the very unusual practice of a DA attending a court case on a daily basis and the correct use of the term "racist." That is right, Donald Trump correctly pinned the term racist on the DA who once called him "Too male, too pale and too stale."
For those who intend to defend her:
FLASHBACK: Letitia James Goes On Racist Rant Against Trump: ‘Too Male, Too Pale’ - Patriot Alerts
On Wednesday the prosecution is expected to rest its case. Immediately thereafter the defense is expected to file for a mistrial. It is ironic that this case was the first of many lined up against Donald Trump during an election. It is almost certainly destined to be overturned on appeal. That would taint all the cases that follow. Some of those might actually have merit. I guess the left has once again overplayed their hand.
In other news:
A Connecticut judge ordered a new Democratic mayoral primary in Bridgeport as surveillance footage showed multiple workers allegedly stuffing absentee ballots into an outdoor ballot box days before the original primary.
Connecticut judge orders new Bridgeport mayoral primary after videos showed possible ballot stuffing (msn.com)
They know who the woman is. What is the penalty? Will there be any penalty?
Then there is the new name that the pro-Palestinians on X have given to the president: "Genocide Joe." I don't think it is well deserved, but it does have a nice ring to it, don't you think?
White House national security spokesperson John Kirby has refuted a claim by Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib that Israel's military offensive in Gaza was tantamount to "genocide," calling it "an irresponsible way of describing" the situation.
In a social media video on Friday, the Michigan representative, who is of Palestinian descent, called for a ceasefire—as she and other progressives have already requested—before displaying text which read: " Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people. The American people won't forget."
Since around 1,500 Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants staged a surprise attack on Israel on October 7, killing an estimated 1,400 people including many civilians, Israel has conducted an intensive campaign of air strikes on Gaza and a subsequent ground offensive, with the objective of eliminating Hamas. According to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, to date over 10,000 Palestinians have been killed.
Speaking to Fox News on Monday, Kirby noted that members of Congress "speak for themselves," but said that the National Security Council was not focused on the domestic political situation in the U.S.
The president has appeared to soften his rhetoric regarding the conflict since facing criticism from the left over his pro-Israel stance—recently responding to a heckler calling for a ceasefire that he supported a humanitarian "pause" —though one expert previously suggested to Newsweek that this was more likely in light of the realities on the ground in Gaza .
Asked to respond to Tlaib's accusation that the Biden administration was supporting genocide, Kirby said: "Well, of course we're not doing that. And what is happening in Gaza, again, as terrible as all of these civilian casualties are—and we know there's many, many thousands of them, and we don't want there to be any. I don't want to minimize that at all.
"But you can't look at what is happening in Gaza and say that it fits the definition of genocide. And clearly, we don't agree with that description. We think that is an irresponsible way of describing this. We don't associate ourselves with that. In our view, that is not what is happening here."
Newsweek approached Tlaib's office via email for comment on Tuesday.
Rashida Tlaib's 'Genocide' Claim Shut Down by White House (msn.com)
And last but not least:
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -Israel's military said on Monday it was striking targets belonging to the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon in response to a large barrage of rockets fired at northern Israeli cities.
Chief military spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari told reporters that fighter jets were attacking a broad range of targets and the military will continue to have a "significant response" every time Israel is fired upon.
Israel's military says it is striking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon (msn.com)
As the Biden administration asks for a pause.
Tags
Who is online
27 visitors
Question: Is this finally the beginning of the end for the Woke ideology?
Simple answer, NO!
Longer answer,
*(DeSantis' lawyers were forced by the court to define "woke." The lead lawyer described it as "The belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.)
I'll wager that you look both ways before crossing a one way street.
Is that the African American Vernacular English definition?
I don't know about anyone else but I do. You never know when some idiot is going to drive the wrong way and it takes very little time to make sure it's safe.
Woke- "to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustice.
Take your pick. They all boil down to the same thing, BE AWARE!
The 'article' opens with the nonsense that the former 'president' is being maliciously prosecuted. No need to read any further
Personally, I'm old enough and wise enough to understand that shit can go wrong in all sorts of very unexpected ways.
No, the politics of victimhood won't go away. And Gaza is providing perdy pictures for the unbiased media.
We'll need another World War II before woke subsides. The Greatest Generation knew all about war and its consequences. Something we've lost, apparently, which is surprising given Biden's age.
Volunteering for the front lines, are ya ?
Is ignorance bliss? World War II was fought on the draft. (It wasn't necessary to employ wild assed hyperbole to recruit a volunteer army.)
Biden has already volunteered all of us. We're all on the frontline for everything from nuclear holocaust to terrorist suicide vests. And we're being told to be afraid, be very afraid. Don't ya feel the BLM love?
What would Muslim Jesus do?
Who is telling you to be afraid?
The only thing I'm afraid of is that MAGA has destroyed American's minds.
It's just starting. It's the younger generation that is just maturing that was bathed in the ideology since birth.
Yeah, yeah, we know. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. So, let's argue about transgender shitters.
Isn't it odd how believing in Santa and the Easter bunny goes away with maturity? Kids are wide eyed optimists until they are confronted by the real world.
Our politicians (on both sides) have been trying to create a nanny state to keep those childish dreams alive. But reality is beginning to bite everyone in the ass. Brandonism simply can't avoid the consequences.
But we'll never run out of victims. But Clinton's 'I feel your pain' has matured into Trump's 'I feel your anger'.
What's a 'transgender shitter'?
It's a defecation station for the biologically confused.
What has been destroyed JR, please be specific, I'd like to see why the left is so afraid.
Ignorant nonsense. Sorry I asked
There was nothing there to destroy
Except in California of course..............
You realize of course, last I knew, you ARE and "American mind" right?
See 1.2.11
WTF are you talking about. That's John's quote. WTF are you talking about.
I believe John is referring to the former 'presidents'/cult/followers/defendersoftheindefensible magats and what he's done to their 'minds'/'brains' (non-existent - no evidence has been found or of an IQ above double digits)
You agreed by stating that there was nothing there to begin with and being an American mind, that would include you. Not hard to follow...............
If I wanted to say every Americans minds I would have said every.
If someone says "The Irish like beer, " does that mean every single Irishman like beer,? of course not. Sometimes written sentences imply things, such as in this case "MAGA has destroyed American's minds' does not mean every American. I'm surprised this has to be explained to you.
See 1.2.11 and 1.2.17
Not hard to follow
Yeah not hard to follow except for the defenders of the indefensible and those who must have the last word no matter how many times they have their ass handed to them?
I'm not a magat though, why can't you get that?
John was referring to magats.
Not hard to follow
But you didn't specify MAGA has destroyed MAGA minds. You generalized with " American". Say what you mean and mean what you say.
He didn't specify. He said American. Not hard to see. It is right there in black and white. And I doubt he needs your help.
You just cannot stand being proven wrong over and over again.
You can have the last word, I know how important it is to you.
He said magats americans
There is the fucking quote right from his post. I am NOT wrong. Jesus Christ it's right up there if you look back.
Sounds like more PD&D!
PD&D plus denying the undeniable.
He meant magat americans and one with any sense knows that
anyone with any sense which leaves out magat americans
Yes you were wrong again.................
Nah, we're stuck with it now.
You know how it is when someone gets convinced of how righteous they are.
It's been around at some level or another for decades, so probably not.
When will the people get fed up?
