Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[Ponder This]

Three years ago, his lawyers agreed in a tax filing that Mar-a-Lago was correctly valued by the county at $26.6 million. That assessment was based on the fact that Mar-a-Lago is deed restricted as a club, and isn’t listed as a private residence, which would have vastly improved its value.

While paying those down-to-earth taxes, Trump has been valuing the property at between $426.5 and $612 million in other legal filings, “an overvaluation of at least 2,300 percent, compared to the assessor’s appraisal,” the New York judge in his ongoing civil fraud trial noted.

Trump says farewell to Forbes, his inflated ego and assets after lying about Mar-a-Lago

Donald Trump boasts about Mar-a-Lago's value; don't let the tax collectors know.

www.palmbeachpost.com

• New York officials did not determine the value of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The property appraiser in Palm Beach County, where the estate is located, assessed the property and determined its value.
• In evaluating the property, Palm Beach County officials account for Mar-a-Lago’s being a deed-restricted private club. Unlike a private home, the property’s value is determined by the amount of income it generates as a club.

Video misleads about who valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million

After a New York judge ruled last month in a fraud lawsuit that former President Donald Trump inflated the value of prop

www.politifact.com

Not sure what your point is, but it does appear that you were unable to name the person or persons harmed.
Moreover, your fact check claims that Engoron made a ruling on the issue of fraud on the basis of the $18 million dollar assessment. The fact check points out that Engoron did not come up with the $18 million dollar assessment himself, but does not argue the point that Engoron used the $18 million dollar assessment in making his ruling.

If Trump and co had reported their assets honestly the banks would have charged more interest on those loans. The banks could have made more money, that is considered a loss in financial circles.

Plus banks have their money allocated into categories. They make a certain number of loans at a lower rate. By Trump taking a loan that was not rightfully his he prevented other businesses that did qualify from getting those lower rate loans They were harmed by this too.

Name the bank that was harmed.
Deutsche Bank official says large changes to net worth like Trump’s isn’t unusual
As you can imagine you might think maybe Deutche Bank was harmed... Nope, it was not. In fact:

Deutsche Bank verifies “material facts” in client finances, he said, and Williams personally went to Trump Tower in December 2011 to review bank and brokerage statements to verify there was $51.8 million in marketable securities $178 million cash balances.

That is a silly standard. I can explain to you how people were harmed. I cannot name specific people.

The concept of an Injured Party is basic to law, contrary to your assessment of it as "silly". I don't doubt that you can imagine someone was harmed when, in fact, no one was harmed.

What did they base that on? If they based that value on other similar properties then they screwed up. Trump signed over certain rights of those properties to the city of Palm Beach. He signed over the rights to develop it so that he would have a lower tax rate. And that does not apply to just him. It also applies to whoever he sells it to. That is why it has a much lower value than surrounding sites. Trump cannot change his mind and say, "I am going to develop this and turn it into housing."

I think its clear that the judge did screw up. That said, the issue has been ruled on by the judge. No doubt the ruling will be appealed as the screw-up is evident.

 

[metis]

I think its clear that the judge did screw up. That said, the issue has been ruled on by the judge. No doubt the ruling will be appealed as the screw-up is evident.

So, Iyo, dishonesty is morally acceptable if not that much harm was done?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name the bank that was harmed.
Deutsche Bank official says large changes to net worth like Trump’s isn’t unusual
As you can imagine you might think maybe Deutche Bank was harmed... Nope, it was not. In fact:

A bank did not have to be harmed for it to be fraud. The banks got lucky. Trump did not go out of business this time. You do not seem to understand fraud at all.

The concept of an Injured Party is basic to law, contrary to your assessment of it as "silly". I don't doubt that you can imagine someone was harmed when, in fact, no one was harmed.

Yes, and there were injured parties, even if we cannot name them. Banks have only so much to loan. The injured parties was a business that did not get the low rate loan that Trump took that would have been rightfully theirs. They would have gotten a higher interest loan.

I think its clear that the judge did screw up. That said, the issue has been ruled on by the judge. No doubt the ruling will be appealed as the screw-up is evident.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Not sure what your point is, but it does appear that you were unable to name the person or persons harmed.
Moreover, your fact check claims that Engoron made a ruling on the issue of fraud on the basis of the $18 million dollar assessment. The fact check points out that Engoron did not come up with the $18 million dollar assessment himself, but does not argue the point that Engoron used the $18 million dollar assessment in making his ruling.



Name the bank that was harmed.
Deutsche Bank official says large changes to net worth like Trump’s isn’t unusual
As you can imagine you might think maybe Deutche Bank was harmed... Nope, it was not. In fact:


The concept of an Injured Party is basic to law, contrary to your assessment of it as "silly". I don't doubt that you can imagine someone was harmed when, in fact, no one was harmed.

