basilico:


With regards to Deutsche Bank and DC post office, you said he lied about his net worth to obtain the loan. So he had to disgorge his engorged profits. The bank that lent him was proud of their relationships. Two of their very senior employees testified unambiguously.
About DC hotel, why you said he lied and fraudulently obtained loan? Why you think we can't read what you wrote?. Why you think my opinion was built from one article only? I let it stand hoping you would edit your lies.
Either you know are lying, which I believe you do.
Or you are just a polite Obrigardo like 🦜 parrot.
I brought up Buzzfeed article because it is part of Anti Trump media. The others you mentioned NYT, Wapo, etc are just far left ragtag bunch of liars all working in conjunction. Obama spinmaster Ben Rhodes called those rags an echo chamber. He directed them how to report, what keywords to use while he served at the WH. You are an unwitting victim.Every single day he would circulate talking points to media. He said thus.
"Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing,”

I asked you for a single credible factual source.

Please, let's not pretend like you have any interest in the truth, because you clearly don't. You are the one repeating the same baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks that have been debunked by the court and the media. Judge Engoron ordered Trump to disgorge the profit he made from the sale of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which he had converted into a hotel, because he had inflated its value by a humongous amount in his financial statements. I admit I probably should have clarified that the amount was not directly related to the amount of money he borrowed, but to the amount of money he gained from his fraud, but then again, that's still beyond the point here -- that Trump fraudulently inflated the values of his assets. As for Deutsche Bank, they sued Trump for defaulting on the loan and Trump countersued them and alleged that they caused the 2008 financial crisis. How is that a proud relationship?

The simple reason you brought up the Buzzfeed article is because you were actually hoping to distract me from the main issue. But your pathetic attempt backfired, because you failed to address the substance of the evidence that shows Trump's fraudulent behavior. Instead, you resorted to ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories, accusing the media of being part of a coordinated effort to smear Trump and his cronies. Your attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of the sources I cited by calling them "far left ragtag bunch of liars" is dead on arrival, because those sources are some of the most respected and reputable news outlets in the world, with a long history of journalistic excellence and integrity. They have won numerous awards and accolades for their reporting, including Pulitzer Prizes, Peabody Awards, and National Magazine Awards, and they have also exposed countless cases of corruption, abuse of power, and human rights violations, both at home and abroad, often at great risk to their own safety and reputation. How very stupid of you to suggest they are propaganda websites because they dare to question the actions of your divine overlord Trump. Like I said, you have no regard for the truth or the facts, you just blindly follow the cult of personality that is Trump and his enablers.

Moving on to the latest gaffe in your series of misfortunes in this debate, you decided to quote Ben Rhodes admitting to wilfully deceiving the media, thinking that this somehow proves your point, but it actually does the opposite. Since you're pathologically dishonest, you decided to leave out the context in which he made his statement, and twist it to suit your foolish narrative. But don't worry, I've taken the liberty to highlight his full quote, as you'll see in the screenshot below from a New York Times article. I had to read that article from start to finish. Rhodes was talking about foreign policy, not general media strategy. He was not directing the media how to report on everything, but rather providing them with information and access to experts who could explain the rationale and benefits of the deal, making a persuasive case for a diplomatic solution to a complex and contentious problem. Furthermore, Rhodes was not the only one who supported the Iran deal. The deal was endorsed by many other countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was also backed by a majority of Americans, according to polls, and by many former and current officials, diplomats, and experts, from both parties, who saw it as the best option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

His quote acknowledged the reality of the changing media landscape, where many outlets have reduced their foreign coverage and rely on Washington-based reporters who may not have the expertise or experience to cover complex global issues. When he says that they "literally know nothing", he is suggesting that they may not have the depth or breadth of knowledge that previous generations of reporters had, and so he and his team try to provide them with the resources and contacts they needed.

You must one of those people who think that the media is a monolithic entity that is controlled by a shadowy cabal of leftists, globalists, and deep staters, who are hell-bent on destroying Trump and America. How quaint, and utterly delusional. You have no clue how journalism works, how diverse and competitive the media landscape is, how many checks and balances there are to ensure accuracy and accountability, and how many brave and dedicated reporters there are who risk their lives and reputations to expose the truth, no matter who is in power. You have no clue how to evaluate sources, how to verify facts, how to distinguish between opinion and analysis, and how to think critically and independently.