Most of us have been fed up for a long time.
The die-hard idealists can't help themselves. They'll eventually get bullied back underground, only to appear again in a couple decades like a swarm of self-righteous cicadas.
We know what we must do, don't we?
It is my priority one.
What is that?
Vote against Joe Biden.
Priority 1
So you'll hold your nose as you vote for the former 'president' turd?
Ain't no shame for the MAGA Hats...
Democrats Ballot box stuffing? Im sure it only happens in primaries and never, ever in the general
Are we positive beyond a shred of doubt that this wasn't a Russian plant of the video? Or maybe they are KKKers or even (GASP!) conservatives masquerading as Democrats doing the dirty deed? Damn old Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas!
Some believe they are outside agitators, like when liberals get busted for what they do.
That is as reliable as any reports from the Taliban.
If a pause takes place the chances of any humanitarian aid making it to the civilians are slim to none. The pause will allow the terrorists a chance on focusing on this aid and taking it for their own use.
This i don't understand, Joe is doing a piss poor job running this country, why would Israel, or any country allow him to dictate how they run theirs?
Why do people think America has the right to tell other countries how to run their countries?
That isnt exactly what she said.
Did you look at the video you linked?
Speaking at an immigration rally, she said "We've got to stand up to the federal government, we've got to stand up to bullies, we've got to stand up to an administration that is too male, too pale, and too stale".
I wouldnt expect a far right website like American Patriot to be too concerned with accuracy though.
If we follow the "logic" of the seeded article and the seeder , the very fact that James once criticized a presidential administration makes her disqualified from ever taking legal action against anyone from that administration, which we can extrapolate out to a prosecutor being disqualified from taking legal action against anyone they had ever spoke less than flatteringly about, which is absurd.
Trump's "racism" shrieks are just to create a distraction at the trial and to placate his base.
We see who the real racists are.
The more you smear him the stronger he gets. He leads in 5 of the 6 key battleground states over Joe Biden. Axelrod wants Biden to step aside.
It isnt possible to "smear" Donald Trump. Everything people say about him is true.
So far, I've heard very little truth coming from that direction.
You seeded an article from a far right source that distorts what Letitia James said.
I didn't distort a thing. She was talking about the Trump Administration. She is a racist among other things.
So what? Attorney Generals are allowed to speak out on political topics. She didnt call Trump personally a racist.
Using your reasoning, no prosecutor could ever comment on anything for fear that one day they might be accused of being prejudiced against that person in court.
Isn't that why some recuse themselves from trials? Why yes I think it is................
Attorney Generals don't typically attend a certain trial every day.
Attorney Generals don't typically run for office on the promise of getting someone
Attorney Generals don't typically go on X every day to taunt a defendant
Attorney Generals don't typically describe an administration as "too pale."
And the people are getting it.
A dog whistle, nothing new from the former 'president'
What direction?????
You know, the one that is always on the left and always in the wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you're saying then, got it.
The 'right' who are the ones always in the wrong. The party of PD&D + delusion.
Do you think the former President is getting a fair trial & just trial?
What she actually did say was still outrageously racist.
No more so, I am sure, than some of us would expect you to realize she was clearly referencing Trump.
What the fuck was a candidate for DA doing speaking at an immigration rally--something she has nothing to do with (unless she was contemplating going against current immigration law or not cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies)?
We're overrun with Palefaces. LOL
A lot of Pale faced Dicks!
Big Guy Trump is not being maliciously prosecuted in NYC. Trump is being sued by the State of New York for lying to big banks about valuations of his properties on loan documents. Trump is not being prosecuted for violating any laws.
Saying that Big Guy Trump is being maliciously persecuted could be appropriate. But there isn't any sort of prosecution involved. What is happening in Judge Engoron's court doesn't have anything to do with the law. Letitia James cannot keep Trump off the ballot; tort cases won't do that. (Apparently there is some expectation that the civil fraud case will bolster Bragg's indictment for criminal fraud. Remember this is New York.)
It has to be confusing for liberals, who is the victim, a billionaire of a big Bank.
NY Dems are the SALT of the earth.
The media coverage has focused on courtroom drama. IMO most people don't know or care what the civil trial is really about. It's all about the optics of Trump on Trial.
Trump is the most corrupt, most unethical, high ranking politician of our lifetimes, if not in all of American history.
The man left wing fanatics hate more than anything.
Does it surprise you that some people "hate" the most corrupt, unethical, politician in our history?
It does not surprise me that there is hate.
We had JFK, MLK, RFK, George Wallace and a Pope shot.
Keep the irrelevant comments coming.
Irrelevant? 4 of the 5 I listed might be described as good people. Yet they were all hated. That is the point that makes it relevant.
News flash for you Vic - Donald Trump is not a good person.
A good many people disagree.
You are not God.
Your problem is you inhabit an insulated world of information. There is overwhelming evidence, over the course of decades, that Trump is not a good person. You just refuse to see it.
It is not a lack of information. It is that I am a realist. Do you have any idea what it must be like to be a Real Estate Developer in NYC? Dealing with a cumbersome beau acracy, mob-controlled unions, contactors and banks, such a person would almost have to be a genius or at the very least an orderly businessman. Beyond that he was an excellent President. Exactly what this country needed.
Trump has been a total asshole for at least 40 years. He is corrupt, a pathological liar, a cheat, a bigot and a moron.
It is a tragedy that such a person ever made it into high national politics.
If we are going to resort to name calling, I can do the same with Biden and Obama for the rest of the day. We won't get anywhere that way.
No one is going to "get anywhere" with you. You not only defend the worst president in American history, you go out of your way to praise him.
I praise Presidents who do good jobs and I attack those who deliberately undermine the nation.
Get used to it.
Oh perfect, Vic.
Real estate is a slimy business in New York so don't be so hard on Trump for attempting to steal the presidency with fraud, lies, coercion, incitement. That does not make him a bad person.
Don't get ahead of yourselves. That case needs to go to trial.
Right after the sham case in NYC turns everyone off.
You do not already see that Trump attempted to steal the presidency after he lost??? A trial will determine guilt in a legal sense. In the meantime, are you of the opinion that Trump did NOT attempt to steal the presidency with his Big Lie con job?
However, one potential point of agreement is that I wish this case had not been brought or at least be brought after the cases which dealt with Trump's actions as PotUS. It is the PotUS cases that make the biggest impact on the nation. Trump set a horrible precedent and the only way to push that back is to hold him accountable.
If it was so important, why weren't charges filed in the past 3 years?
What is the "it"? The NYC case or the Big Lie case?
If Big Lie case then are you trying to argue that the length of time means that Trump did NOT engage in the actions alleged in the indictments?
I recommend reading the indictments, comparing them to what we know (which is plenty), reading the US Code named in the indictments and making a rational determination as to the merits of the case.
Obviously, the future case that Trump tried to gain certain results.
The NYC case
That is the sham case that will damn the results of all the others. You didn't use much critical thinking on that one.
or the Big Lie case?
Who's "big lie?" Hillary's, Stacey Abrams, Hakim Jeffries or Donald Trump's?
If Big Lie case then are you trying to argue that the length of time means that Trump did NOT engage in the actions alleged in the indictments?
I'm arguing that the trial was deliberately delayed to be used for political purposes during a Presidential campaign. A true critical thinker would be able to admit that.
