🤦‍♂️No bob, they are not. THE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY TRUMP OR THE TRUMP ORG AT ALL, not in court…he submitted most of them.
Trump disputes the facts on camera, but not in court under oath. He can’t. The documents are what they are. He was too cowardly and guilty to take the stand…his smartest move yet.
Trump valued Maralago at $18 million for taxes, not the DA. He also valued it at 100 times that value to get good loan terms that saved him hundreds of millions the banks and county were then deprived of because of his fraud. Understand? I’m sure not.
I did the math, if his stated bank values are truthful, he defrauded the government out of well over $700 million in decades of unpaid taxes for one property.

What was presented during the prosecution “side” of the “hearing” bob? Nothing…because there was no prosecution phase, it was summary judgement based on what was presented by both parties during DISCOVERY. There has only been a “damages” phase of trial since the prima facie case made at discovery necessitated a sumary judgement…not a “prosecution side”.

Bob. This is civil court, not a criminal trial. Please stop trying to explain things you are wholly ignorant about.

In your example, a criminal trial with different rules, the defense could be you didn’t see them, or they dove in front of your moving car, or you were having a medical issue….or one of a thousand mitigating factors. Trump presented no mitigating factors explaining the frauds, the differing values that changed 10000% in value on paper with his signature swearing to the truthfulness of the values he presented, values he knew were fantasy, so was found guilty.
(Side note- in your example the victim’s heirs would also get a civil trial where prima facie guilt would be established by the witnesses and your admission you hit them and you would need to have evidence supporting your affirmative defense that it was under duress to evade liability, just as they would need to prove malicious intent or recklessness to get punitive damages, IMO).

😂 “Property values can’t be fraud in any way”. 😂 hilarious since submitting fraudulent values is exactly what he was found guilty of! 😂

The banks indicated massive fraud, who told you they didn’t? Trump? The banks lost over $180 million in interest they should have received if the collateral values had been correct. Yes, they made some money, but lost out on $180 million plus.
When you get a loan based on fraud like this, even if you pay it back you still comitted a crime and any penny you made from that crime can be recovered from you, exactly what’s happening.
It’s as if Trump submitted documents “proving” his credit rating was 800 but in fact it was below 400, then saying it’s no crime because he paid his low interest credit card bills, pay no attention to the lower rates and perks he received because of his fraud, they’re nothingburgers…$180 million nothing burgers.

This is a BS showman disgraced ex president caught red handed. You know it, he knows it. No one is blinded, you are simply dishonest.

What of me statement are bullshit or not in this hearing/case?
The disclaimers don’t mean Trump can just make up the numbers, like he did. I know he claims that, he already lost that point in court. He gave fraudulent numbers, values, square footage, claimed unpermitted unbuilt rentals were filled and collecting rent, claims he didn’t add “brand value” but it’s there listed on the documents.

lol. You get your “information” from crack heads, failed comedians turned pundits, and con men like rapist Trump. I get mine directly from the courts, then verify, then look at what nonsense MAGA is saying about it, then debunk your nonsense. Stop projecting. I’m not stupid. I’m no dick. I have almost no ego. I simply hate stupid lies and the stupid lying liars who lie them stupidly and I have the testicular fortitude and perspicacity to factually contradict them with facts, figures, and references.

You don’t ever look for shit, you liar. You take what the MAGA machine hands you and you say what they said to say. You haven’t had an individual thought since you’ve been posting here, not one. Every word you post can be found in the MAGAsphere written by someone else who makes money by telling you lies to repeat.

Yes, Trump was found guilty during discovery before the courtroom trial began, which is perfectly normal and reasonable in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like this one. That’s the United States legal system, no surprise you don’t understand it….you don’t understand thing about my country.

Now whine that he couldn’t have a jury trial just because he didn’t ask for one until after his trial had started. So unfair! 😂

Yup, but different rules and styles.

It sounds to me like Florida is casting a wide net, including anyone with direct connections.
Paid spokespeople who disclosed at the time they were paid spokespeople will likely not be liable, but Mark Cuban is in trouble. He promoted crypto for years it seems, rarely stating he got paid to do it or that he had a large stake in the company. It’s going to bite him.

Yes, there are VERY different rules when it comes to financial investing and being a spokesperson for financial investment opportunities. They’re dealing with the FEC.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, kir_mokum. That is exactly what I was referencing.