I think its clear that the judge did screw up. That said, the issue has been ruled on by the judge. No doubt the ruling will be appealed as the screw-up is evident.

So if I defraud an old lady out of her life savings, but give the money back with interest, there was no crime?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Moon would be better.

No. I like looking at the moon.

 

[Ponder This]

So if I defraud an old lady out of her life savings, but give the money back with interest, there was no crime?

You would have to defraud the old lady first by illegally obtaining her money.

You do not seem to understand fraud at all.

Feel free to enlighten us.

Yes, and there were injured parties, even if we cannot name them. Banks have only so much to loan. The injured parties was a business that did not get the low rate loan that Trump took that would have been rightfully theirs. They would have gotten a higher interest loan.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that other businesses that did not get the same loan rate as Trump were harmed. The liable party in such a case would be the bank that gave differing loan rates to other businesses - not Trump. Trump, or any other business, cannot be blamed simply for negotiating a better loan rate from a bank - that's insanity.

So, Iyo, dishonesty is morally acceptable if not that much harm was done?

If you believe that a person is dishonest, then that is a reason to consider not voting for the person, but it is a weak reason because all candidates get accused of lying regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not.

IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, a "major elite" is currently being held accountable for his actions, thus demonstrating he is not above the law.
This should make you happy, right?

Just because I stated Trump is above the law doesn't mean I like it.

I'm just seeing and stating things as they actually are and how things actually work in the world as opposed to an idealized version of a fair and just society of which major elite individuals in power and control will certainly poo poo away with impunity in favor of themselves and leaving people like you and me underfoot and subjugated.

 

[metis]

If you believe that a person is dishonest, then that is a reason to consider not voting for the person, but it is a weak reason because all candidates get accused of lying regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not.

Now you've slipped into "false equivalency" territory, especially since there's vast differences not only between Trump and Biden but also between Trump and those Pubs currently running against him.

IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers.

Trump has been willing to support Putin by never criticizing him because he wants Putin to give him the OK to build two Trump Towers in the Moscow area. He also has been imbedded in his own loan scandal in New York that he has already been found guilty of, thus all that we have to wait for now is how much will he have to pay. He has funneled many of his loans through Deutsche Bank, which has been fined numerous times for corruption, such as money laundering. That bank also has a Putin connection, btw.

Trump is as crooked as the day is long.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You would have to defraud the old lady first by illegally obtaining her money.


Feel free to enlighten us.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that other businesses that did not get the same loan rate as Trump were harmed. The liable party in such a case would be the bank that gave differing loan rates to other businesses - not Trump. Trump, or any other business, cannot be blamed simply for negotiating a better loan rate from a bank - that's insanity.


If you believe that a person is dishonest, then that is a reason to consider not voting for the person, but it is a weak reason because all candidates get accused of lying regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not.

IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers.

Trump earned $73 million in revenue from foreign business deals during his first two years in office, according to a review of the president's tax returns

A New York Times review of Trump's tax returns revealed the extent of his dealings with foreign countries, including licensing agreements, as president.

www.businessinsider.com

Trump made up to $160 million from foreign countries as president - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Trump and his company pledged to pause foreign business. They did not.

www.citizensforethics.org

Trump taxes show foreign income from more than a dozen countries

While Trump surrendered day-to-day control of his business empire, he kept ownership.

www.politico.com

Trump tax returns show ties to China, other countries. Here’s what else they reveal - National | Globalnews.ca

The financial documents were the subject of a prolonged legal battle after Trump broke precedent in not releasing his tax returns during his campaign and administration.

globalnews.ca

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump, or any other business, cannot be blamed simply for negotiating a better loan rate from a bank

But that charge wasn't among the financial felonies he was indicted for. He won't be going to prison for honest negotiation. It will be for assorted frauds - knowingly and illegally lying. That should please you that he won't be going to prison for legal activities - only for crimes. That's what a competent justice department does, and you can be proud of America's in the hands of Constitution-loving patriots like Garland, Willis, James, and Smith.

If you believe that a person is dishonest, then that is a reason to consider not voting for the person, but it is a weak reason because all candidates get accused of lying regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not.

You've already been called on false equivalence here, but let me add my vote. Bill Clinton lied. Trump lied. One was a great president, the other a common criminal with uncommon power.

Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers.

Not anymore unless you include his debt to foreign banks, which he is free to ignore and default on given his trajectory to poverty and incarceration. What is Deutsch Bank going to do to him once James has disgorged everything he has or would have had in the future and he's behind bars? Litigate? Complain to regulatory agencies? They're screwed.

Now, Trump just is just beholden to the law, and absolutely nothing else. And he WILL not be able to skip out on that debt unless he dies before conviction.

