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?
The associated press defined him as " a democrat" but u understand these days, conflict of interest doesn't apply
(If you don't agree that being politically active in any way as a democrat or republican should fully disqualify you to judge a politician, we have a problem)
Most of the supreme court justices should be disqualified then, as all of the current ones are pretty partisan, and some regularly give speeches to political action oriented groups.
In uk law, theft requires the intent to permenantly deprive.
It's a masterpiece of a law imo
Does anyone ever get convicted for theft? Why wouldn't they all claim they planned to pay the victim back at some point? If anyone is ever convicted, I would say that portion of the law isn't truly in effect.
Courts rule on intent all the time.
I always found the 'secret heart' balony much loved on this forum to be most amusing.
I don't know what you mean by this.
If you 'borrow' someone's car without their permission and then return it a few days later, have you broken any law. You obviously planned to return it.
I just can't imagine how this could be accurate, particularly as most basic US laws were based on British common law, and that is definitely not legal here.
English law which is the bases of law in much of the world is very different to usa law. I quoted the relevant part but you can easily look up the Theft Act 1968 if you want. Even so I'm pretty sure that some usa laws judge on intent.
The 'secret heart' thing was the wonderpous claim by the old guard around here that they had to remove the intent of the poster from personal attacks on them because otherwise no-one could be personally attacked. Glouriously amusing nonsense.
re cars there's a specific offense of taking without consent. It's not theft unless you intend to permenantly deprive
Think of it as selling a percentage of your action at better odds than you should get, because you convince people you are a better player than you actually are (including by lying about your past results).
They don't do due diligence so don't check objectively how good you are. They don't ask for your database, they don't ask for a pokerstars audit or anything like that, they just decide to believe you, and they do this (buying action) AS T
Probably the worst straw man in this thread: "Think of scamming a bank like scamming a backer in poker."
In uk law, theft requires the intent to permenantly deprive.
It's a masterpiece of a law imo
So... guy borrows money to gamble it and pay back with the winnings. This goes on for a period of time and he keeps increasing his bets to pay back his debts but just keeps running bad. This is not theft because his objective was to only deprive for as long as it took for his horse to come in?
I don't know what you mean by this.
If you 'borrow' someone's car without their permission and then return it a few days later, have you broken any law. You obviously planned to return it.
I just can't imagine how this could be accurate, particularly as most basic US laws were based on British common law, and that is definitely not legal here.
UUMV. unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. it's like the most common charge relating to vehicle "theft". it's when you do what you are describing, or when you say i'll have the car back wednesday but dont bring it back until a week later, or when you skip out on returning your rental. you had license to use the vehicle at some point.
and yes most theft statutes in the US require "intent to deprive or convert".
Larceny is the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof.
is like a standard theft statute.
If there is fraud there is a victim. The victim sues for relief.
In Trump case the bank testified in his favor, do you understand this?
I don't understand the bail part, i actually think that until convincted unless taken in flagrancy you should be free (at most with a gps monitoring device).
yes. and we were explaining to you how the bank, the institution, wasn't the only "victim". NY has a law allowing the AG to investigate and prosecute civil fraud. the law is from 1956, surely Trump should have adequate knowledge of said law and that he could be prosecuted, just like anyone else that is doing fraud in the state of NY.
So... guy borrows money to gamble it and pay back with the winnings. This goes on for a period of time and he keeps increasing his bets to pay back his debts but just keeps running bad. This is not theft because his objective was to only deprive for as long as it took for his horse to come in?
Pretty sure that's theft. The intent is to repay 'if'. Hence there is an intent to permenantly deprive 'if not'
Running a martingale defense would be fun but I dont think it flies even if you could somehow convince the court that that was what you were doing.
Believe me, it's getting tiresome. I honestly can't do it anymore. This is a couple that we've hung out with most over the last 5 years, but every single time Biden or Trump is even mentioned it just becomes a fox news segment-of-the-day.