I recommend reading the indictments, comparing them to what we know (which is plenty), reading the US Code named in the indictments and making a rational determination as to the merits of the case.
I intend to act as the OJ Simpson jury did. They considered what happened to Rodney King and America allowed it. It is called Jury Nullification. I will do the same. I will only consider what was done to President Trump via the FBI.
Your standard lame insult again. My position, which I have stated many times in this forum, is that these side cases are a liability and that the important cases are those dealing with Trump's actions as PotUS.
So cut your cheap insults that are based on your failure to remember (or read) what I have written.
Faux obtuseness. Who does not know what the "Big Lie" is ... especially when Trump is the context? Playing these games illustrates how weak your position is.
Of course you are. Conspiracy theory as usual. Given that these trials are accomplishing the opposite (shoring up Trump support), if they were used for political purposes they would not be proceeding.
In short, you will simply consider Trump not guilty regardless of the facts.
That is correct. Very unexpectedly.
The syrup was poured on too thick. The American people were underestimated.
Regardless, Trump is a traitor. He should never be given access to any public position much less the presidency.
His criminal indictments have merit, are backed by what appears to be sound evidence and seems to be on very sound legal grounds best I can tell. Legal opinions generally offer the same assessment. Trump is in deep legal shit for his actions as PotUS and anyone who cares about the rule of law, our Constitution, a PotUS holding true to his oath of office, etc. should be in support of holding Trump accountable.
But then there are those who would vote for Trump even if the guy winds up being a convicted felon.
The evidence that Trump tried to steal the election is going to be overwhelming. What the J6 committee concluded was overwhelming and Jack Smith will only expand on that.
The problem is a lot of Americans dont care. We live in a degraded nation.
What is publicly known is already overwhelming.
Exactly. They care about the delusional alternate reality they have created where Trump is some kind of warrior who can magically produce a sterling economy, remove political corruption, and solve international wars in 48 hours.
They actually believe that Trump is working to help them.
According to current Republican mythology, only Trump can part the heavens and make the sun shine on everyone. The gullibility is mind blowing. We no longer even see anyone on the right arguing for a different candidate.
What actions are you talking about?
They have accepted that Trump is almost certainly going to be their nominee. As I predicted a few weeks ago, they will now shift from "I do not want Trump as the nominee" to a full support/defense of Trump. This is nothing but blind partisanship where they support and defend whoever is the GOP nominee. Even if he is an abysmal character, a traitor, and even if he winds up being a convicted felon.
I have listed these actions repeatedly on this site. You have read them. Faux obtuseness is a dumb tactic.
Read the indictments. They offer a legal, detailed description of the actions and cross reference to the US Code that the actions allegedly violate.
Yes, and President Biden will be the Democratic nominee no matter what the gop, independents or anyone else believes because most Democrats love him for whooping Trump's butt in 2020. Naysayers and whiners who have "never liked Biden" play for the MAGAs from here on out. You are either with Biden or you implicitly back Trump!
I am not going to argue about it, either...
Might want to remind Democrats why they allegedly love Biden then, because many of them are saying his policies suck and are hurting them.
Don't expect independents to be as gullible as the average Democrat.
Nope, politics are not so simple.
One can most definitely NOT support Biden for PotUS but vote for him anyway as the most effective way of voting against Trump.
Bottom line, JBB, if we are stuck with Biden v Trump that will be the worst choices for PotUS that I have witnessed in my lifetime. Do you have a matchup in our recent history that is worse than that?
Yes, I do believe that Biden will be the nominee .. but I am not convinced that the former president will be GOP nominee .. he does have a major lead over the other candidates running .. yet if those that do not have any path to the presidency dropped out and immediately endorsed Nikki Haley - it would put her in a stronger position against the former president... I use Haley as an example, because I feel she just might be able to sway the electorate away from the former president .. I do not think the others running can do that .. Christie hugged Obama, boy howdy did that ruin his career, it was not the bridge thingy... De Santos is a baby version of the 'former president that shall remain unnamed"
Hogwash!
I support President Biden who will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents ever for defeating Trump and creeping right wing fascism thus preserving our Republic for future generations, despite suffering the insults of his lessers and nincompoops!
The most promising glimmer of hope in this sickening 2024 presidential election is for Trump to be forced out of the race and Haley emerge as the GOP nominee.
Another scenario that I would find to be an improvement is for Biden to go with a solid VP (someone like Tim Walz). Then my concern with the oldest PotUS in USA history not making it through a second term is lessened. Of course, I would prefer a strong top of the ticket but that seems to be out of the question.
Agreed .. it will take a village, but I think it can be done!
I am not going to argue with you any more than I intend to engage Tig in his endless quibbling. Trump has a lock on it. Biden will be the gop nominee. Biden will win. Truth and freedom will prevail...
Trump will go down in history as our worst President baring none!
Biden will be revered as Truman, though unlikely, A Great POTUS...
I applaud Biden for his 2020 win and for a number of things he has done such as encouraging renewable energy. I will not list my disagreement / disappointment with Biden just to keep this pleasant.
And I have no criticism of you for standing by Biden given Trump is the alternative. I get it.
I just wish the Ds would work harder to find a strong, articulate, moderate candidate 45-65 years old (roughly) and to encourage Biden to step aside and let the party go strong into 2024.
Gee thanks buddy.
I just drove from NYC to the Texas Panhandle and back and let me tell you something. There is a damn good chance that Donald Trump is going to be President again. The MAGA is strong out there. They are mad as hell and motivated like never before. Trump is going to be the gop nominee and like it or not Joe Biden is going to be the only man standing between Trump and another term. If you are not with us, you are part of the problem and you damn sure ain't my buddy. Besides, Biden would whoop Nicky Haley, too...
Four more quarters of exceptional GDP growth will insure it all!
5%+or-
If we have Biden v. Trump and Trump has a chance to win, I am voting for Biden. That is the best possible way for me to use my vote against Trump.
If the Ds really want to do a solid for the nation, they would nominate an individual who is not subject to losing the election to a traitor. The fact that you believe Trump has even a chance to win (much less a "damn good chance") should be screaming to you that Biden is NOT a good nominee.
Trump would be the worst GOP nominee that I can think of in my lifetime. Nobody should have any concern of losing to this miserable traitor. So why is the D party not highly concerned that they are likely to nominate an individual who might actually lose to a traitor??
Now that would be interesting.
I had no issues with Biden running in 2016 .. I championed it. He would have been an amazing one term president, and we would never have had the former president.
I have no desire to argue with you either .. but Biden / Truman, please! Truman had to make tough world changing decisions .. Biden is a good guy, I respect his stand with Israel, but is not the same caliber of man as Truman.
The Biden administration was so busy denying that there was a recession that he / they missed inflation til it was out of hand .. the fed could have been raising interest rates in smaller increments over time instead of stunning the market, auto industry, as well as the housing market with the rise in rates that took place multiple times. Inflation crippled the economy.
I do not desire to see Biden nor the former president in the general election..
Ooo TiG I think the party of (D) is concerned .. very concerned but their hands are tied for the most part - once Biden announced he would be seeking reelection the whole of the party of (D) machine kicked into gear for Biden. Did it not?
If Biden loses to a traitor it will say a hell of a lot more about America than it will about the democrats.
I get it...
As in 2016 and 2020, it is not about what most of us want or think. It will all come down to a battle for a few votes in a few swing states. Swing states where Trump remains popular.