You and I both know you are quickly running out of ammo in this debate, and that's why you're flinging shit desperately at the wall, and hoping it sticks. You know that your position on this thread will tumble down if you address the facts directly instead of deflecting with irrelevant talking points and frivolous criticisms. You're a fraud, and you don't want to admit it.

Bayajjidda:


Wow! I must be a prophet to know that you're vertically challenged even without knowing you. Don't you think that this might be divinely inspired? I wanted to write, "Your hate for Christianity won't add a kobo to your account" but then something inside me directed me to write" Your hate for Christianity won't add a cubit to your height". I'm so sorry if I offended you by that, I don't mean to judge you or offend you, I only wanted to pass a message I was directed to pass. But don't you think that God loves you to direct me to speak to you? Jesus is standing at the door of your heart and knocking, why don't you open your heart to Him and let Him fill your heart and thirsty soul? Don't miss this chance, don't take this for granted. God bless you as you take this rare chance and make the best decision any man can make in life

Actually your "divine inspiration" might be suffering from low signals from heaven's Wi-Fi. Not only did you miss the mark on my height (by a considerable margin, I might add), but you also seem to have malfunctioned in understanding basic human emotions. I'm not "hating" on your religion, my friend. Disagreement is not the same as hate. Besides, if your God needs me to believe in him to be happy, then frankly, he sounds like he has some serious self-esteem issues I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot cross.

As for Jesus knocking on my heart's door? I'm afraid he'll just have to leave a message on the answering machine. I'm busy reading actual history books, not ancient fairytales. But thanks for the unsolicited life advice. I'll be sure to file it under "Interesting Things Strangers Say On The internet."

#BlessYourHeart
#LogicAndReasonFTW"

Blitzerz:

Stale 🥱

Tsk. Tsk. Is that all?

Perhaps your Holy Spirit forgot to help you download the "Comeback for Dummies" update. 😂

bemeruca:


i know but use the insurance and help yourself because you are sick.
if your insurance covers opinions then it is more reason why you have to seek help.

You seem to be stuck on repeat, like a broken record player skipping the "constructive criticism" track. Maybe it's time you invested in a new comeback and a self-awareness upgrade, because at this point, you're the one who needs help.

toujurs:
I'm still wondering who would settle for such a boring counterpart, as a lift partner.

Boring human, who lost touch of reality.

The way you keep using the word "introvert", I'm willing to bet that you don't even understand the actual meaning of introversion and extraversion.

Meanwhile, I would recommend you get a mirror. It might your alleviate your obvious need for external validation.

JuanDeDios:

Hmm. They don’t care about history. He/she just wants to live. Of course, society needs the groundbreakers, the outliers. Without this 1% of us, everything would stagnate-therein lies their value. Without them, the collective would suffer and everyone, including the comfort-zoners, would eventually wither since our very continuous survival as a species sometimes depends on our ability to master our environment.

So, no, I wasn’t dismissing the value of pioneering. I was just saying that we must recognize that at the individual level the average guy is fine just being average. And it’s he who truly enjoys life. A genius could never be content just living. He’s never even content in his pioneering ways because there’s always more to discover, to create, to change. There’s some nuclear engine inside him that fires him to be more. He finds his own living in constantly engaging, constantly discovering. Satisfaction is not for him. Happiness is elusive for him. His is a lonely path. That is why the world, with all its beauty and glory, belongs to the average people. The world belongs to the average people is not in terms of being remembered. It’s in terms of being HAPPY.

