Interesting take on the essence of Trump. (Not that I necessarily agree with it.)

[Cardin Drake 1,931]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Cardin, you illustrate perfectly the damage done by trump to our country's legal system and respect for the rule of law.

It will take years for us to recover - assuming we ever do.

 

Lol, you are are parody of yourself.  The damage done to the legal system is entirely self-inflicted. Only 3rd world countries go after political opponents. Almost every case is a novel interpretation of the law or a law that has never been used before. You have DA's run for office under the premise of "getting" a political opponent and charge that opponent in ways that nobody has ever been charged before, tried in a venue with a jury composed entirely of supporters of his political opponents,  and you are surprised that people lose respect for the judicial system. You are truly blind, Homer.

 

 

Edited February 23 by Cardin Drake

[homersapien 11,633]

2 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Lol, you are are parody of yourself.  The damage done to the legal system is entirely self-inflicted. Only 3rd world countries go after political opponents. Almost every case is a novel interpretation of the law or a law that has never been used before. You have DA's run for office under the premise of "getting" a political opponent and charge that opponent in ways that nobody has ever been charged before, and you are surprised that people lose respect for the judicial system. You are truly blind, Homer.

 

 

Enjoy your Kool Aid.

[Mikey 16,779]

23 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

This is why the posts I see about “having” to vote for Trump because Biden’s worse  are so obviously crap. Every poll shows it.

Ultimately, Haley is a Republican, Trump is maga. And maga has bred like rabbits.

Either intentionally or by not understanding, you are missing the point. I'll only vote for Trump if Biden or some other Loony Lefty is his opponent. I sincerely hope I get to vote for Haley. I really wanted DeSantis. But given the choice between the worst president in this nation's history (Biden) and Trump, I'll vote for Trump.

If either party dumps their current leader and puts forth a reasonable alternative, that party will win in a landslide.

[Gowebb11 9,492]

13 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Lol, you are are parody of yourself.  The damage done to the legal system is entirely self-inflicted. Only 3rd world countries go after political opponents. Almost every case is a novel interpretation of the law or a law that has never been used before. You have DA's run for office under the premise of "getting" a political opponent and charge that opponent in ways that nobody has ever been charged before, and you are surprised that people lose respect for the judicial system. You are truly blind, Homer.

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
 

Check out this article. Thousands of lawsuits. This was happening to Trump long before he ever thought about being a politician. 

[Leftfield 2,800]

21 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The damage done to the legal system is entirely self-inflicted. Only 3rd world countries go after political opponents. 

But here's the thing...there is no reason to believe this is Biden going after a political opponent. Certainly you believe that, but the majority of people don't. The vast majority wanted Trump held accountable for his actions, though of course many Republicans are now throwing up their hands and saying "oh well, this is what we've got now", with many defending him again.

 

21 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Almost every case is a novel interpretation of the law or a law that has never been used before. 

Well his three biggest cases - the two by Jack Smith and the Fulton County case - concern Trump's actions that are pretty much novel in American history, so arguing that the law has never been used before is not really an effective argument. 

I don't know enough about the rape and hush money cases. To be honest I haven't been following them much. I need to read deeper to have valid opinions on them.

As for the fraud case, it is certainly not without precedent for someone to be punished even without establishing a victim. Had the judge permanently removed Trump's license to do business in New York, you might have an argument, but he didn't. The judge also pointed out that Trump has an established pattern of fraud (he already went through two trials in New York on the same charges - once for Trump University and another for Trump Foundation, which was shut down), is unrepentant, and is extremely likely to continue fraudulent business practices in the future. It's easy for Trump defenders to label the judge as a biased hack since he ruled before a jury was needed, but have you seen the scale of some of what Trump was claiming? The examples they give are absurd:

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf

Take a look at that list, the facts of which were not in dispute, and tell me that's not an outrageous amount, both in volume and scale, of fraud. 

Certainly plenty of people and businesses are guilty of inflating asset value and questionable accounting practices, but the vast majority of them are smart enough to keep it reasonable such that they don't attract attention and don't expose themselves, or those they do business with, to excessive risk. Trump never cared about that because the courtroom was his friend - he knew he could limit damages by forcing settlements instead of long trials and use bankruptcy to his favor, then emerge relatively unscathed on the other side, all the while claiming he was a great businessman because he did everything the system allowed, while ignoring the fact most don't because they're decent people and don't take advantage of the system. He's not a great businessman, he's just willing to do what most others won't because he's a scumbag. If everyone did business like that, the system would fall apart, and that's exactly why this trial was important.

 

 

 

 

[Cardin Drake 1,931]

 

Here's the comments from an actual real estate investor-Kevin O'Leary:

“If you're a developer and you've got a building on the block, anywhere in America, and it's worth, let's say, $500 million, and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say, ‘This building is worth $500 million. I'd like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset, and I want you to tell me it's worth $500 million, too,’” he said.

However, the bank might not agree with the valuation — it might value the property at $400 million. This would lead to negotiations. According to O’Leary, developers aim to present their assets “in the brightest light” possible to maximize their valuation since loans are typically 40% to 50% of the asset’s value.

