packgrad said:
I heard Trump is on the verge of another $4B windfall. I expect there will be some screaming at the sky from the village idiot.
packofwolves said:
So do you agree $18 million is absurd?
Overvalued by whom?Civilized said:packofwolves said:
So do you agree $18 million is absurd?
No. I have no idea what the value is of a 20-acre social club and small resort that can't be redeveloped, but my gut is it's a lot closer to $20 million than $1.5 billion.
Given all the deed restrictions, the person buying it is essentially locked in to using it as a resort and social club in perpetuity and the resort only has 55 rooms. That doesn't sound like a very lucrative land use.
So if the tax assessors office and judge are being overly conservative, and the true value is 5x or even 10x its tax value, it was still overvalued in Trump's docs by hundreds of millions.
Trump's new ad 🇺🇸
— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) February 22, 2024
🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/8Ic4p9zMt8
Civilized said:packofwolves said:
So do you agree $18 million is absurd?
No. I have no idea what the value is of a 20-acre social club and small resort that can't be redeveloped, but my gut is it's a lot closer to $20 million than $1.5 billion.
Given all the deed restrictions, the person buying it is essentially locked in to using it as a resort and social club in perpetuity and the resort only has 55 rooms. That doesn't sound like a very lucrative land use.
So if the tax assessors office and judge are being overly conservative, and the true value is 5x or even 10x its tax value, it was still overvalued in Trump's docs by hundreds of millions.
JUST IN: Kevin O’Leary educates CNN host about the Trump “fraud” trial, says every developer in America would be penalized like Trump if treated the same way.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 20, 2024
🔥🔥🔥
“Excuse me. What fraud? You get a developer that builds a building and he says it's worth $400 million, and he… pic.twitter.com/xSXaeo03MY
packofwolves said:
O'Leary is spot on…JUST IN: Kevin O’Leary educates CNN host about the Trump “fraud” trial, says every developer in America would be penalized like Trump if treated the same way.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 20, 2024
🔥🔥🔥
“Excuse me. What fraud? You get a developer that builds a building and he says it's worth $400 million, and he… pic.twitter.com/xSXaeo03MY
43 years ago the @nytimes wrote an article reporting a property called Mar-a-Lago was for sale for $20,000,000.
— Patrick Bet-David (@patrickbetdavid) February 22, 2024
I wonder what it’s worth now.
Probably around $18,000,000. 🤔 pic.twitter.com/DBp1v8Masn
caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
"It can't be fraud, every billionaire breaks the law all the time! Without our two-tiered system of justice it would just be impossible to do business and the very constitution would burst into flame!"packofwolves said:
O'Leary is spot on…JUST IN: Kevin O’Leary educates CNN host about the Trump “fraud” trial, says every developer in America would be penalized like Trump if treated the same way.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 20, 2024
🔥🔥🔥
“Excuse me. What fraud? You get a developer that builds a building and he says it's worth $400 million, and he… pic.twitter.com/xSXaeo03MY
So, the lender accepted the valuation, by the Trump Org, on the property needing the loan? Is that really what's wrong?Civilized said:caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
The problem with your analogy is that the public and the state are both harmed if banks are fed fraudulent financial data from their clients and use that data in good faith as the basis for loans.
Take this to the logical extreme for illustration. If every developer overstated the value of their assets as significantly as Trump did, banks would be massively over-leveraged and under-capitalized and at risk of failing if real estate dominoes start toppling, just like we saw in the Great Recession.
What I'll be curious to see is even if the verdict holds on appeal, whether the size of the penalty does. Unlike routine cases with very formulaic sentencing guidelines, this case is completely unique, and without any real precedent.
Given how broad the law he was prosecuted under is, and the lack of precedent, nothing would surprise me on appeal.
Civilized said:caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
The problem with your analogy is that the public and the state are both harmed if banks are fed fraudulent financial data from their clients and use that data in good faith as the basis for loans.
Take this to the logical extreme for illustration. If every developer overstated the value of their assets as significantly as Trump did, banks would be massively over-leveraged and under-capitalized and at risk of failing if real estate dominoes start toppling, just like we saw in the Great Recession.