Happiness isn't exclusive though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads to me like you're suggesting that geniuses lack happiness, painting a picture of constant dissatisfaction for them. Of course, outliers might struggle with finding conventional happiness due to their intense drive, but assuming it is universal is quite unfair. Fulfillment and joy is subjective to the individual concerned, and many geniuses achieve this in their respective pursuits, contributing to a unique form of happiness. You used the words "average" and "contentment", but these ideas are practically spectrums. You can choose to acknowledge the comfort of familiarity and contentment within the mainstream, but it's important to remember that there are countless "average" people who yearn for something more, harbor dreams, and grapple with finding their place in the world. Suggesting the world "belongs to the average people because they are "happy" sounds like forcing a competition. Happiness isn't a zero-sum game. It isn't a limited resource, and recognizing diverse paths to fulfillment doesn't diminish anyone's experience.

Maxcollins042:


For your mind now this gibberish wey you yarn has some sense in it? LoL

Oh, it definitely makes more sense than whatever prompted you to ask that question.

DevilsEqual:



Just seeing this and by your first paragraph, it's clear that u have a superior use of English words, so trying to shame others for that isn't gonna add anything to u and it's actually needless
As long as I can try communicate in basic English, and since I do not have any interest whatsoever in being an Author, I guess I am good to go



Now, U mentioned one Indian philosopher and a few other Greeks,it's true that this guy's questioned Divinity but again, it's pointless diving into that topic, challenging the status quo, only to return with no proof to back up your challenges or even a very reasonable argument to cancel out the popular opinion.





Again, I'm not searching for any God,my question is to know how we get here and in answering that, I have to keep reading up on diff people's opinions, theories and counter theories of people who not only asked same questions in the past but also used some improved tools like fossil records and all to explore what might have been before our arrival, in a bid to know the true Genesis of all things


Telling me to discard that is very laughable...as my own reasoning, observations and knowledge would never open my mind to things that were, within and outside this universe and that would make me believe only my own lies guided by my very myopic opinion on humans evolution and that of our universe


If u care not about how we get here, that's fine, u can live your life anyway u want, believe your lies and enjoy your 100years on earth but every true seeker I have known have had to combine religion, science and philosophy and all would shed more light on things

I even use Bible to track the records of the earliest ever written book just to know how long ancient civilization started,not even because of the religious contents in it and No, I never mentioned divine intervention as an answer to anything or never stated where it is needed

While it might not have been your intention, I appreciate you acknowledging my writing style. I do strive to express myself clearly and concisely, but my aim isn't to "shame" others. If anything, I'm encouraged by well-reasoned arguments in a proper discussion. I agree that basic communication is vital, but dismissing entire historical movements like ancient atheism as "pointless" demonstrates a disregard for intellectual curiosity. Understanding philosophical discourse, even if we disagree with it, is crucial for informed discussion and personal growth.

Regarding your claim that questioning the status quo requires proof to "cancel out the popular opinion," I don't think that's a logical assessment. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, not with those questioning them. The existence of gods, being an extraordinary claim, requires compelling evidence, not the absence of counter-proof. As for challenging the status quo, it's precisely this process that has led to incredible advancements throughout history. Progress often thrives on questioning established beliefs like challenging societal norms, and other anachronistic ideologies. Instead of dismissing alternative perspectives as pointless, why not engage in a genuine exchange? Perhaps you can share why the presence of gods is crucial to your worldview, and I can share my reasons for embracing a different perspective.

The beauty of intellectual exploration is about critically analyzing all existing knowledge and building upon it, not discarding them. Fossil records are fantastic tools, and science continues to leverage them alongside countless other resources like radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and cosmological observations to understand our origins. You have to realize that science is not in the business of providing absolute truths, but rather constantly evolving models based on new data and discoveries. It's a perpetual journey of refinement, not a destination with a singular answer. Maybe instead of seeking the ultimate "why," we can focus on the "how": How did the universe form? How did life emerge? How did we, as humans, evolve? These questions, while seemingly less grandiose, lead down fascinating paths that can unlock incredible insights into our place in the cosmos.

I think you're being highly disrespectful by asserting that my lack of belief is a "lie". Don't fool yourself into thinking you actually know anything about me. Your claim also reveals a serious misconception you seem to have. The simple reason I don't believe in gods is because of the lack of convincing evidence. Your hasty assumption here is synonymous with the typical Christian arrogance of presupposing the motives of atheists, without caring to ask them why they share their sentiments towards religion. Furthermore, the assertion that a "true seeker" must combine religion, science, and philosophy is a fallacy of the excluded middle. There are countless individuals who pursue knowledge and meaning through various avenues -- artists, musicians, historians, and yes, even atheists. Limiting the path to truth to a specific combination fosters division and hinders open-mindedness.