Unless one of them dies, the overwhelming likelihood is that this is going to be a rematch of 2020 The old stuttering cowboy, like Jimmy Stewart, verses The Orange Menace from the Swamp!
It isn't that hard to pick a side...
You missed a few for Biden,
took bribes from Ukraine,
raped his own daughter per her own admission.
accused of rape by one of his aides,
Worked with Obama to give kids to sex traffickers'.
At least try to show some honesty in posts
Oh No, worry about the gop. We Democrats have a winner...
I've about had it with non-Democrats telling Democrats what we need to do. Take care of your own party. The once proud "Party of Lincoln" that is bound and determined to nominate a proven traitor losers cheater liar fake fraud felon rapist no good piece of shit!
“…once Biden announced…”
I sometimes think he will read the writing on the walls and will step away for the good of his party and ultimately for the good of the country. That dreamworld begs the question of who would take the reins? An open primary would be the best possible scenario but again…just a forlorn hope I suppose as time runs short.
Nice to see you out and about my friend.
True, but that does not change the fact that the Ds might put forth a nominee who could lose to a traitor. They have the ability to choose their nominee.
That kind of crap is why nobody takes you seriously...
Yes. And the biggest issue IMO is his age. As I have opined many times.
Yes, the D party engaged in the machine-like fashion that the GOP did.
Both parties still have the means to get better candidates and both parties are failing to do so. Thus we will likely be stuck with Biden v Trump. Neither should be PotUS, but Trump is an order of magnitude worse.
Thus if Biden v Trump, I will vote against Trump by voting for Biden.
Same here.
And then for Trump, we know he will never step aside. He would have to be forced aside. Other than some consequence of his legal issues, I do not see how that can happen.
When are you going to bring it forward?
Now that is pure irony.
Why in hell would the Democrats abandon a successful incumbent President for reelection against the exact same lunatic he whooped before? That is not going to happen...
Because you personally don't like him? Joe won over all of the other twenty Democratic candidates in 2020 and is running practically unopposed. The people who know him support him. He has already proven himself capable. Again, as far as I am concerned you have to be Half-a-MAGA to no be onboard!
I can provide documentation. Can you?
Biden daughter saying they showered together.
Biden aid accuses him of rape:
Biden gave children to sex traffickers:
There are left leaning sources that prove my claims are factual. Your turn.
[deleted]
If it were true that Biden will indeed beat Trump then one could see the logic of supporting Biden in spite of his age.
But did you not just tell us that Trump has a "damn good chance" to win?
Where did I say anything even remotely close to me not personally liking Biden? Good grief man, I get enough of this shit from the conservatives. Don't start making shit up too.
My critical concern with Biden is his age. I have made that abundantly clear. He (Trump too) is way too old for the presidency. The job is too intense, too important for someone in his early 80s.
Yes. To me that shows a problem with the D nomination process.
A little advice. Try to not alienate people who (if Biden v Trump) will be voting as you wish simply because they are not 100% aligned with you. Sometimes it is best to get partial favorable results. Sometimes it is best to not cause people like me to wind up posting negative things about Biden while explaining to you, in detail, my reasons for not supporting Biden for the presidency.
Instead of being aggressive and insulting with me, I would suggest you direct your angst at those who are supporting Trump and especially those who routinely attack Biden ... in particular those who lie and exaggerate about Biden negatives.
If you are a moron, Biden, Talib, Cortez, Harris are winners.
If you can read a poll, you'd know how silly that is.
Dear jbb
I do not have a party, have never voted a straight ticket and never intend to ..! I do not play partisan political games like you. It seems you desire to pigeonhole individual into the whole 'if you are not with us. you are against us' BS
Sincerely
CMF
"has stutter"
That's not how you spell dementia.
That makes 2 of us .. but hey we still have hope!
Always good to see you : )
Peace!
I know you are proud of Biden. But you demand that everyone be as proud and 100% committed as you or else they are "against you".
Candidly, that is a stupid, counter-productive way of operating.
In 24 you are for Biden or for Trump.
If that changes everything changes.
Join me in supporting our President!
Or, not.
As far as I am concerned, that is it...
I know you have an extreme dislike of Trump. But you demand that everyone be as repulsed and 100% committed as you or else they are "against you".
See how that works?
Only a partisan feels that way, there are several other candidates on the ballot but sheep will say there are only 2, complain about the shitty choices then vote for one of the shitty choices, it is the partisan hack way of voting.
I called it in 2020 and I'm calling it again!
Of course,
Good! Now nominate one of those others!
I am not against Trump because I dislike him personally. I am against him because he is a traitor who cares more about himself (by far) than he does the CotUS and the nation.
Except that is a lie.
I make no such demand. I do not consider Trump supporters "against me". I consider Trump supporters to be irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
I challenge Trump supporters to make a sound argument as to why they support Trump. I challenge Trump supporters to be clear when they engage in vague comments trying to have it both ways and create wiggle room for their tortured reasoning.
You have posted a flat out lie.
I think there is a bit of a fear of the unknown should the parties of (D) and (R) break from the establishment - we know the freak out the former president would have!
Alas, I will not be casting a vote for president once again should it be a Biden v the other guy - I am over the whole voting for the lesser of 2 evils thing .. my vote is best served on local and state issues. I am after all in a dreaded red state : )
Give me new candidates and I might once again dust myself off and get involved .. both parties contact me every election season to see if I will lend a hand.
Oh, goodie.
Can you get some of your "fascist" yelling buddies know that Joe Biden has already single-handedly knocked fascism out and that they can at long last cease misusing and abusing the word?
Abduction .. 'we' could blame it on Aliens, they took him back to the planet from which he came? Would he really be missed?
If it is Biden v Trump then I hope you are correct.
Ditto
I fully understand that. If Trump does not have a chance of winning, I will vote for and individual I actually support for PotUS. But if there is a chance for Trump to win, I will use my single vote as effectively as I can to counter that.
Right now the best chance for a candidate to vote for is Haley. Not good odds, but a glimmer of hope.
Yeah, never, ever a need to exaggerate Biden's negatives.
We just need to tell the truth about the economy, immigration, federal spending, his family's corruption, etc.
Some folks are still rather late to the party, but the trends seems to be more realizing how unfit Biden is and what harm can come by reelecting him.
America is waking up ever so slowly.
I will be voting third party, hoping that enough people do it the major parties may come to their senses and give us better choices.
A viable third party would be a refreshing change of pace...
I hold out a rare hope that it will not be Biden v Trump, but surely you see that this is almost certainly going to be the match-up.
One need not be a partisan to see the dominance both men have in their respective party nomination process.
Now if you are in some way trying to argue that people should ignore the polls and vote for the candidate they want as their nominee then you have my full support.
But if are trying to argue that in the general election with Biden v Trump that voting for a 3rd party candidate will accomplish anything other than encourage future 3rd party candidates (good) and draw from the D or R nominee votes (bad), I would like to hear your reasoning.
In 2024 I see a major problem. Trump. I will do whatever I can to go against him winning the presidency (if he has a chance to win).
If Trump does not have a reasonable chance to win (assuming he is the nominee), I will likely vote for someone else too.
A wise choice.
Perhaps having the integrity to base your vote for someone is the only way the cycle that everyone else wants to complain about gets broken (our current two-party-dominated system) or ever changes.
Then why do people do it?
