mtutiger Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I can't see this playing out with independents either, but you have government backing up the banks (which didn't even ask for it) on one side. Not the easiest side to defend for most independents i'd gather. Donald Trump is also not easy to defend for most independents lol Again, I'm gonna trust Trump's political instincts on this.... based on the words from his team and his seven "Truths" from yesterday morning, I don't think he sees this as a positive politically, personally or professionally. Edited March 20 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 10 minutes ago, oblong said: A true independent would look at it as "If I were to sue somebody, and win, then I want to make sure the courts do their job to get my award to me" In terms of this case, I suspect and hope you're right. But again, no one actually lost money here. If you sued someone because you were defrauded out of money, I certainly hope you would get the money if it was awarded to you. But if you sued on a technicality and never experienced any loss and then were gloating daily and pointing out how much interest you're making from the delay, I don't think you'd have 100% independent support. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 10 minutes ago, mtutiger said: Donald Trump is also not easy to defend for most independents lol You are absolutely correct, but did you ever imagine a world where big banks that weren't even bringing a case against a client, would be 100% democratically supported by the government going after their clients on their behalf? Heck even Elizabeth Warren is on board with the government working proactively for Deutsche Bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, ewsieg said: In terms of this case, I suspect and hope you're right. But again, no one actually lost money here. If you sued someone because you were defrauded out of money, I certainly hope you would get the money if it was awarded to you. But if you sued on a technicality and never experienced any loss and then were gloating daily and pointing out how much interest you're making from the delay, I don't think you'd have 100% independent support. My sister (who lived in nyc for quite a few years w/first husband) personally knew 2 people who had suits filed against Trump for non-payment on work they did in Trump properties. He kept them in court over and over and over (sound familiar?) until they needed to back off because it was causing their own businesses to fail. This is more than 20 years ago. He’s been cheating people his whole life. And still, not being made to pay up. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I'm not defending Trump in any way and I've heard and believe many of these stories like you have. Unfortunately democrats and republicans at local/state/fed level ensure that people with wealth and power can get away with this type of stuff. In fact i'd prefer that independents hear those stories which caused real loss for real people. All i'm saying is my fear is that they hear about no real loss for a big bank and question it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Just now, ewsieg said: You are absolutely correct, but did you ever imagine a world where big banks that weren't even bringing a case against a client, would be 100% democratically supported by the government going after their clients on their behalf? Heck even Elizabeth Warren is on board with the government working proactively for Deutsche Bank. To be honest, I don't know. And as far as the idea that Trump garners a higher level of scrutiny as a politician than he did when he was a private businessman, you won't get an argument from me. Either way, my point still stands. I will take the man and his posture at face value as to how he views this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 21 minutes ago, ewsieg said: In terms of this case, I suspect and hope you're right. But again, no one actually lost money here. If you sued someone because you were defrauded out of money, I certainly hope you would get the money if it was awarded to you. But if you sued on a technicality and never experienced any loss and then were gloating daily and pointing out how much interest you're making from the delay, I don't think you'd have 100% independent support. The government going after an entity that cheated is not a hard thing to sell to a true independent. Rules were broken, per the jury verdict. My only point is anybody who thinks that the gov't is targeting or being unfair to him isn't an independent and is probably voting for him anyway, or not voting at all. Nobody is going to say "You know, I wasn't going to vote for the guy but dagummit, this is just persecution, Trump 2024!