I find it odd that you admit to using the Bible solely for historical records, while neglecting its religious content, because it raises a lot of questions about confirmation bias. Are you only willing to accept historical information from the text that aligns with your pre-existing beliefs? Historians rely on a multitude of diverse sources to paint a complete picture, and the Bible needs to be critically analyzed within this context.

The earlier you realize that the world is far more nuanced than a simple binary of "religion" versus "atheism", the better for your intellectual growth and progress. The journey towards meaning is more valuable than reaching a pre-defined destination.

toujurs:
You are an introvert. A chronic one at that.

Mental psycho.

Thanks, Sherlock Holmes. I'm introverted and proud. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Mind if I borrow your magnifying glass to find your manners?

bemeruca:


Just seek the help you need. Use your insurance, get help.

My insurance covers a lot, but it doesn't cover irrelevant opinions from a clown standing in the peanut gallery.

basilico:


There are many men who don't remember women they have slept with.
There are many women who don't remember all the men they have slept with
Trump owned Miss World franchise, you can be sure thousands of ladies wanted to know him personally. He also had casino, hosted bouts and endless parties.
At school a former classmate of his said he always showed up with different girls every week.
His 'body' count must be humongous, I would not be surprised his "conquests ' can circle the earth.Figuratively.
I don't hold Trump as my moral compass.

What a load of rubbish. The number of women Trump has slept with, or claims to have slept with, has no bearing on the credibility of Carroll's allegation. And the fact that Trump owned a beauty pageant franchise, a casino, and hosted parties does not automatically imply that he had consensual sex with thousands of women, let alone that he can't remember them all. Your point here is not just a non sequitur fallacy (a conclusion that does not follow from the premises), it is yet another straw man fallacy. I did not accuse Trump of being immoral, I accused him of lying about his encounter with Carroll. Again, pay attention!

basilico:


Is the IRS complaining. Trump was s loud critic of Obama, being the public face of the birther movement. Let's not forget it's Hillary who started it but Trump ended it. Obama being the vindictive character would have unleashed Loise Lerner on him if there was a "there there'".
Valuation again. The loan request form has a different value thsn the tax returns.

Red herring fallacy. Why do you always have a hard time staying on topic? Pay attention to the discussion! What does Obama, Hillary, or the birther movement have to do with the question of whether Trump committed fraud by misrepresenting the value of his properties? As for the IRS, there could be other reasons why they are not complaining, such as lack of resources, political pressure, or legal obstacles. We can't tell for certain, but trying to imply that either the IRS is complaining or there is no fraud is a classic example of a false dichotomy, ignoring other plausible options without justification. Moreover, the IRS is not the only authority that can investigate and prosecute fraud, as Letitia's case demonstrates.

toujurs:
Look at this chronic introvert, thinking her opinion matters. It's only on social network you can express your self.

I suppose this is a case of you mistaking online confidence for introversion? While I may prefer thoughtful dialogues to shouting matches, be rest assured, my opinions exist both online and off. But hey, at least you managed to express yourself, even though you sounded more like a keyboard warrior with nagging insecurities.

Maysdevices:
Total gibberish

You're hurt. I completely understand. 😂

JuanDeDios:

Good post – as long as you recognise that you’re addressing a small minority of mankind, let’s call them the outliers. I mean, conformity, comfort zone, safe space – call it what you will – works for the majority of people. And they're often the ones who truly enjoy life. That's why a genius once said the world belongs to average people.

I think you should be careful not to fall for the trap of confusing contentment with stagnation. While conformity offers a pre-paved path, it can also become a dead-end road for the soul.