Too bad so many partisans cannot seem to resist the temptation to exaggerate.
You have stated that you will not vote for Biden or Trump. So how are you going to help ensure that we do not elect an unfit PotUS?
I don't know, ask them.
Yeah, but it doesn't make any difference. The truth is enough to not support Biden.
That is one ridiculous question. I can no more ensure that than you can. Nobody can, and I really can't believe you asked it. Totally pointless and of no value.
Your comment history belies that.....................
The simple answer to this is, if you are dumb enough to vote for Biden or trump you have already insured that we will have an unfit president. What are you doing to insure it doesn't happen in the future?
What a bunch of ignorant bullshit.
Read what I wrote (and you even quoted it):
I spend most of my time with certain people just getting them to accurately read what I wrote.
A non-rebuttal. Because you are dead wrong and the best you can do is give a nuh'uh.
Instead of desperately trying to find some gotcha (even resorting to flat out lies) it would be better to engage in thoughtful discussion / debate.
If you disagree with a position I have stated then make your case instead of playing feeble gotcha games and falling flat on your face each time.
Voting requires that we make priority calls. In 2024, my priority is to help ensure Trump is not elected. That is priority 1. If that priority is satisfied, I am very much in support of helping break free of our two dominant party system and encourage a viable third party.
But my vote will depend upon the actual circumstances at the time. And if it is Biden v Trump and Trump has a chance to win, I will vote for Biden because that is the most effective way for me to use my vote against Trump.
And yet it has links to left leaning sites that confirm it,
Oh, God, please, not again.
We all do what we gotta do.
Surely you understand the difference between:
"ensure that we do not elect an unfit PotUS"
"help ensure that we do not elect an unfit PotUS"
The former is not possible for most individuals to accomplish.
The latter (what I actually wrote) is something we can each do with our vote.
I won't waste my time reading (whatever direction your links are leaning), which I'm sure don't state anything that you say they do.
How about I say yes and let that be the end of it?
[Deleted]
Once again admitting you are a Biden supporter based on current political environment.
I think what is beginning to happen is much more than conservatives are seeing the same thing.
nobody is stopping you from supporting a lying a-hole and convicted rapist fraudster for POTUS that will eventually end up in prison for his traitorous acts while in office. family values...
As if to prove my point, here you go trying to recast my position.
If Trump is the GOP nominee and has a chance to win, it does not really matter who is the D nominee, I will vote against Trump by voting for the nominee.
That is not supporting Biden or supporting the Ds (for that matter), it is rejecting Trump the best I can.
Again a failure to read.
JBB was saying that I do not like Biden. Instead of taking what I wrote (I consider Biden too old to be PotUS) he saw my position as not liking Biden. That is not at all my position and not what I have ever written.
Exactly like certain conservatives do (in reverse of course) when they claim I am a Biden supporter. No matter how clearly I state it, a select gaggle will flat out lie about my position.
JBB made a mistake, I can overlook it. The select gaggle continues to repeatedly misrepresent no matter how clear I am. It is blatant lying.
Now note. JBB is irritated that I am not a Biden supporter while select conservatives are trying your best to misrepresent me as a Biden supporter.
Funny if not so pathetic.
It sure is when the current political picture shows that Trump will probably hand Biden his ass. You stated that if that is the case, then you would vote for Biden.
That is the case, therefore you will vote for Biden, and admit to being a Biden supporter.
My suggestion is you rephrase your support in a way that does not show blind partisanship.
A Biden supporter would want Biden to be PotUS. I do not want to see Biden as PotUS. Thus, I am not a Biden supporter. In fact, based on those currently seeking nomination, I am (currently) a Haley supporter.
But if we are stuck with Biden v Trump and Trump has a chance to win, I will vote for Biden (or whoever is the D nominee) as a vote against Trump.
And no one is stopping you from supporting a corrupt, daughter raping, bribe taking, open border dementia riddled candidate that could end up in prison for his pay for play schemes while Vice President.
Many times folks hear what they want to read, not what was written. I completely understand and agree with your position. If it doesn’t look close, I’ll probably vote 3rd Party as I did in 2016.
[Deleted]
I agree, but that’s the position I found myself in in 2016 and 2020. The same situation seems to be creeping my way in Congressional and State races.
[Deleted]
And many times (I am absolutely convinced) they know damn well what I wrote and are intentionally misrepresenting it because they have no argument and thus resort to mere lying.
I get that.
If Trump has a reasonable chance of winning I will use my vote as effectively as possible to help ensure he loses.
Otherwise, since I support neither Biden nor Trump, if I am convinced Trump will lose, I will use my vote to promote someone that I do indeed support for the presidency.
I am hoping that something happens that forces Trump out of the nomination race. If so, we might see Haley emerge and I do indeed support her and would vote for her (if Biden is the D).
Lots of possibilities if Biden or Trump is out of contention and I am not going to try to enumerate them all.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
To bad this isn't a video, in the next few steps he'll fall on the ground.
You are preaching to the choir. Also don't forget the ones that will argue with you about what you meant even after you explain it to them 2 or 3 or 4 times.
Of course you won't
Actually there is some debate if Socrates actually said that. I believe what he actually said was "When the debate is lost, post a ridiculous meme".
Yes, and the best way to do that is to vote for (support) Bidens bid for the presidency.
And here you go again ignoring my words that I have repeated to you probably half a dozen times now and insisting that casting a vote for Biden —who I have stated repeatedly I do not support for the presidency— as the best way to vote against Trump is supporting Biden.
Supporting Biden means promoting his candidacy, working to help get him elected, funding his campaign, etc. I do none of that. It is the opposite of support to state, as I do, that one does not want to see him as PotUS. Ask JBB if I am supporting Biden. He gets it, what is your problem?
In this election year we will likely be faced with Biden v Trump and I do not support either of these men for the presidency. The difference, however, is that Trump is a traitor — the only PotUS in our history who has attempted to steal a US presidential election through fraud, lies, coercion and incitement. I will use my vote the best way possible to help ensure he does not become PotUS and that, in a Biden v. Trump matchup, means voting for Biden.
Now I will watch you pretend yet again that you do not understand this very basic idea.
It also means voting for him, as you have repeatedly stated you would do under certain circumstances.
I can't tell you how many times I have been accused of supporting Trump because I won't scream he is the antichrist from the mountaintops. But somehow voting for someone is not supporting their bid to become president.
The truth that some will never understand that if you plan on voting for someone under ANY circumstance, that affirms your support for that person, no matter the reason you are voting for them.
If I vote for either of the two it will be while holding my nose. But whoever I vote for my vote will still be supporting their bid to be president. I really don't see that as a tough concept.
It isn't tough at all, but some insist on changing the definition of "support".
What you seem to be saying is that the left thinks the American people are too stupid to know the difference between a civil and a criminal case.
That shouldn't be too surprising given the fact that the news media has been deliberately misinforming and misleading the public. At this point ordinary people have lost track of which case is which.
The only story the press cares about is the optics of Trump in a courtroom. The press certainly isn't going to try to explain how Trump cheated anyone by overvaluing his properties on financial statements. Essentially the state's argument is that Trump lied and no one was hurt. It's a 'man bites dog' story.
One for the ages.
“…the American people are too stupid to know the difference between a civil and a criminal case.”