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) As an independent, I actually do think Trump is being targeted for political reasons, but he did the crimes and he deserves the consequences so **** him. They should have gone after him decades ago instead of waiting for his third presidential election. By independent, I mean I have zero loyalty to the Democratic party. The things they pretend to believe in mostly line-up with my beliefs, but I will vote against their candidates at any time if I don't like them. Now is not that time. Edited March 20 by Tiger337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 This idea that "no one lost any money so it wasn't really criminal fraud" thing that's been popping up throughout the RWM is hot garbage. As though if Trump or anyone else defrauds someone who's not a real American that's me, or that's living next door to me, then it's not really a crime. It's the same logic as saying Pete Rose didn't do anything wrong because he didn't bet on his own team to lose. It's still a crime because he put himself in a position to throw games. Same here. By engaging in persistent and repeated fraud through acts such as purposefully maintaining incomplete and inaccurate books, Trump puts himself in a position to cause real loss to real people, at least indirectly if not directly. And Trump's refusal to answer questions directly about this case, veering off instead into non-sequitur issues far beyond the scope of the trial severely compromised his credibility on this case. Just because red hats exonerate Trump through this nonsensical sleight-of-hand reasoning does not mitigate the actual criminality he engaged in, as determined in a court of law. And besides, I categorically reject the premise that Trump's fraud caused no real harm because there were no real victims. There are at least three victims here: (1) the banks who are lending at lower rates as a result of these financial misstatements, putting themselves at risk for absorbing defaults by unworthy debtors, and potentially affecting loan acceptance for other borrowers as a result; (2) those competitors of the fraudster who are doing business honestly; and (3) society at large, because when we have an inequitable system that can be gamed by the powerful or those with insider knowledge, then the rest of us are likelier to get less favorable terms for submitting accurate information even as others are getting favorable terms by submitting what are essentially lies. So enough with "there are no real victims in this case" crap. Just because it's not coming directly out of our pocket right now doesn't mean there's no crime, or that the rest of us aren't losing in the end. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I don't know. I think a lot of people will hold their nose and vote for Biden. I certainly hope so. I don't know why they'd have to hold their nose. But again, you can talk about low unemployment and a soaring stock market and economic growth all you want, but as long as groceries, heat, gas and all that are expensive, it's going to be his fault (when it's not his fault and we're much better off than most of the world). I'm proudly voting for Biden, I think he's doing a good job. He's far from perfect, but I never asked for perfect and I don't need excitement either. Biden is like a good home plate umpire, you never have any reason to know their name because they're just doing their job correctly. Trump's crimes? They don't mean a thing to the Right. They are so full of hate that they adore the most hateful person to run since Pat Buchanan, who seems likeable by today's standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Your not wrong Chuck, but again, we're talking 1/2 billion dollar fine over something that was politically motivated. And calling Deutsce Bank a victim here, haha. Again, I do find it funny because I despise Trump, but it was an over the top settlement for this specific case. (Mind you I'd be perfectly all right with him being hung if he's found guilty of insurrection). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Your not wrong Chuck, but again, we're talking 1/2 billion dollar fine over something that was politically motivated TBF though, a judge will normally come down as hard as possible on *any* perp that continually refuses to recognize the validity of his prosecution. And I don't mean this in the sense of claiming innocence. What drove Engoron to hammer Trump is the same thing that would get any perp hammered, and that is to admit you did what the law clearly says is a crime and still deny you did anything wrong. IOW it's Trump's defiance of the fundamental rule of law that got him hammered, and I would argue that would be the result for pretty much any defendant taking the same approach. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 "but not panic" lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, ewsieg said: Your not wrong Chuck, but again, we're talking 1/2 billion dollar fine over something that was politically motivated. And calling Deutsce Bank a victim here, haha. Again, I do find it funny because I despise Trump, but it was an over the top settlement for this specific case. (Mind you I'd be perfectly all right with him being hung if he's found guilty of insurrection). The timing is politically motivated, but he's been scammimg people his entire life. This should have been done a long time ago. Also, what Chuck said! Edited March 21 by Tiger337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 11 hours ago, oblong said: If anyone sees a conviction in a civil case about fraud and that it's Donald Trump and is sympathetic that maybe the government is victimizing him then I wouldn't call them independent. yep maga calls c-span on the independent line all the time and also say democrat party 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: The timing is politically motivated, but he's been scammimg people his entire