Think of it this way: imagine a world where every flower bloomed in the same shade of beige, chosen for its "universal appeal." Sure, it might seem aesthetically pleasing, but where's the vibrant tapestry of nature, the explosion of colors, the unique fragrance of each bloom? I understand that not everyone aspires to be a groundbreaking artist or a revolutionary thinker. But even within the realm of "average," there's a spectrum of possibilities. Why settle for a pre-written script when you can co-author your own narrative? As for the genius who claimed the world belongs to the average, I'd like to remind you that history remembers the outliers, the rule-breakers, the individuals who dared to paint outside the lines. They're the ones who pushed boundaries, challenged norms, and ultimately enriched the human experience for everyone, including those content within their comfort zones.

Now, I'm not suggesting everyone should abandon their comfort zones and become crusaders for change. But dismissing the value of individual expression and the pursuit of unconventional paths, especially under the guise of "majority rule," is a dangerous simplification. It not only ignores the potential for growth and innovation that lies outside the mainstream, but also inadvertently diminishes the very essence of what makes us human - our unique experiences, perspectives, and capacity for individual thought and action.

Blitzerz:

Keep your tantrums, mr atheist
Nobody asked u wether they believe in fantasies or not

LOL. What is it with Christians and fragile egos? Does your piety and faux sanctimony prevent you from enjoying harmless jokes? 🙂

I wasn't attacking anyone's beliefs, just observing a humorous disconnect. Besides, if you didn't want my two cents, then why are you in the comments section? It's not like you have to pay a tithe to read them. 😂

Bayajjidda:


Your hate for Christianity won't add a cubit to your height.

Awwwn. Last time I checked, judging someone's height isn't exactly a Christ-like thing to do. 😢

Plus, even if I am vertically challenged, at least I'm not reaching for the sky for imaginary friends. 🤭🤭

#ShortAndSweet
#GetTallerWithKnowledge
#ReadABookNotABible

😇

basilico:


I'm surprised you have not deleted this piece where you get to invent lies.
I don't think you are like others who parrot talking points, you invented a complete make believe lie knowingly.

Whata lie in bold. He lied to get the loan to lease DC post office. How much would he have gotten if he had told the truth about his net worth. How much was he worth and by how much did he inflate his wealth?How much loan did he get for refurbishment of Old Post office in DC , and from which bank.
You don't know jack.
I won't let you get away with this whopper.

Jessicarabbit the liar. Buzzfeed hates Trump, they were the first to publish Steele junk dossier, after getting a heads up from FBI. They describe negatively how Trump came to control the 60 year lease of DC post office.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/how-donald-trump-won-control-of-a-prized-dc-landmark

Reading through leaves no doubt they were grovelling , the article was before the election so it's pretty accurate, Clinton was a 99% odds winner then.

Who loaned Trump the money? Deutsche Bank. $170m in total.
At his trial s DB executive was full of praise for Trump, saying he was a top tier client And he acknowledged they used their own valuation to advance the loan.
Where did you get your drivel (in bold) from? What credible source is that?

The only thing suspect here is your dodgy understanding and/or interpretation of simple sentences in the English Language. I'm led to believe that you're simply uneducated or more likely, you're the true pathological liar and swindler here, projecting your mendacious "conspiracy-theorist" tendencies to misrepresent facts on me, casting aspersions and using shameless strawmen attacks to deflect from your travesty of a position on this topic. I promise you, your fake tears and rants will accomplish nothing for you here. I'm not easily distracted by emotional outbursts that have nothing to do with the crux of the discussion. You would prefer to misrepresent my position and attack a weaker version of it, instead of engaging with what I actually said, and then have people believe that you have any form of credibility on this topic. I repeat, you're a joke, and a dishonest piece of shit to boot. Pray tell, where did I ever insinuate that Trump lied to get the loan to lease the DC post office? What I recall stating is that he lied about his assets in connection with the offer or sale of securities, which is what the Martin Act covers. This is just another intentional obfuscation from you, like when you claimed that I said the Martin Act is meant to protect the consumer or the lender when what I actually said is that it's meant to protect the public and the integrity of the securities market from fraud and deception. Seriously, any idiot who would let himself get bamboozled by your cheap attempts to save face by poisoning the well needs to have his head examined as soon as possible.