 

[Riders]

Unfortunately, I have been reading more about Trumps lead over Biden. It does look like Trump is more in the lead. However, time is on our side. Whether or not Trump can hold that lead for the next 11 months is another thing.

I also have read about Republicans who are turning against Trump. I can learn to live with anything even Trump being in charge, I just hope I don't have to.

 

[Ponder This]

Trump earned $73 million in revenue from foreign business deals during his first two years in office, according to a review of the president's tax returns

A New York Times review of Trump's tax returns revealed the extent of his dealings with foreign countries, including licensing agreements, as president.

www.businessinsider.com

Trump made up to $160 million from foreign countries as president - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Trump and his company pledged to pause foreign business. They did not.

www.citizensforethics.org

Trump taxes show foreign income from more than a dozen countries

While Trump surrendered day-to-day control of his business empire, he kept ownership.

www.politico.com

Trump tax returns show ties to China, other countries. Here’s what else they reveal - National | Globalnews.ca

The financial documents were the subject of a prolonged legal battle after Trump broke precedent in not releasing his tax returns during his campaign and administration.

globalnews.ca

Donald Trump's wealth takes tumble during presidency

Donald Trump's net worth dropped by about $700m to $2.3bn (£1.65bn) during his time as president, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington
How elected officials have made millions by being in office
Presidents of the U.S. make millions during their time in office as President, and millions more when they leave office.
(if they aren't Trump)

 

[metis]

Donald Trump's wealth takes tumble during presidency

How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington
How elected officials have made millions by being in office
Presidents of the U.S. make millions during their time in office as President, and millions more when they leave office.
(if they aren't Trump)

Did you actually read the Forbes' article? Where is there any hint he did anything illegally?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I lied to may take four posts

Your four posts highlighting Trump's accomplishments were ignored, instead the tolerant left just wanted to insult.

 

[George Washington]

Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?

Yes, I'll be voting for Donald. He's my favorite president of all time.

 

[metis]

Yes, I'll be voting for Donald. He's my favorite president of all time.

What is it about our constitutional republic that you don't like? Would you rather have a Trump dictatorship as Cheney and Kinsinger, have said we'd likely get?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Donald Trump's wealth takes tumble during presidency

How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington
How elected officials have made millions by being in office
Presidents of the U.S. make millions during their time in office as President, and millions more when they leave office.
(if they aren't Trump)

Your statement was, "IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers."


So I just showed you that Trump was/is beholden to foreign powers.
Your response was to move the goal post to something else.

Instead of doing that, how about responding to the point?

 

[Ponder This]

Your statement was, "IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers."


So I just showed you that Trump was/is beholden to foreign powers.
Your response was to move the goal post to something else.

Instead of doing that, how about responding to the point?

If you had bothered to read...

Although golf has become popular during the pandemic as a socially distanced outdoor sport, Mr Trump's two courses in Scotland have consistently lost money, filings show.

I don't think you had a strong enough case that Trump is beholden to foreign powers. The point I made earlier in this thread was:

I would support Trump, because Trump can't be bought by big money.

Which includes more than just foreign powers.

Did you actually read the Forbes' article? Where is there any hint he did anything illegally?

I didn't make a claim that someone did something illegal.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?

I think he will win.Lots of Americans think he was robbed.This is due to the influence of social media.With A1 he will be able to tip the small balance that makes up winning and losing.Americans do not feel well off although his election will not make any difference as labour rates are lower overseas. Republican businessmen/women cannot find people who will work picking vegetables etc for the money they want to pay.They reply on immigrants who work very hard in spite of the propaganda put out..Putin needs him to influence cuts to Ukraine and wants him in 2024.When he was younger Trump was perfectly charming.Women loved him as he was tall and rich.Some of the charm remains.Certainly the swagger intensifies.

MANY DISLIKE TRUMP SO SAY HE WILL NOT WIN.ITS NOT WHO YOU LIKE BUT ANALYSE STANDS THE BEST CHANCE OF WINNING

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you had bothered to read...

I don't think you had a strong enough case that Trump is beholden to foreign powers. The point I made earlier in this thread was:

Which includes more than just foreign powers.

I didn't make a claim that someone did something illegal.

Of course you don't think so. Instead, you believe the other guy is beholden to foreign powers, even though there is zero evidence of such. All while ignoring the evidence that your guy is indeed beholden to foreign powers. What does losing money on a golf course have to do with being not being "beholden to foreign powers" anyway?? What a strange statement.

This was after claiming that "IMO, a better reason to consider is whether or not a candidate is financially beholden to foreign powers. Trump isn't financially beholden to foreign powers."

... Which you now seem to be trying to back out of.

I agree, the better candidate is the one who is not beholden to foreign powers. In this case, that's Joe Biden.