life. This should have been done a long time ago. This goes back to what I said to Sue, while you're right he has scammed people his entire life, do you believe our government should be able to railroad someone because they either haven't tried to convict them in the past or haven't been able to convict them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ewsieg said: This goes back to what I said to Sue, while you're right he has scammed people his entire life, do you believe our government should be able to railroad someone because they either haven't tried to convict them in the past or haven't been able to convict them? There is always tensions around how to deploy resources on 'acute' vs 'diffuse' crimes. Obvious physical danger to life and limb and violence and robbery against individuals has terrible direct impact on those individuals that is absent in 'white collar' crime. But there is also a case to be made that just because effects are diffuse doesn't mean they are not real. Business corruption will rot an economy - until in the end you are Putin's Russia, and then there is no question everyone has suffered big time. I think it's a reasonable case to make that Trump's abuses are much more important to pursue exactly because he did reach the pinnacle of political power. The normalization of his business abuse become exponentially more important to push back against when his office is/was the embodiment of federal business corruption law enforcement and his person is (for better or worse) a national role model so to speak. Edited March 21 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gilmore Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Railroad? WTF 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 6 hours ago, Dan Gilmore said: Railroad? WTF That is something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 7 hours ago, pfife said: yep maga calls c-span on the independent line all the time and also say democrat party Like the dudes who say they aren't racist but why can rappers use the N word but we can't? (And they refer to any music by a black person as 'that rap music') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Queue up "Every Sperm is Sacred" song from Monty Python's Meaning of Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 8 hours ago, Dan Gilmore said: Railroad? WTF C'mon, i'm asking you to look at this specific thing he was found guilty of, not him as a person overall. https://fortune.com/2023/10/12/trump-disputed-financial-statements-key-approval-232m-loans-lender-haircuts-deutsche-bank-official/ 232 million in loans, which he paid back, but oh no, Deutsche Bank (with their knowledge about over valuation and consent) gave them lower rates. And the penalty for that....400 million!?!?! If you believe this case would have been pursued if their wasn't a political reason, you're simply wrong. Meanwhile, independents or rather undecideds, who don't consume nearly the same amount of news as everyone here, could look at that as political corruption and my concern is some may get sympathetic to Trump over it. The Illitches got the DDA to 'own' LCA and use over 300m in public subsidies which also gives them tax benefits on their District Detroit businesses/properties along with a free 35 year lease for the arena, which just means they use it for free and when it's time to replace, it's the DDA's issue to deal with. But democrats worked with Illitch to do it, so while you hear a little bit of grumbling about it from democrats, no one pushes it. Crazy thing is that is actually legal. My concern is undecided folks will see Trump getting fined 400 million because Deutsche Bank (with their consent) lowered their ROI to give Trump a loan at a slightly lower rate and think of ways billionaires get public money legally and be sympathetic or possibly just as worse, apathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 19 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Crazy thing is that is actually legal I think this makes a difference in the comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I think this makes a difference in the comparison? Absolutely it does and that's why i'm not saying trump isn't guilty and shouldn't be punished, just 400 million...c'mon. Again to my concerns about undecided folks getting apathetic, should billionaires legally get hundreds of millions from the public which just inflates their net worth? If you could choose scenario 1 or 2 for your city, which one would you choose? 1) Tom Gores over inflates his net worth in the hopes of securing the best possible interest rate on 200 million he plans on investing into projects in Detroit. Citibank, where he got the loan, pushed back on his claims but eventually came to an agreement with him on the loan figures. Gores pays his loan back per the terms of the loan and uses that money on his investments. 2) Tom Gores decides the Pistons should have their own arena and after threating to leave Detroit, Detroit gives them 500 million towards it. The Pistons stay and Gores now has an additional revenue stream in a new arena and doesn't have to share revenue with the Illitches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 it's funny how you say he's guilty and you aren't defending him but you spend all this time defending him. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.