I like how you straight up pulled a Willy Wonka to try and get us both lost in a chocolate river of irrelevant details, with the introduction of the Buzzfeed article. Further proof of your mendacity at play. But like I said, I'm not easily distracted and I know a failed bait-and-switch when I see one. Some of the information that Buzzfeed provided in their article is corroborated by other reputable sources anyway, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, on Trump's lease of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., and especially his relationship with Deutsche Bank (see screenshots). I'm still not sure if that detour was intended to be a strategic maneuver or simply a meaningless rabbit hole, but either way, we're back to square one: Did Trump and his companies commit fraud and violated the Martin Act? And the evidence thus far suggests an affirmative answer.

Now you can resume crying. 🤡

I generally don't take snubs seriously, and I hardly ever notice them in the first place. I tend not to be down-to-earth all the time, so if you really have a problem with me, maturity demands that you share your grievances politely, in a diplomatic manner, and I will respond accordingly. But if you choose to hold a bitter grudge with me in silence, it's ultimately none of my business. I'm not taking responsibility for a problem I have no idea about, when I have other things more deserving of my attention.

basilico:


There is a dress with his DNA evidence?
It must be the one NASA went to look for up there on the moon's surface.
Two witnesses who couldn't remember the year also.
Photograph? AAh Trump has a Gazillion photos with women. And he had said previously that women can let him grab them by the pussy. Whoa. Such watertight evidence.

With Fani evidence should be foolproof .

What a liar.

You fail to acknowledge the difference in context, consent, and relevance when comparing Trump's photos with women to Carroll's photo with him. This is another false equivocation fallacy you've committed here. Trump denied ever meeting Carroll, and so her photo with him was intended to at least prove that she knew Trump personally, and that he had access to her. You should be crafting fiction, not debating facts. Even a soggy tissue offers more resistance than your current position. Perhaps when you finally grow the balls to answer these questions in good faith.....

JessicaRabbit:


Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

.....you'll finally come to the realization that you have been on a wild goose chase as far as this topic is concerned.

bemeruca:


it's your choice. whichever option you choose, it's your choice. use your insurance and get the help you need

Clearly, your expertise lies in armchair diagnoses, not interesting comebacks. Perhaps you should consider switching fields.

bemeruca:


You still haven't gotten your head checked. Sigh.
You are ignorant to say the least.

I appreciate the free psychoanalysis, but I'm afraid my insurance only covers licensed professionals, not overly sensitive amateurs on the internet.

basilico:


There is no law that prevents lovers from working in the same office..There are three issues in the case.
Did Fani and Wade lie under oath a to when their affair begun?
Did Fani choose her lover who has never prosecuted a felony case over the more experienced attorneys , initially paying him a higher rate than the other two?
With regards to cash reimbursements, Is Fani lying because as it is , She and Wade enjoyed the high life with proceeds of the $250 an hour billing that Fani approved.He used his business credit card which makes it a business expense Unless he got refunded and he banked the money , then Wade implicitly cheated on his taxes.
There are other issues wrt coordinating with the DOJ, WH and Jackboot that are not yet under scrutiny.

With Trump its she said , so it's true. With Fani you need evidence of when they started screwing. Video, audio, eye witness of subject A fucking subject B or photos. Maybe you will also demand DNA of the semen collected from her vagina. That's how high you set the bar for her.When it comes to Jean Carroll her word is enough.
When there are 2000 calls exchanged , 12000 text messages, a close friend of Fani saying they were into it back in 2019 and Wade lying about the number of booty calls he made.
You really are something.
People have been charged and jailed for lying to Congress and to FBI.
How about lying under oath? Nothing to see because it's a democrat?

There is a question of whether she fired some Whistleblower who claimed she was diverting funds (494k?) from other budgets to this investigation.
Further Wade's professional rates by other Georgia attorneys should have been $100 -150 an hour. Fani offered the special prosecutors the maximum rate she is allowed.