And it is apparent that too many partisans will not acknowledge the number of cases that have been brought and the sheer number of indictments in some vainglorious attempt to justify the crimes. The serial defendant has no business being let anywhere near another position of leadership given the incessant flaunting of the law and the abhorrent disdain for our institutions.
but he's being maliciously prosecuted!
Then stop him. Why are democrats looking for convictions and having him as the GOP nominee?
The answer is obvious.
Everybody, also, has to remember, the banks were good with everything in those loan documents and gave him the loan. If there were any issues the documents it would have been handled at that level. This is NY stepping in after the fact and trying to make something out of nothing. (Normal Democrat TDS.)
It does not matter. Fraud, per New York law, is committed by the attempt ... it does not need to be successful to be fraud.
Even if the loan or insurance is not granted, the fraud is committed by the presentation of false legal documents.
Can you point me to anyone else being prosecuted in New York for this?
Yeah, not ignoring fact. You have fun with that.
Do your own research.
What facts am I ignoring? Be specific. Vague replies are by default bullshit.
Long answer....................no
So that's a no, you can't point to anybody else that was or is being prosecuted in NY for this.
No, it is a refusal to go on an irrelevant tangent.
The fact is that you were wrong suggesting that no one being hurt means there was no fraud. That is incorrect per New York law.
Wrong. I have made no claim that these charges are common or fair. In fact, I have stated that this trial clearly has political motivations and that this trial is NOT the trial I would have liked to see happen. The important trials are those that deal with Trump's actions as PotUS.
I corrected Jeremy's incorrect suggestion that someone must be hurt for this to be fraud. That is incorrect. Acknowledge the fact instead of playing deflection games.
So then it was attempted fraud because no one was hurt.
No
Attempted fraud = fraud per New York law. Do you understand this? If not, this is extremely easy to corroborate per Google.
Here, this came up right away for me:
Yeah, you refuse to acknowledge facts and instead just play games.
6.4.
Like that's ever stopped you before. You can't point out anybody who has been prosecuted under this because NOBODY HAS. That's what makes this trial even more pathetic.
Yep.
Your comment @6.4 remains wrong. Read @6.4.11 for details.
Fraud, per New York Executive Law 63(12) does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud .
I have never claimed that anyone has been prosecuted. I am not going to try to back up a claim I have not made. That is a wild goose chase and I refuse to engage in it.
You have nothing so here you are playing games.
Fact is, your comment @6.4 was wrong and you are deflecting like crazy rather than admit your mistake.
Great! Any suggestions on how to help others (see @6.4) rise to your level of understanding of New York law?
This is about some ambitious politician masquerading as an AG, fulfilling her dream goal of bringing Trump down.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Yet she cannot fulfill her dream unless Trump has actually engaged in wrongdoing.
So regardless of her motivations, Trump has indeed engaged repeatedly in fraud per the state of New York. Nobody forced him to do this. And his fraud is not nullified simply because charges were brought based on political motivations.
[Deleted]
It has already been established that the former 'president' engaged in wrongdoing, it's the amount of the penalty that is to be decided here.
I don't get what part of that people don't get.
They refuse to believe that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing. They are upset that the likely nominee of their party is being held accountable.
Imagine the outcry when Trump is on trial for federal criminal charges.
It certainly matters to public perception... which... with an election coming up... might actually be pretty important.
I am convinced that facts are largely irrelevant to partisan public perception. The fact that Trump is on trial is pretty much all that matters and clearly his followers translate any action against Trump to be nothing more than bogus political attacks.
If I had my way, the personal lawsuits would be sidestepped and we would focus on the lawsuits dealing with Trump's actions while PotUS. That, IMO, is what matters the most. Private citizen Trump's wrongdoings do not compare in importance to this nation as those of PotUS Trump while in office.
But, regardless, what I was referring to (of course) was the law, not public perception. It does not matter, per New York law, if the Trump organization intended to commit fraud and it does not matter if there were no declared victims.
The fraud is committed, per the law, by presenting fraudulent legal documents.
Feel free to prove it wrong.
If thats the fiction you want to run with then have at it.
Exactly. And the idiots are cheering this on like it's a good thing.
You seem to keep ignoring the fact this law has only been used ONCE and it's used for political reasons. But, we've already seen that facts don't matter to you.
Of course you will never acknowledge it, but @6.4.11 proves that per New York law, the presentation of fraudulent documents is fraud even if there is no intent to defraud and even if the recipient declines the transaction.
You are wrong to claim a need for victims .
It does not matter if this is the first time it has ever been used. My point is about the law itself. I have not argued that politics are not involved.
Pay attention.
I think that's been true for years. It's very difficult to be partisan if one actually looks at all the facts.
The problem is they're partially correct.
The NY fraud case is certainly a targeted personal attack. The AG campaigned on the promise of launching one, and she's delivering.
Much of the accusation revolves around a practice common at some degree to nearly everyone who owns real estate. Yet she's singled out a high profile member of an opposing political party for this unique legal action.
The AG is doing the very things his supporters are accusing her of. She's just adding fuel to the MAGA bonfire.
I realize that. But if the primary goal is to keep than man out of the WH, public perception is more important than some obscure NY law.
I acknowledge what the law says. I, unlike you show in 6.4.32, also acknowledge that it is being used for partisan political purposes.
But it would not be possible for the AG to bring the case if Trump had not engaged in fraud per New York law. So while it is easy to argue that this case was politically motivated, that does not mean that Trump has done no wrong. Trump supporters are 'arguing' that Trump has done no wrong. That is incorrect.
I do not believe that the primary goal is to keep him out of the WH. (Especially since he can be PotUS as a convicted felon.) No doubt that is in the minds of many, but I think this is more the system working as it is supposed to work. What Trump did as PotUS (especially after his loss) was outrageous and historically unique. Not holding him accountable is unacceptable and would solidify a horrible precedent in presidential politics. Not acting would go against the rule of law.
Also, as I have noted many times, the cases against private citizen Trump are not helpful for several reasons:
As I have noted repeatedly, I would have greatly preferred the GA and "Big Lie" con-job cases go first. Then the classified documents case. The private citizen Trump cases are no more important than any of the thousands of similar cases within the USA so I care about them as much as the others.
Yeah, it is usually much easier to argue the truth.
You just cannot bring yourself to actually read what I write. You apparently have some need to invent false positions for me that you can then argue against. That is a feeble, dishonest strawman tactic.
Pay attention, Jeremy, your posts prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. In this thread alone we have this from me even though my posts focused on the law:
And I have even added this although it follows your post:
Get your facts straight before making allegations.
But it is dishonest to focus on one aspect (political motivation) to the exclusion of all others.
Bottom line, Trump did engage in fraud. His wrongdoing enabled the AG to go after him with legal teeth. Denying Trump's wrongdoing is dishonest (meaning: not the truth).
You should get people to stop.
I pointed out it is politically motivated and never said one word about whether he was guilty or not.
Not sure why you are going off on that when it isn't me doing what you accuse folks of.
Seems like a straw man to me
Are you paying any attention to the thread? How about the arguments in general made by Trump supporters?
You chose to opine only on the political motivation. My reply pointed out that there is far more involved than simply political motivation.
If you disagree, make your argument. If you agree, why are you complaining?
Yet you fail to acknowledge they are involved and the basis of this clown show. Until then, you have nothing to say to me.
Just amazing how you can find a way to not read what is right in front of your nose. And instead attempt to move the goalposts.
Apparently you do not realize that everyone can easily see how wrong you are.