More to the point - while I agree that the video didn't go there, the discussion in the comments did. The impact of religious ideas on every aspect of society is very real. Luck may seem like an obvious concept, but someone discounted it in favor of their belief that god has a plan for all things in the thread. Obi-wan was a cool guy, but his universe had some very different rules from ours.

I understand that you (Bob) and Donald agree that what Obama did was wrong. And so it was doubly wrong of "Liberals" to have supported him so blindly. That is a legitimate though biased point of view which I would be foolish to argue against for it is your belief.

In that case please enligten us about what are you two aiming to achieve by throwing excrement in the general direction of a fan?

What is the plan? What can the US propose that Iran IS going to ratify? Will Iran (and North Korea and China and, come to think of it, any country) have any interest to make a new deal with the USofA, if they either brag and throw insults or sulk and walk away?

Complying (for the most part) voluntarily was a resonable step in the right direction for both Iran and the US, how does trashing this agreement help? I mean how does it help anyone except Donald in the short term by pleasing fanboys?

Donald usually avoids stating aims (or makes multiple confusing proclamations) and then claims any outcome as a victory. What is a victory in your scenario - regime overthrow? change of Iranian public attitudes towards "America"? a more friendly "supreme leader"? a different ruling moslem faction? or maybe fluctuating oil prices? restructuring of oil field ownership?

Obama limited this to nuclear weapons, seems like a good idea in retrospect, frankly.

Interesting.
That's not how it goes here.
Our system is just plain ridiculous...I'll TRY to explain a little as I understand it.

We start with primaries to choose 'nominees'. Each candidate must either declare a party affiliation (not JUST republican or democrat, but mostly) or run as independent. Each party decides how their primary is set up....so now it gets nutty because the democratic primary in one state may have different rules from the republican primary in that same state, or different from other democratic primaries in other states! WOW.

The idea is for one candidate in each party to 'win' enough delegates (as determined by the primary votes in all states) to elect them the NOMINEE in the party convention this summer, which then puts them on the ballot in November. If no one wins a majority, the whole thing goes insane again and the convention (in differing ways for different parties) decides who their candidate will be. The votes don't just transfer, but they CAN....if say a candidate drops out and tells his delegates to vote for someone else...but they don't HAVE to! They can vote for whomever they like if their candidate has dropped out, but usually follow orders.
All this is just to figure out who will be on the ballot in November! Then we get to do the electoral college thing that's also impossible to comprehend.
I hope that helps and didn't just make it more confusing.
Newt

I guess the Thai Parliament must have different rules then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmMlYfI9dLM

I understand your train of thought, but I tend to disagree with your assessment.

Despite the [horrible] interviewer's attempt to put the term "separate but equal" into Ronda's mouth, she is not pretending that domestic violence is commonly an equal-opportunity offense. It's not a matter of someone actively making a decision to segregate women as the victims and men as the perpetrators of domestic violence, but it is a fact of nature that in domestic violence it's almost exclusively men who beat women. She simply doesn't want to contribute in the social consciousness to the acceptance or disregard of women accepting beatings from men.

That's a very different situation than a sporting organization deciding to create a separate company with a different name and different rules to corral and promote all their women independently from the rest of their male-only "real" organization. UFC is probably the only sports organization that puts women on the same plane as their male counterparts and even features their fights as the main event above male bouts (at least in Ronda's case).

Strange compared to what I'm used to... In the UK if you set a single foot (or wheel of a bike or push buggy) onto a zebra crossing then all traffic must stop for you. It looks like a zebra crossing but different place, different rules!

different country = different rules. That being said... Tow truck drivers are allowed to tow your vehicle even if you are there as soon as they at least hook the tires.

Legally, it's probably a fairly gray area with differing rules in different jurisdictions. I imagine most laws would say something about a reasonable threat, although I don't know how "Stand your ground" laws would affect that.

Morally, if someone is "in your personal space" on public property, in theory you would ask them to back off and then call the cops. Violence should be a last resort, and if they persisted, I'd probably just walk away.

Let's be fair to Reg here, it's a comedic attempt to bring people closer together. Consider that he almost certainly has had to deal with racism a lot more than most people, being a black man in comedy clubs. It's probably not as taboo to him as to me or you, he knows where the lines are and he plays within them with a purpose. He really believes his message; ie. one of unity.

I think he's pursuing unity in the best possible way - by alleviating the tension and by making it trivial through .... let's face it, some utterly hilarious jokes. He's even better when he's in sort of unscripted interview. Painfully funny and a true master of the "art" of comedy, and comedy IS subject to different rules simply because that's what the majority of people want, and those that don't want can tune out. So it's a free-for-all and either everything is fair game or nothing is.