Stop deflecting. You can't dodge a bullet by shooting at others. You think calling Wade and Willis liars, cheaters, or democrats will make Trump look innocent? That's like saying a bank robber is not guilty because the victim was rude, or the security guard was lazy. If it weren't for your selective memory, you would realize that the case against Trump for election interference in Georgia is drastically different from the one against Carroll for defamation in New York, with different standards of proof, given that they are separate legal matters. Yes, Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, but she has provided corroborating evidence, such as a dress with his DNA, two witnesses who heard her story at the time, and a photograph of them together. You are just a joke -- and a dry one, no less.

basilico:

Recourse is well explained in that article.
Non recourse loan would be where your liability stops at the assets offered.
Recourse is where a party can go after other assets if the full amount is not enough to cover the loaned money. The interest charged on a recourse loan is much higher than of a
non recourse loan as I understood

Letitia argued Trump obtained non recourse loans because he overvalued the worth.
The disgorgement is the difference he would have paid had the loans been recourse.

This is wrong because the banks did not issue non recourse loans based on what he said the assets were worth. They did their own assessment an determined that they would grant him non recourse loans based on their own figures.

Going back to Engoron decision the difference between what he would have been offered by banks is actually Zero. Because they used their assessment values and NOT his values.

That's what I got from the article, stop playing clever.

Going ahead Engoron went on to fine him from the profit he made on that DC hotel. He argued the profit made was illegal because it was a non-recourse loan. He also fined his children from their share of that profit.
Disgusting of Engoron.The law is meant to protect the consumer not the lender, which is why this case falls flat. It stems from ulterior motives.
I have not read the judgement, Your biased anti Trump opinion shapers have read it for you.I may have mixed up recourse and non recourse interests , I'm writing in a hurry and I reserve the right to update this post.

When will it seep through to your fragile brain that Engoron based his ruling on the Martin Act, which does not require proof of intent or reliance, only that the defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the offer or sale of securities? Letitia James sued Trump and his companies under the Martin Act, a law that gives her broad authority to investigate and prosecute securities fraud in New York. Engoron did not fine Trump for the profit he made on the DC hotel. That's just a complete misinterpretation of the case. He ordered him to disgorge the profit he made from the fraud, which was the difference between the amount of money he borrowed and the amount of money he would have been able to borrow if he had told the truth about his assets. The disgorgement order was not based on the type of loan (recourse or non-recourse), but on the amount of money that the defendants obtained by fraud.

The Martin Act is not meant to protect the consumer or the lender, as you falsely claim. It is meant to protect the public and the integrity of the securities market from fraud and deception. It is not a partisan or political tool, but a powerful and effective weapon against white-collar crime, and the case against Trump and his companies was driven by overwhelming evidence and compelling arguments. Of course you have not read the judgment, because you are all too comfortable making up specious suggestions that cater to your own narratives.

basilico:


I said I'll beat the valuation dog first. Then I'll circle back.Are we in agreement that Letitia used tax assessment to evaluate the value of Trump properties, which is not the same value one would give to banks when requesting for a loan? Yes or no.

This is a loaded question proceeding from a simplistic characterization of Letitia's investigation. She did not use tax assessment to evaluate the value of Trump properties, she used it to compare the value of Trump properties with the value of similar properties in the same area. She did this to show that there was a significant discrepancy between the values that Trump reported to the tax authorities and the values that he reported to the banks. This discrepancy suggests that he either inflated or deflated the value of his properties depending on his interests, which could amount to fraud. You're also ignoring the fact that Letitia did not rely solely on tax assessment, she also used other sources of information, such as appraisals, financial statements, loan documents, and expert opinions to corroborate and cross-check the data and provide a more comprehensive picture of the value of Trump properties.

@basilico

JessicaRabbit:


Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

Surely you didn't think I'll let you forget.

basilico:


https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/23/judge-engorons-inflation-of-trumps-ill-gotten-gains-is-a-financial-crime-in-itself/

This is a well explained article relying on Judge Engoron ruling.
Pay close attention to recourse, non recourse and disgorgement explanations.
The article should clear your biases.

Applies to Jessicarabbit too.
Judge Engoron seems likely to have wanted to fine Trump's parents for siring him.

