ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
May need the money
The article is misleading. There was never any bank fraud committed. I worked in the financial district in NYC in the business financial world and I've gotten P&L's and all types of financials from clients every day. The underwriters KNOW to take those that come from clients or their accountants with a grain of salt when making an approval decision and if they really wanted to know how much a property was worth they would of hired an appraiser. And furthermore, the bank was NOT the one to complain about this "fraud", they got paid back and made money as agreed upon but it was the corrupt gov't that stepped in and requested to see all his documents to find dirt on him and they arbitrarily decided he over valued his property (of which a lot of industry professionals still disagreed with).
That's not how our justice system is supposed to work. That's outright communism for them to do this to a political opponent. The people laughing at Trump because he got fined an outrageous sum of money over this should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking this is an OK way to run a gov't.
The Supreme Court is Live streaming a hearing right now on whether or not to allow Trump on the CO Ballot.
The article is misleading. There was never any bank fraud committed. I worked in the financial district in NYC in the business financial world and I've gotten P&L's and all types of financials from clients every day. The underwriters KNOW to take those that come from clients or their accountants with a grain of salt when making an approval decision and if they really wanted to know how much a property was worth they would of hired an apprai
"I lied, but no reasonable person would have relied on my lies" is a potentially viable defense to a civil fraud claim. It isn't a defense that casts Trump in a flattering light, but it is a defense.
The Supreme Court is Live streaming a hearing right now on whether or not to allow Trump on the CO Ballot.
Not sure if it's been decided, but my guess is he wins this one. Not so sure I would disagree either.
The hearing went extremely well for President Trump and it sounds like CO won't be able to disqualify him from the 2024 ballot based on the questions the Justices were asking the state.
"I lied, but no reasonable person would have relied on my lies" is a potentially viable defense to a civil fraud claim. It isn't a defense that casts Trump in a flattering light, but it is a defense.
That's not true he stood by what he valued the property at and never said he lied or implied that he inflated it's value.
That's not true he stood by what he valued the property at and never said he lied or implied that he inflated it's value.
That's true. He never admitted lying. The court granted summary judgment against Trump, but he never admitted making false statements. In any case, your point went to the bank's reliance, and the bank's reliance is only relevant if the statements were untrue.
The Supreme Court is Live streaming a hearing right now on whether or not to allow Trump on the CO Ballot.
LOL at the idea of any supreme court throughout our history not allowing trump to be on the ballot. Dems seriously think threatening the supreme court about abortion and flexing their muscle during the BLM riots are going to scare the supreme court into not allowing for the will of the people to decide who our next leader will be.
I do not expect this SCOTUS to rule against Trump on the ballot cases. I would be surprised if many observers of the Court -- whether Republican or Democrat -- expect a ruling against Trump in these cases.
The bottom line is that the justices -- most obviously Roberts -- don't want the Court to decide who the next POTUS will be unless they have no choice, and these cases tiptoe uncomfortably close to that line.
I do not expect this SCOTUS to rule against Trump on the ballot cases. I would be surprised if many observers of the Court -- whether Republican or Democrat -- expect a ruling against Trump in these cases.
The bottom line is that the justices -- most obviously Roberts -- don't want the Court to decide who the next POTUS will be unless they have no choice, and these cases tiptoe uncomfortably close to that line.
This court won't rule that deciding who is an insurrectionist or not stays with states.
It can't stay with states for obvious reasons, in the sense that someone is either banned by the 14a to participate in elections everywhere in the nation or not, so the entity declaring yes, that person is an insurrectionist, has to be federal, necessarily.
This court might however rule that if trump is convincted of some of the crimes he has been indicted for by a federal jury, that might qualify as insurrection.
I really hope they answer that hypothetical because a verdict might happen before the elections
The hearing went extremely well for President Trump and it sounds like CO won't be able to disqualify him from the 2024 ballot based on the questions the Justices were asking the state.
That's not true he stood by what he valued the property at and never said he lied or implied that he inflated it's value.
I think he lied in public and private about the size of the apartment, claiming repeatedly it was 30k sqft while it was 11k.
This court might however rule that if trump is convincted of some of the crimes he has been indicted for by a federal jury, that might qualify as insurrection.
I really hope they answer that hypothetical because a verdict might happen before the elections
I would be very surprised if the Court's opinion reached this question. In general, courts avoid deciding questions that are not immediately before them, and I expect this court to be especially averse to doing so in this situation.
I would be very surprised if the Court's opinion reached this question. In general, courts avoid deciding questions that are not immediately before them, and I expect this court to be especially averse to doing so in this situation.
I know that there is the underlying Ginsburg standard but they might decide to discard it for this specific topic.
Imagine the federal court trial verdict saying "guilty" in early October, distance voting already started, what are they going to do when 6 (or 19) states apply the 14a and remove him from the ballot?
This court won't rule that deciding who is an insurrectionist or not stays with states.