Yes, try to focus on what I write.
you will need to ask them.
yes, I told the truth.
As I stated in 6.4.41 Until you can acknowledge the political motivation behind this clown show [Deleted]
As I said in 6.4.27 - Feel free to prove me wrong. [Deleted]
It really isn't very difficult to see that without politics, there wouldn't have even been a case.
Pretending otherwise is silly.
Difficult yet they are trying. Failing, but trying still trying. Only a partisan would claim otherwise.
But they pretend nonetheless and look foolish for it.
It's hilarious that this started because I mentioned the fact that the banks were good with it and gave him the loan.
Nearly everybody who owns any real estate has broken this law exactly the way Trump has, just in smaller amounts. So the optics of bringing a case against him are terrible.
Whether or not he's actually committed the fraud of which he's accused remains to be determined. Even Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
I assure you that singling him out for a victimless civil suit wholly unrelated to his presidency as retribution for his actions in office is absolutely NOT how the system is supposed to work and is the complete opposite of the rule of law.
Yeah, we agree on this idea. In this case it's quite harmful.
I'm not as committed to the order. If they have evidence for a conviction on classified documents, then let's go.
The judge, the tryer of fact in this case, has already said that the Trump corporation is guilty of fraud.
There are no witch hunts against Trump, he has been a cheat, liar, and fraud his entire adult life. No one in justice cared until the last few years (which is often the case with white collar crime), and frankly, some of his fraud and cheating is legal (shame on us). But its hard for any objective person to feel sorry for Donald Trump, to say he brought all this on himself is an understatement.
He's already been found guilty of executive fraud. All that remains to be determined is the amount of damages he will pay the state.
Yes the optics are bad. But my point remains true. He committed fraud and in a big way. If he had not done so or if he had cheated like the average Joe cheats, the AG would have no meaningful case.
The judge already issued the summary judgment that the Trump organization committed fraud: the major factor. The current trial is to settle the remaining factors and to determine the consequences.
Per New York law no victim is required so 'victimless' is irrelevant.
How did you link his actions in office to this case? I made no such link and this lawsuit makes no link. You must be extrapolating from the AG's political positions and going too far. Better to stick with the defensible: the AG is politically motivated to "get Trump".
It is absolutely following the rule of law to hold accountable those who engage, repeatedly, in clearly excessive fraud. The rule of law does not care about the motivations of the AG, just whether or not fraud was committed.
I would prefer that over the private citizen cases, but the reason I prioritize the other presidential cases over this is because they deal with the more damaging precedent.
The documents case deals with an arrogant asshole who thinks he is above the law. It does have a potential for finding him legally guilty of treason and that part is very important. But my main concern is what Trump did after he lost the election. The fraud, coercion, lying and incitement actions he took as a sitting PotUS are historically unique (and outrageous) and set a horrible precedent for the nation. Holding Trump accountable for his actions would help mitigate that precedent (although it will likely never be reversed).
An elected member of the opposing party....
has ignored the sworn assessments of professional real estate appraisers and denied Trump a trial by jury.
This is absolutely the witch hunt she promised in her campaign.
Which does not mean that this isn't a witch hunt.
And suddenly they care now.... Not suspicious at all....
I don't feel sorry for Trump. I am, however, greatly concerned at the precedent of running for office based on weaponizing the justice system to target a political opponent. It won't stop at Trump.
Oh FFS
That has yet to be determined. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win this in the end.
The basis for the "cheating" accusation is that Trump's people argued one valuation before the tax board and used a different one with the banks. That's not cheating when anybody else does it. Every homeowner in America knows this... so it just solidifies the perception of a witchhunt.
We're talking about perception. "Optics". What the law says is irrelevant if it's only ever applied to punish one person.
It would be if she wasn't enforcing the law selectively.... after promising to enforce laws selectively.
Selective enforcement undermines the rule of law.
Agreed, but after all this time they need to take whatever conviction they can actually get. I kinda see it like convicting Al Capone of tax evasion.
The judge already determined it. You must be referring to an appeal "in the end". The reality is that Trump organization has been found liable for fraud, additional counts are on trial, consequences are to be determined. There is a possibility for appeal, but that is it.
There are little cheats (e.g. estimating your $200,000 home as worth $215,000) and then there are big cheats as with Trump org. And there are the occasional cheats (e.g. on the rare occasion when you sell your home) and repeated cheats as with Trump org. There is a major league difference between what Trump org did and what the average person does.
But, technically, it IS cheating when anyone does it per New York law.
Already addressed this. I told you multiple times that victims are irrelevant per the law. You keep ignoring this and keep returning to the optics ... a point that I have repeatedly agreed with you on.
Now you are talking about the flaws of a human being versus the rule of law. The rule of law goes beyond individuals. The law predates the AG and she had nothing whatsoever with it coming into existence in 1959. The law exists independent of her.
Yes, that part is true.
I do not see it that way. To me, going after private citizen Trump is largely irrelevant in the big picture. As I have explained, I am concerned about what a PotUS did and the horrible precedent it set. Just no comparison in impact to our nation.
In other words, I do not care to "get Trump". I care about holding Trump accountable for what he did as PotUS. I do not care about punishing Trump, I care about mitigating the horrible precedent he set.
a political prosecution
The judge relied on assessments of professional real estate appraisers in his ruling and NY Civil trials don't get jury trials, but Trump's lawyers could have asked for one and did not.
Does this sentiment extend to Hunter Biden's federal cases and the House Impeachment Inquiry?
Obviously.
You don't understand... it's not cheating. It's a legal process by which you disagree with the valuation of your property as assigned by the taxing authority and appeal their decision. That is completely independent of a bank's assessment of value when you try to borrow against that home. Those numbers almost never agree, and it's not because of cheating or fraud or anything unethical at all.
It would be if we were talking about liquid assets where the value isn't a matter of opinion, like publicly traded stocks (for example). A million shares of Exxon is worth about $102,930,000, as of market close today. If you try to claim that's worth $1 billion, then yeah... you're committing fraud.
But a property like Mar-a-Lago is unique in the world. Nobody knows what it's actually worth until it sells. Until then, we just have professional guesses, which will never agree.
Now... that is surely not all of the evidence in question... or at least I HOPE it's not all of the evidence in question.... so I am in no way proclaiming Trump's innocence. However a summary judgment that keeps a jury from seeing the evidence in question just more fuel to the idea of Trump being some sort of martyr.
You'll notice I haven't disputed that.
Then we'll just have to agree to agree.
I was specifically referring to the classified documents case, which I would see as one against Trump the official, not Trump the private citizen. I agree on the private citizen idea.
I confess I pay zero attention to anything Hunter Biden related.
The only reason I can imagine to investigate Hunter is because there is reason to believe he accepted money in exchange for influence with his father... and was able to achieve it. I don't know if any such evidence exists or doesn't. It would be a criminal offense, so it seems to me that there should be some sort of probable cause necessary to interfere with his life.
That would also be reason to investigate any of Trump's family, or family or any high-ranking US official from either party.
And ignored others.
Many civil cases do get jury trials, as we've already seen with Trump. This particular statute does not allow for the absolute right to a jury trial... which many people believe is a reason AG James chose this route.
I understand perfectly and my post proves it. Simply put: there is a big difference between white lies and gross misrepresentation. In life, people routinely stretch the truth. What Trump organization did is substantially more than the normal stretching of the truth and they did so repeatedly. Trump org cannot be compared to the average person's exaggerations.