What I'll be curious to see is even if the verdict holds on appeal, whether the size of the penalty does. Unlike routine cases with very formulaic sentencing guidelines, this case is completely unique, and without any real precedent.
Given how broad the law he was prosecuted under is, and the lack of precedent, nothing would surprise me on appeal.
caryking said:
spoken by the person that worked for a failed organization. oh, and said that organization should have been bailed out!!
That's the real problem!!!
packofwolves said:Civilized said:caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
The problem with your analogy is that the public and the state are both harmed if banks are fed fraudulent financial data from their clients and use that data in good faith as the basis for loans.
Take this to the logical extreme for illustration. If every developer overstated the value of their assets as significantly as Trump did, banks would be massively over-leveraged and under-capitalized and at risk of failing if real estate dominoes start toppling, just like we saw in the Great Recession.
What I'll be curious to see is even if the verdict holds on appeal, whether the size of the penalty does. Unlike routine cases with very formulaic sentencing guidelines, this case is completely unique, and without any real precedent.
Given how broad the law he was prosecuted under is, and the lack of precedent, nothing would surprise me on appeal.
The banks do their own evaluation and risk assessment. NYC was not and will not be harmed. That's a real stretch of an argument. Time will tell if NYC is harmed by this case ruling.
Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
The problem with your analogy is that the public and the state are both harmed if banks are fed fraudulent financial data from their clients and use that data in good faith as the basis for loans.
Take this to the logical extreme for illustration. If every developer overstated the value of their assets as significantly as Trump did, banks would be massively over-leveraged and under-capitalized and at risk of failing if real estate dominoes start toppling, just like we saw in the Great Recession.
What I'll be curious to see is even if the verdict holds on appeal, whether the size of the penalty does. Unlike routine cases with very formulaic sentencing guidelines, this case is completely unique, and without any real precedent.
Given how broad the law he was prosecuted under is, and the lack of precedent, nothing would surprise me on appeal.
The banks do their own evaluation and risk assessment. NYC was not and will not be harmed. That's a real stretch of an argument. Time will tell if NYC is harmed by this case ruling.
They were doing "their own evaluation and risk assessments" back in the runup to the housing market collapse in 2008 too.
How'd that work out?
And again, their risk assessment relies on their clients acting in good faith and non-fraudulently.
It's not a stretch to say the public good is served by preventing fraud.
Do you consider Trump knowingly marking up asset values by hundreds of millions, in some cases some big multiple of actual value, to be fraud?
If not, what would a banking client need to do to commit fraud? What bar would they have to clear?
packofwolves said:Civilized said:packofwolves said:Civilized said:caryking said:
Let's just say what the reality of this ruling means…
Two private businesses agree on terms of a relationship. The relationship was satisfied by both parties. The State comes in and says… the business relationship did not meet the standards of the State!
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society! I'm not, and this is where the world views collide! At this point, somebody has to win.
My hope is that constitutional thinkers win!
The problem with your analogy is that the public and the state are both harmed if banks are fed fraudulent financial data from their clients and use that data in good faith as the basis for loans.
Take this to the logical extreme for illustration. If every developer overstated the value of their assets as significantly as Trump did, banks would be massively over-leveraged and under-capitalized and at risk of failing if real estate dominoes start toppling, just like we saw in the Great Recession.
What I'll be curious to see is even if the verdict holds on appeal, whether the size of the penalty does. Unlike routine cases with very formulaic sentencing guidelines, this case is completely unique, and without any real precedent.
Given how broad the law he was prosecuted under is, and the lack of precedent, nothing would surprise me on appeal.
The banks do their own evaluation and risk assessment. NYC was not and will not be harmed. That's a real stretch of an argument. Time will tell if NYC is harmed by this case ruling.
They were doing "their own evaluation and risk assessments" back in the runup to the housing market collapse in 2008 too.
How'd that work out?
And again, their risk assessment relies on their clients acting in good faith and non-fraudulently.
It's not a stretch to say the public good is served by preventing fraud.
Do you consider Trump knowingly marking up asset values by hundreds of millions, in some cases some big multiple of actual value, to be fraud?
If not, what would a banking client need to do to commit fraud? What bar would they have to clear?
