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?
Sorry another out of interest legal question. If they sell of his assets and he substantially wins the himself appeal then can he sue for any loses?
I don't think they can sell off his assets until all appeals have run out.
They will likely put a lien on his properties where they can get the total money (above any loans and mortgages) after he loses appeals so Trump won't be able to sell and run away with the money or move it offshore where they can't find it so he can declare bankruptcy (again) and still have all his money.
But in fairness I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer...
I think they can, at least that's what most of the media including media which are usually very reasonable is claiming
I think you are right.
I just read an article that says if Trump doesn't post a bond worth 120% of what he owes by March 25th he can't appeal and the government can seize properties that cover the full amount.
I hate this. And I am not a fan of Trump. Personally I think he should be allowed to run through all of his appeals because the damage to his holdings would be extreme even if he wins his appeals.
Maybe his PAC will put up the bond...
I think you are right.
I just read an article that says if Trump doesn't post a bond worth 120% of what he owes by March 25th he can't appeal and the government can seize properties that cover the full amount.
I hate this. And I am not a fan of Trump. Personally I think he should be allowed to run through all of his appeals because the damage to his holdings would be extreme even if he wins his appeals.
Maybe his PAC will put up the bond...
I read the same yes, from multiple sources I consider reputable (including high quality European ones like the financial times).
tbh I don't think pro-trump PACs or the RNC can put money here, this is completely unrelated to his time in office, I am not even sure legal expenses for this case can be covered by political donations unlike other cases
I thought he could still appeal but there would be nothing from stopping the state starting to seize assets.
I could be wrong because american law is really complicated (and I understand why that's the case, complex societies are complex) but I thought he asked the appeal court for a lower amount bond, not the same court which judged him.
Am I wrong?
I think he first asked the trial judge, now he's appealing that.
I thought he could still appeal but there would be nothing from stopping the state starting to seize assets.
I get that yes. he could appeal while suffering the effects of first grade sentence in full, and if he wins the appeal (or the amount is reduced) the damages linked to the acquisition of the sum he actually ended up not having to pay will be suffered by him.
say the appeal confirms the verdict, maybe changing some details, but still fines him for 150 millions (approx 40% of the original sentence).
the costs incurred by trump to temporarily pay the 400+millions (fine + interests) wouldn't be reimbursed in that case (at least, that's what I gather, but I am no expert on american law especially not NYS law)
Der führer still out there Glitchkrieging the campaign trail. Talking about bloodbaths if he loses the election, then vaguely tying the term bloodbath to the auto industry
Well, anyone with half a brain could tell he was talking about the auto industry. Amusing to watch all the usual half-wits in the media freaking out over it.
And lol at Don Le-Mon trying to make himself relevant again. No-one cares Don.
Spoiler
Those videos you keep posting are hilarious dude. The derangement is off the charts. Keep them coming.
They're readily available. Go get your jollies.
When you're not watching the serious news - Glenn Beck.
Spoiler
I'm a little puzzled by the kerfuffle over saying bloodbath, honestly. The meaning wasn't even ambiguous. It was definitely an economic bloodbath. This is the same bs as when conservatives claimed people said you couldn't get COVID after vaccination. They only said that if you leave out what else they said.
There's plenty of crap to hammer Trump for. Harping on this is a bad look. It smacks of either desperation (which no one should be desperate if you're just looking for something to berate trump about) or refusal to admit error.
I'm a little puzzled by the kerfuffle over saying bloodbath, honestly. The meaning wasn't even ambiguous. It was definitely an economic bloodbath. This is the same bs as when conservatives claimed people said you couldn't get COVID after vaccination. They only said that if you leave out what else they said.
There's plenty of crap to hammer Trump for. Harping on this is a bad look. It smacks of either desperation (which no one should be despe
I often am concerned about the language Trump uses for rhetorical purposes, but I agree that the fairest interpretation of this reference is that he was referring to economics. And for that reason, I don't see this as a big deal or an issue that warrants continued discussion.
It's just standard populist stuff. He was suggesting that he would shield the domestic auto industry from competition (at least in the United States) by being the most protectionist president in recent memory.
It's just standard populist stuff. He was suggesting that he would shield the domestic auto industry from competition (at least in the United States) by being the most protectionist president in recent memory.
It's protectionism but his claim is more complicated, it's about China using Nafta to bypass tariffs. He claims china (Chinese automotive companies) is building huge factories in Mexico to sell in the USA.
So unlike other times where he talked about using tariffs against China, this proposal could jeopardize all us-mexican trade , because the USA can't increase tariffs on Mexican produced goods without abandoning Nafta.
So drop the bloodbath criticism, but this is a proposal with very nefarious effects and it's strange to see what amounts to possibly the worst policy proposal by Trump not getting the heat it deserves, especially if democrats are after median voters, who might very well be center-right leaning on the economy and dislike tariffs as most technocratic center-right people do