O’Leary notes that this practice is very common in the real estate industry.

“Forget about Trump, every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this. They always talk about their asset being worth a lot and the bank says no. That's just the way it is,” he stated.

He then points out that this practice does not result in financial harm to any party involved.

“Who lost money? Nobody. The bank got paid back the construction finance loan, and a new building was built,” he said.

The ubiquity of the practice highlighted by O’Leary suggests that this is a broader industry issue rather than an isolated incident.

“If you're going to sue this case and win, you've got to sue every real estate developer everywhere,” O’Leary remarked.

A few additional points:

It's a feature of 3rd world judicial systems to investigate people instead of crimes.  Are you really comfortable with that coming to America with DA's running on a platform of "getting" a politician. 

Does anybody think selective prosecution is a good idea?  Raise your hand if you think this case would be prosecuted if Trump wasn't running for President.  

Does a judge have the power to nullify a clause in a contract?  Trump is being pursued under a law meant to protect consumers, not sophisticated large banks.  It is clearly stated and well understood in the industry that banks make loans based on their own appraisals of the value of real estate.  This case will be overturned on appeal, and James and the "judge" understand that but don't care.   This case is all about crippling a political opponent. 

 

Edited February 25 by Cardin Drake

[aubiefifty 17,345]

21 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

 

Here's the comments from an actual real estate investor-Kevin O'Leary:

“If you're a developer and you've got a building on the block, anywhere in America, and it's worth, let's say, $500 million, and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say, ‘This building is worth $500 million. I'd like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset, and I want you to tell me it's worth $500 million, too,’” he said.

However, the bank might not agree with the valuation — it might value the property at $400 million. This would lead to negotiations. According to O’Leary, developers aim to present their assets “in the brightest light” possible to maximize their valuation since loans are typically 40% to 50% of the asset’s value.

O’Leary notes that this practice is very common in the real estate industry.

“Forget about Trump, every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this. They always talk about their asset being worth a lot and the bank says no. That's just the way it is,” he stated.

He then points out that this practice does not result in financial harm to any party involved.

“Who lost money? Nobody. The bank got paid back the construction finance loan, and a new building was built,” he said.

The ubiquity of the practice highlighted by O’Leary suggests that this is a broader industry issue rather than an isolated incident.

“If you're going to sue this case and win, you've got to sue every real estate developer everywhere,” O’Leary remarked.

A few additional points:

It's a feature of 3rd world judicial systems to investigate people instead of crimes.  Are you really comfortable with that coming to America with DA's running on a platform of "getting" a politician. 

Does anybody think selective prosecution is a good idea?  Raise your hand if you think this case would be prosecuted if Trump wasn't running for President.  

Does a judge have the power to nullify a clause in a contract?  Trump is being pursued under a law meant to protect consumers, not sophisticated large banks.  It is clearly stated and well understood in the industry that banks make loans based on their own appraisals of the value of real estate.  This case will be overturned on appeal, and James and the "judge" understand that but don't care.   This case is all about crippling a political opponent. 

 

 

[Leftfield 2,800]

2 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Here's the comments from an actual real estate investor-Kevin O'Leary:

“If you're a developer and you've got a building on the block, anywhere in America, and it's worth, let's say, $500 million, and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say, ‘This building is worth $500 million. I'd like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset, and I want you to tell me it's worth $500 million, too,’” he said.

However, the bank might not agree with the valuation — it might value the property at $400 million. This would lead to negotiations. According to O’Leary, developers aim to present their assets “in the brightest light” possible to maximize their valuation since loans are typically 40% to 50% of the asset’s value.

If all Trump had done was value his properties 25% higher than the bank, he wouldn't be in this situation.

Please take another look at the link I posted.

[homersapien 11,633]

On 2/23/2024 at 3:28 PM, Cardin Drake said:

Lol, you are are parody of yourself.  The damage done to the legal system is entirely self-inflicted. Only 3rd world countries go after political opponents.

BS.

Trump is learning a simple lesson:  If you are a criminal, don't run for high political office. 

If you run for president, you will be investigated, by reporters if nothing else.

Besides, if all these indictments were purely political, he'll get off.  He won't.

[Cardin Drake 1,931]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.

Trump is learning a simple lesson:  If you are a criminal, don't run for high political office. 

If you run for president, you will be investigated, by reporters if nothing else.

Besides, if all these indictments were purely political, he'll get off.  He won't.

That bolded part is an almost exact quote from Putin talking about Alexei Navalny.  That's what tyrants always say when they jail their political opponents.  And if they still feel threatened, they take the next step.

[homersapien 11,633]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:06 AM, Cardin Drake said:

That bolded part is an almost exact quote from Putin talking about Alexei Navalny.  That's what tyrants always say when they jail their political opponents.  And if they still feel threatened, they take the next step.

First, everyone knows why Putin had Navalny killed.

Second - not to leap to conclusions - who is the "tyrant" and who is the "political opponent" in that response?