It can't stay with states for obvious reasons, in the sense that someone is either banned by the 14a to participate in elections everywhere in the nation or not, so the entity declaring yes, that person is an insurrectionist, has to be federal, necessarily.
This court might however rule that if trump is convicted of some of the crimes he has been indicted
I think this should be the way national elections are run, but it clearly isn't the way they have ever been run. Minor candidates routinely qualify to be on the ballot in some states but not in others, many times because they missed filing deadlines or because of other reasons most people would consider to be not important enough to keep voters from being able to vote for their preferred candidate.
Imagine what would happen if, in some important swing state, whoever on the Trump team was in charge of meeting the filing requirements by the deadline so it was determined by some state bureaucrat that his name wouldn't be on the ballot. What kind of a stink do you think Trump supporters would make about that?
Now maybe the difference is that those are state regulations, not imposed by the constitution. But states have also often disqualified candidates because they are younger than 35 years old. AFAIK they haven't consulted the Supreme Court or anyone affiliated with the federal government to make those kinds of decisions.
Those who argue Trump should be on the ballot regardless of whether or not he truly meets the constitutional requirements are really saying that the rules shouldn't apply to their man, just like Trump has always acted in his political career, and in his business career before that. I would expect him to continue to give no respect to any laws during a potential second term, including pressuring state officials to put his name on the ballot in 2028 despite the clear term limits set by the 22nd amendment. If he is popular enough to have a good chance of winning a third term, why should something as inconsequential as a constitutional amendment take away the desired choice of the people? Then after winning the popular vote and/or the electoral college, why should something like a Supreme Court ruling keep him from taking office? Maybe the Supreme Court needs to be prevented from action by the military. Then after massive protests against these happenings, the military is needed to keep the peace. I really see a very clear path for things to be leading to a complete dictatorship.
It's a pretty standard defense. Not sure it holds much weight if he made the claims on legal documents/declarations.Otherwise I think we do need to make more clear to people that they have some responsibility not to rely on obvious bollocks because the law will often assume they didn't rely on it.
I think this should be the way national elections are run, but it clearly isn't the way they have ever been run. Minor candidates routinely qualify to be on the ballot in some states but not in others, many times because they missed filing deadlines or because of other reasons most people would consider to be not important enough to keep voters from being able to vote for their preferred candidate.
Imagine what would happen if, in some impo
Disqualification for young people doesn't require SCOTUS because it's an objective fact unlike deciding whether a conviction for crime x (or public knowledge you did x) actually means you are an insurrectionist or not
Disqualification for young people doesn't require SCOTUS because it's an objective fact unlike deciding whether a conviction for crime x (or public knowledge you did x) actually means you are an insurrectionist or not
It's definitely a more easily determined fact, but it could be contested. Particularly by people who like to make claims about presidential candidates having forged birth certificates. To me the 'native citizen' requirement is also an objective fact, but that has also been contested by some.
I say this as someone who thinks MAGA is basically the American equivalent of Hezbollah
As much catharsis as I would get of trump being dq’d on the 14th amendment, SCOTUS upholding that opens this Pandora’s box of ludicrousness where red states or purple with a MAGA Governor are just dq’ing biden on the loosest interpretations possible of that ruling
If there’s literally anything we’ve learned from the speaker whose son gets alerts if Mike goes on pornhub, it’s that performative bullshit matters far more than actually legislating. And humoring trump and by extension his god is great lemmings is priority 1 no matter what rational backing is associated with it
Years after saying again and again he did not collude with Russia, Trump now promises to encourage them to attack US allies.
Vote for Trump and bring back the iron curtain, I know we all missed it.
"Mr. Putin, bring back that wall!"
Are his supporters really so perverse that they want Russia to take back their former satellites, if they can't afford to foot the bill to the same extent that the US can?
—————
Trump says he'd 'encourage' Russia to attack NATO allies who don't pay their bills
Fantastic foreign policy.
I'd be interested to hear the trumpers take on this.
Not a trumper but i suppose you think i am one so i will answer that.
Being a credible madman works in game theory to accomplish stuff you can't otherwise accomplish ("credible threat of irrational action" and all that).
Basically if you agree that pushing EU countries to spend more for defense is a worthwhile goal (that's a different topic which i understand not everyone will agree with), then whatever works to bring that about is a positive development.
NATO countries have been increasing military spending following the ukraine invasion, and they often cite Trump "mad claims" to justify increasing it lately.
Do you see how that is literally working even without him winning elections?
Sometimes being a crazy bullshitter accomplishes worthwhile outcomes and as bad as it looks, i truly only care about the practical outcomes of communication, i give 0 **** about how bad it looks or sounds.
So if you are pro a strong NATO, you have to admit Trump is making it stronger by threatening allies, as he pushes NATO countries to spend more on defense, which makes NATO stronger.
To be clear i am not even sure that's what Trump wants, i truly believe he doesn't give too much of a **** of european allies and he thinks the USA has been "ripped off" by us, still the only thing that matters is what practical consequences words and actions have.