No, it simply is when speaking technically. It is just a very different scale and Trump org passed the threshold from being overlooked into being a pattern of serial fraud.
Well Mar-a-Lago is not the only property in this scope. It is the 800lb Gorilla, but hand-wringing over its valuation does not obviate the pattern of serial fraud as determined by the judge.
Indeed
Okay, your characterizing this as a victimless civil suit was a bit misleading:
I will reinterpret your intent to be simply emphasis that the general public does not see a victim. And of course, restate that I fully understand the optics problem but that problem existed before this case even started by virtue of the AG's campaign promise.
Yes, let's do that.
I was responding to your "Agreed, but after all this time they need to take whatever conviction they can actually get." and that designates this private case.
I'm not sure..
How do we know? One set of appraisals differs from another set of appraisals... all done by professional appraisers. Neither one of us has any clue who's right, or even IF they're right.
That's not how any of this works, though.
Real estate valuations are subjective. They are completely matters of opinion. Even when real estate is changing hands... the two parties rarely agree on its value, and that's especially true of commercial properties.
You continue to use words like "white lies" and "stretching the truth" or "little cheats", as though there is some sort of definitive "true" value to any piece of real estate. In order to stretch truth or tell white lies, there must be a "truth" to start with. There isn't. Differentiating between "white lies" and "gross misrepresentation" relies on a degree of deviation from some "correct" number that just does not exist. This is all opinion.
My entire point here has been about perception.
This would be very different if Trump had defrauded a pension fund and a bunch of retired teachers were going to get reduced payouts or something. It would even be different if the banks in question had asked the AG to assist with the suit. Then she could at least say she was defending the interests of honest businesses.
But none of that is the case. She's going to bat for nobody. So when Trump starts screaming about a political witchhunt, he's actually believable for once in his life. Well... again...we've already agreed the optics of that are just terrible. Probably time to stop beating the dead horse.
We are in a legal process where adjudication is at play and that was the summary judgment. If you want to make the case that the judge is wrong then you would need to define your methodology, make an argument as to why your methodology is correct and then make an argument based on facts.
Merely suggesting that there is no method for appraising the value of real estate is not persuasive. Further, I do not believe you actually believe that. If the value for real estate can only be determined when the property closes (or, worse, by accepting whatever the owner claims), we would have quite a hard time making the market work, establishing property taxes, etc.
We do have a method. It does involve human judgment (subjectivity) but it is also necessarily founded in established principles and metrics.
You made the comparison.
Subjective does not mean whatever the owner says is correct.
Yes there is. The appraisal of real estate is not based of divining rods. There are methods based on location, age, architecture, interior styling, square footage, number and type of rooms, market comps, mechanical and structural inspections, etc. that are designed to impose formality so that the process is NOT entirely subjective.
And my point has been about the law. You continuing to argue that there is a perception problem when we agreed to agree and I have never disagreed is a bit ridiculous. Also, you have stated that you do not disagree with my note that the law does not require a victim. We do not disagree on this point. Why are we discussing it?
So not a ruling in a vacuum. An appeal has also been filed so other judges will look at it.
It does allow for the defendant to request one. Again, it wasn't done.
For reasons we've already discussed at length, I think the judge could be wrong. Or not. But the possibility certainly exists.
It's a good thing I didn't suggest that, then. BTW, the next time you want to have a strop about people misrepresenting your views, you might want to remember how often you do exactly that.
This is the exact opposite of what I said.
Hence the licensing of professional appraisers.... like the ones the judge is ignoring.... and also like the ones the judge is believing. Why do you think one set is more valid than the others?
I didn't claim anyone was "exaggerating". People are not exaggerating, telling white lies, stretching the truth, or any other activity that is less than 100% honest.
Misrepresenting again, I see.
And yet expert, licensed professionals disagree on valuations all the time. That's how "subjective" works. Tell us all about the formal guidelines for determining the increased value of a property owned by a former POTUS who is also a possible future POTUS.
Because you keep bringing it up.
Yes, he could be wrong. So if you think he is wrong then make your case. Just stating that he might be wrong is obvious.
Look at what you wrote:
You think it is a misrepresentation for me to interpret that as you arguing that we do not have a viable method for appraisals ... that nobody knows who is right or wrong ... that is it purely subjective?
Do not accuse me of misrepresenting you when I take a very reasonable interpretation of your words.
The who was it that wrote this?:
In the above, you argued that Mar-a-Lago's value is unknowable until it sells. Yet you object to me countering that with this:
Mar-a-Lago's value can be estimated by our standard methods of estimating real estate that I enumerated. As I noted, that does not mean there is no subjectivity, but it certainly means that your claim that "nobody knows what it's actually worth" is hyperbole. And by extension, since every real estate sale has some degree of subjectivity then technically we cannot know the value of any property until it closes.
Obviously, (right?), we are able to factor in subjectivity and get an actional range that allows us to engage in processes prior to the closing. Clearly, we are able to get a decent approximate value for real estate for tax purposes, marketing purposes, and in this case legal purposes.
So instead of accusing me of misrepresenting your words, try this. Recognize when a very normal interpretation of your words is taken and fine tune the interpretation to your desired level of precision. Deal with the reality that natural language is inherently imprecise and that sometimes one needs to offer additional information, based on feedback from your readers, to clarify precise meaning. When you instead take a normal interpretation and immediately use that as a lever for making personal allegations, that suggests that the personal allegation is really your intent.
Where do you find the judge ignoring professional appraisals? I assume (who knows at this point?) that is what your words mean, so do you have some link that shows this is what the judge actually did? And if the judge ignored all the appraisals, are you suggesting the judge did the appraisals himself??
Again with the obnoxious false personal allegations. You stated this:
Well the way Trump broke the law is to lie about the value of his assets on legal documents. So given what you said above, the following exchange follows naturally.
Do you want to have a civil discussion dealing with the topic or do you want instead to grandstand with false personal allegations?
And the sky is blue. I have stated that the appraisal process uses all sorts of metrics and methods to minimize subjectivity. I have not argued that all subjectivity has been eliminated. In fact I have stated clearly before and even in your quote that "the process is NOT entirely subjective.".
Just amazing. It is you who keeps bringing up perception and optics. I agreed with the perception problem at the onset. You keep bringing it up. Hello?
[Deleted]
Off to work the polls for the rest of the day. As a PSA, please cast your ballot if you have not already done so.
For those that choose not to, for whatever reason, and it is a choice, please refrain from commenting hereabouts until you realize the difference between simple whlning and constructive discussion. We all have a stake and we all have a voice. Use it wisely lest we lose it in our anger or worse, our apathy.
Thanks to all those who have contributed to our community betterment by voting. That is all.
Thank you for your service today.
hopefully you got to toss some morons wearing maga bullshit off the polling grounds...
[Deleted]
I agree, but without the death wish.
My comment wasn't meant to be a death wish. I was presenting just one way to prevent them from getting the nomination, I guess it would have been better if I had said the best thing for America is for both Biden and Trump to drop out before the Conventions or for the Democrats to force Biden out and Trump disqualified from running.
Yes, I agree with that.
It would be very easy to come up with two better candidates. But the political machinery somehow will not allow that.
I just wanted to throw this out there because it's freaking hilarious irony -
LOL, perfect.