There was no fraud and no one was harmed. If it was not Trump, there would be no case. This was a witch hunt from the get go, a campaign promise.
There are other developers that have done the same. Wake me when NYC starts scrutinizing other developers in the city. But they won't bring another case because they can't risk driving developers out of the city.
Roger Stone says he loves Dr. Ben Carson, but he believes there is no voter group Trump gains that he doesn’t already have if he were to consider Carson for VP. Stone then explains his support for Tulsi Gabbard.pic.twitter.com/TlAunHZ6i8
— Suburban Black Man 🇺🇸 (@niceblackdude) February 23, 2024
Donald Trump was recently fined $450 million by the state of New York for the crime of taking out a loan and paying it back, and NBC is worried about what he will do to his political opposition? https://t.co/wnGRXqdkiI
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) February 23, 2024
packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.Civilized said:packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
So I'm allowed to lie to banks as long as I pay back the loans they give me that were based on the lies?
December, 2018. NBC breaks the "news" that incoming Attorney General Letitia James, who hadn't even been sworn in yet, was planning to investigate every part of Trump and his family's lives.
— MAZE (@mazemoore) February 22, 2024
It's surreal watching this because this isn't supposed to happen in America.
Even… pic.twitter.com/mVCKL3QYLM
packgrad said:Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.Civilized said:packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
So I'm allowed to lie to banks as long as I pay back the loans they give me that were based on the lies?
Hilarious that you think otherwise.
Baaaaaa
No need to do that. We just need to ask the bankers in this instance what they were fine with. We already have their answer.Civilized said:packgrad said:Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.Civilized said:packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
So I'm allowed to lie to banks as long as I pay back the loans they give me that were based on the lies?
Hilarious that you think otherwise.
Baaaaaa
Riiiiiiight
Go ask your banker if he's cool with you tripling the size and value of your residence on your PFS and let us know what he tells you.
Wow, a new court filing using Nathan Wade’s cell phone data pretty clearly demonstrates Fani Willis and Nathan Wade lied under oath about when their relationship started. Criminal charges should be coming against both: https://t.co/dXuRut6YNf
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) February 23, 2024
packgrad said:
Crazy how TDS has normalized fascism for Democrats.December, 2018. NBC breaks the "news" that incoming Attorney General Letitia James, who hadn't even been sworn in yet, was planning to investigate every part of Trump and his family's lives.
— MAZE (@mazemoore) February 22, 2024
It's surreal watching this because this isn't supposed to happen in America.
Even… pic.twitter.com/mVCKL3QYLM
My personal banker doesn't give one rats ass about my PFS. I only need them if I am doing a loan. The value of product (property) stands on its own along with my ability to service the loan.packgrad said:No need to do that. We just need to ask the bankers in this instance what they were fine with. We already have their answer.Civilized said:packgrad said:Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.Civilized said:packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
So I'm allowed to lie to banks as long as I pay back the loans they give me that were based on the lies?
Hilarious that you think otherwise.
Baaaaaa
Riiiiiiight
Go ask your banker if he's cool with you tripling the size and value of your residence on your PFS and let us know what he tells you.
But TDS and fascism....
Uh huh. Kind of like how you attempt to use your only frame of reference, kitchen table economics, to (poorly) understand macroeconomics, national deficits, etc. you seem to be confusing your personal banker with what goes on at a Wall Street investment bank, especially DeutscheBank. Anyone who knows these guys knows exactly why they would say "Oh yes, we love fraudulent loans, give us more!"... not exactly typical BB&T behavior.caryking said:My personal banker doesn't give one rats ass about my PFS. I only need them if I am doing a loan. The value of product (property) stands on its own along with my ability to service the loan.packgrad said:No need to do that. We just need to ask the bankers in this instance what they were fine with. We already have their answer.Civilized said:packgrad said:Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.Civilized said:packgrad said:
Lol. Reminds me of some here.
So I'm allowed to lie to banks as long as I pay back the loans they give me that were based on the lies?
Hilarious that you think otherwise.
Baaaaaa
Riiiiiiight
Go ask your banker if he's cool with you tripling the size and value of your residence on your PFS and let us know what he tells you.
But TDS and fascism....
Civ, you and your cohort are just consumed with stupidity regarding this subject...