I finally told him last night to just STFU, for real bro. Take your MAGA **** and shove it up your ****ing ass, you child.
He wasn't a fan of that, but I'm done. His wife was almost in tears trying to get hi
I'd love to read a book about this phenomenon some day.
A big chunk of these people are just low intelligence/unstable. Even then... why does Trump have this Dracula hold on the mentally ill?
I assume your friend is at least average intelligence and not nuts. These people are interesting too.
They almost never have any general interest or knowledge in pols. But they get these bugs in their brain and suddenly they are obsessed and will never shut up about it.
If you got really into say, poker, you'd buy 2+2 books, watch the top experts on YouTube, etc. But they never do this at all. The real/factual world of politics is of no interest.
All they want to do is regurgitate crazy, unfounded drivel they heard on SM like it's gospel.
What causes a previously normal person... a person who could use fact and reason to debate like, sports, to transform into this?
Pretty sure that's theft. The intent is to repay 'if'. Hence there is an intent to permenantly deprive 'if not'
Running a martingale defense would be fun but I dont think it flies even if you could somehow convince the court that that was what you were doing.
The gambler wouldn't think an 'if' would be necessary. Anyone who uses Martingale is sure it will work.
I'd love to read a book about this phenomenon some day.
A big chunk of these people are just low intelligence/unstable. Even then... why does Trump have this Dracula hold on the mentally ill?
I assume your friend is at least average intelligence and not nuts. These people are interesting too.
They almost never have any general interest or knowledge in pols. But they get these bugs in their brain and suddenly they are obsessed and will neve
I'm really interested in what will happen when he is gone(whenever and however that may be). I suspect many will try to revise their history from 2016-2024, but I also now think many will fall into this pit of whatever similar to the civil war losers who still act like they won generations later.
It's all so weird. Regardless, the country is currently broken with no end in sight.
Imho when trump will pass , those extremist (tea party /MAGA) will loose hold on the Republican Party because those idiots senators/congressman will realize even when they open their a$$ wide open for an individual like trump they can’t win.
So they will start to do what’s right again and bring back centerish people ….
Also will be interested to see what happens in gov't in general after he exposed all the 'norms' as what they were; unenforceable.
He literally does/did so much wacky **** on a daily basis that he exhausted all forms of defense just by sheer volume. Never forget that he just pasted an 'acting' in front of every mook he put in a position, which basically voided congressional oversight, and then went on to write massive, overreaching Executive Orders basically doing whatever he wanted, telling congressmen to ignore subpoenas, and the list goes way on.
Still don't understand how the gov't let him just pants them for his entire presidency. Seems crazy to me, but what do I know.
Lol no, "loanable funds" are unlimited, if it's a secured loan it doesn't change capital tier ratios, they can borrow at lower rates and lend to you at higher rates, jfc we are in fractional reserve systems with unlimited liquidity available if you have assets to post as collateral, we aren't in 1850
After an extensive study was down it was found that banks do not loan out money that they have received from fractional reserve banking. Banks loaned out money they made from interest but I believe mainly fees. I’ll Google the sentence I just wrote and post the article
Also will be interested to see what happens in gov't in general after he exposed all the 'norms' as what they were; unenforceable.
He literally does/did so much wacky **** on a daily basis that he exhausted all forms of defense just by sheer volume. Never forget that he just pasted an 'acting' in front of every mook he put in a position, which basically voided congressional oversight, and then went on to write massive, overreaching Executive
You’re talking about Obama right
I'm guessing lozen thinks it's okay for an employee to borrow a couple of hundo from petty cash when they're short on personal cash, so long as they pay it back or intend to pay it back.
Quick question
Law states company must pay you a fee if they violate your hourly wage agreement and you miss a break or something
Let’s say this is a well known and commonly enforced law
You miss a break at work. You ask the company for your fee. They tell you to **** off
If you take the fee from the cash register, is it morally wrong?