Also somewhat interesting because it's weird: The 1950's clip is from the Indianapolis 500. It's only tangentially related to Formula 1. At least during some part of the history of the race, Formula 1 championship points were awarded for the Indy 500, probably because many of the F1 drivers competed in the race. Slightly more interesting would have been seeing a pit stop of an actual F1 race from 1950 since they would have had a different governing body and probably different rules.

Private security can not fix social problems.

First you fix poverty, then crime.

Other way around, there is only one way: forever sentences, "no rehabilitation only penalty" is the goal. Trying to sweep "undesirables" away, clean and neatly tucked away in private prisons. It's very neat way of "fixing" the leak by pusnihing one part of your own populace on different rules. What do you think will happen once it goes for a generation? Children are taught from ground-up to not trust the government, the police and the rest of the society that's want to basically kill them but are too afraid so it's dealt with another route: destroying any chance of social mobility by promoting inequality, making tougher laws for crimes that are mostly only happening on lowest economic classes, giving out sentences for the same crimes differently depending how those background factors are that the people themselves can't help. That is an effective solution, it's not final but in these quarterly run world, nothings forever but instead "make profit now".

And then after all that claiming "it's the land of the free", "pursuit of happiness" etc. Everything is very logical under those circumstances. If you are poor, it's your own fault. That is the message blasted all over. Even when shown the overwhelming evidence how equality promotes happiness, social mobility, prevents poverty, it seems that every US citizen, poor or rich thinks otherwise.

The inequality in USA means POWER. It means "i'm better than you". The whole country is sick in that attitude (Sorry, US citizens, i wouldn't say all this if i didn't lover you and your country). You are never good if you're as good as the next person.

Countries that do promote equality, the attitude is "this is enough", i don't need to be better than my neighbor to feel good. It doesn't mean they are lazy or unambitious, it means that boasting with wealth is considered vulgar, idiotic, uncivilized. You can have a guy earning triple right next to you and you can't really see the difference.

This does not fit US frame of mind where money is the only way to happiness and you never can have enough. If you have it, you want to shove it in everyones face.

more taxation = theft BS. By living here you are agreeing to be taxed to pay for things we all need. Like that pesky police force we all agree is necessary to a just state.

if you live here, you agree with these terms, thus no theft. If you don't like taxation, get out.

yet again we have this hypocrisy. when we agree to the terms of a contract when dealing with private business, no one complains when a business holds you to your end of the bargain. but when gov't tries to collect taxes you agree to pay and tries to hold you to your end of the bargain, suddenly it's this horrible thing.

If you want something, you have to pay for it and Libertarianism is just a way of saying "I want to get away with doing something that I know harms people" or "I want something but I don't want to have to pay for it" wrapped in delusion of freedom.

people throw around the word freedom but in reality, as @ChaosEngine pointed out. you give people freedom and they use it to fuck over other people. We haven't evolved to the point where we can realiably count on people not to fuck each other over. Someday maybe that will happen, but it certainly isn't today.

Voluntaryism is just Objectiveism and Meritocracy trying to divorce itself from the negative stigma of Ayn Rand. rebranding a failed idea to get gullible people to fall for it again. Legitimized avarice.

boy I sure didn't miss blankfist's one note charlie obsession with statism.

Did the people who come up with these ideas completely ignore the lessons they learned when they first became adults? When we're growing up, we hated our parents for imposing rules on us, when we first become adults and we have a first taste of freedom, we go nuts, we do extremely stupid things, harmful things. most adults do eventually learn that these things are harmful and *shock* learn to impose limits on themselves. Eventually they come to realize that their parents weren't jerks after all and they generally did have a good reason to impose rules on us. Sure there some shitty parents out there and the children of those shitty parents throw out the rules that didn't work when they become adults, but guess what, they don't throw out the system, they just come up with different rules. hopefully those rules are better, if not, we just try again.

There is this false notion of an adversarial relation between gov't and the people. PEOPLE CREATED GOV'T!!! gov't is just the current method by which we impose limits on ourselves. just like we do as we grow up. Sure, we don't have a perfect system. get used to it. If gov't truly wasn't necessary, we would have ditched it a long time ago. someday we will have the ability to self limit ourselves without a self-created third party, but that isn't today.

Probably isn't ever going to change until we evolve genetic memory of our parents/ancestors or we develop a way to download knowledge/experience Matrix-style so that instead of learning the hard way to not touch a stove because it's hot, we just already know it at birth or an earlier age.