TRUMP 2024

202,389 Views | 3243 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by Werewolf
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stupid!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.

Oh I'm sure Putin will dump half of Russia's economy into buying Truth Social shares.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Overvalued by whom?
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The evil is being exposed.....right before your eyes. #Devolution

No longer about R vrs D.......it's about salvaging our country and returning it to the Republic it once was. Either MAGA wins or we experience the end of our Constitutional Republic We get to decide. The 2024 election will not occur on time.........but MAGA will win in the end.

#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


One question is whether the 1993 agreement includes the provision that Mar-a-logo would return to a private residence if the club was abandoned. This discussion/testimony was not permitted.
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
O'Leary is spot on…

packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

O'Leary is spot on…




It's common sense. The only people defending the decision are deranged nut jobs. It's scary to think what will happen if we continue to let these people run the country.


caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now, if you are ok with that, then you are ok with an autocratic society.


But he is....have you not figured that oult after 'how many years' ?


#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!

Bigger point here than this Trump ruling: doesn't this happen all the time in business and real estate deals?
Y'all means ALL.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

O'Leary is spot on…


"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!"

Lol, I can hardly to wait to see what demonic nonsense Trump has you breathlessly arguing next.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
So, the lender accepted the valuation, by the Trump Org, on the property needing the loan? Is that really what's wrong?

On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!!!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!!!

Oh, so you do agree that DeutscheBank (by far the shadiest bank on the street, and that's saying something) probably shouldn't be happily accepting fraudulent loan applications from billionaires and asking for more, knowing that risk doesn't exist as long as caryking and everyone else is there to bail them out?

I think we're getting somewhere.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's amazing how you came to that conclusion. Of course.. not surprising, as you wanted more bailouts for your failed company...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.

Don't worry, if another developer runs for President I'm sure they'll be scrutinized, too.

Remember that time way back a couple months ago when you guys hit Hunter Biden with ticky tack gun charges that most prosecutors had never even heard of being enforced? Those were good times. Anyway, sorry, I interrupted you bawling about witch hunts.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way, the Constitution will change genders and start speaking Spanish unless you buy a pair of Trump's Treason 45s. Dig deep, patriots, Dear Leader needs your hard-earned cash like right now!

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the discussion will be:
1. Kari Lake
2. Ben Carson
3. Tulsi Gabbard
4. Tucker Carlson
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. Reminds me of some here.

Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.

Hilarious that you think otherwise.

Baaaaaa
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crazy how TDS has normalized fascism for Democrats.

Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

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?
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.

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.


packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

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?
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.

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.



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.

But TDS and fascism....
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This case is done.


SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Crazy how TDS has normalized fascism for Democrats.



Didn't Republicans in congress come in planning to investigate "every aspect of Biden and his family's lives", desperately looking for anything to justify an impeachment? So you think that's fascism now?

At least the NY AG had a mountain of evidence and probable cause to justify her digging. Oh, and a LONG history with Trump being a fraud in NY. Remember Trump University, shut down for being a scam? Remember the Trump Foundation, shut down for raising money for veterans and then pocketing all of the cash? His criming in NYC has been going on for decades.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

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?
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.

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.



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.

But TDS and fascism....
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.

Civ, you and your cohort are just consumed with stupidity regarding this subject...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Key difference!!!

Republicans iare investigating and if it turns into an impeachment, so be it... Dems, impeach first, then investigate (well, sort of)...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

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?
Yes. Especially if the bank vetted your statements and wants to continue doing business with you.

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.



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.

But TDS and fascism....
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.

Civ, you and your cohort are just consumed with stupidity regarding this subject...
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.

But please, lol, keep schooling us with Trump talking points!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.