It's unfortunate that you weren't paying attention. Casually name-dropping irrelevant and misleading terms that the article used like recourse, non-recourse, and disgorgement, serve no further purpose than wilful obfuscation. Stop trying to be clever by half. Recourse and non-recourse are types of loans that differ in how the lender can recover the debt from the borrower in case of default. Disgorgement is a legal remedy that requires the wrongdoer to return the profits obtained from illegal or unethical conduct. These terms have NOTHING to do with Judge Engoron's ruling, which was based on the New York Martin Act, a law that prohibits fraud and deception in the offer and sale of securities. Trump's recourse loans were not based on his actual risk, but on his false representations of his wealth and creditworthiness. This is just another cheap and misleading rhetoric from you.

basilico:
Trump team filed motion in Georgia detailing geolocation data of Fani Willis boyfriend Nathan Wade cellphone.
Both said under oath they begun the affair long after she appointed him as the lead Inquisitor. Wade claimed to have visited her home 10 times only.
A wiitness testified she was sure they had a thing going back 2019.

Cellphone data shows he visited her at least 35 times in 2021. Some visits were booty calls, where he spent the night.
In 2021, they texted 12000 times and exchanged 2000 calls.

Conclusion. Both lied under oath. Have to be removed from the case.They need to be disbarred and jailed yesterday.

In 2021 Fani Willis said she would fire staff members having interoffice affairs. She promised to restore integrity to the office
Another charge. Did she profit from payments she personally approved ? She claims to have reimbursed Wade in cash. In her other cash reimbursements she used an app CashApp which has a money trail. With Wade she used cash.Wade has no records where he banked the cash to offset the business expenses he incurred taking Fani to cruises, shopping, buying dinners and flowers etc. These were business deductible expenses.😄😄😄😄
She got laid, he got paid.
With that kind of cash this brother should have been dating hot girls, not some divorcee with control of his income. I could kick him if I met him.


Trump has those call records, I bet there are calls to White House, DOJ and Jack Smith who are coordinating the Trump take down efforts.

dahighlife and Jessicarabbit Spin this development.
I think if this case was with the FBI they would indict the witness for telling lies and close down the Telco operator who provided the data while declaring the data inadmissible.

I'm impressed by your ability to write so much without saying anything at all. Did you forget the "evidence" chapter in your handbook on righteous indignation? The cellphone data showing that Wade visited Willis' home 35 times in 2021, does not prove that they lied about when their affair started or that it affected their professional judgment. It's still within the realm of speculation, as far as legal processes are concerned. You really don't have any idea how this shit works, do you? You also mentioned that they profited from the prosecution, without evidence no less! You just shamelessly speculated that Willis reimbursed Wade in cash for his business expenses, which were allegedly used to fund their personal trips and gifts. However, this is not a solid basis for accusing them of fraud or corruption. Also, you ignore the fact that Wade's fees were approved by the state attorney general's office and that he has submitted detailed invoices and receipts for his work. Let's hold off on the jail sentences for Willis and Wade until we have something more substantial than feelings to go on, shall we?

The couple has already admitted to their affair and have apologized for it, but have denied that it influenced their decision to pursue the case against Trump. That's as far as we know. If you are going to suggest any sort of foul play, then the burden is on you to present the conclusive evidence. For now, your objections have just been a complete and utter waste of time and effort. So you can keep crying about the case until the cows come home, the fact remains that there is no evidence of any improper influence or interference from the federal government or any other party.

Serendipity2023:
SMA GOLD is about 30k today because of exchange rates. So are other baby items, food stuffs, transportation, medicals.

While salaries remained constant.

Our mothers managed resources and adjusted between plenty and lack.

I remember when my mum would take me to Ose Okwodu in Onitsha, Anambra, to buy yams, crayfish etc in bulk.
This was to save cost.

In plenty we slaughtered goats and made merry, dried some and kept.
We adjusted in lack.

There was equilibrium.

Some of us grew up taking pap and soy milk garnished with crayfish.

We all turned out fine with skin like miliki and full brain development.

In fact, my elder brother was almost expelled in school for taking too many first positions.

He was so precocious and smart that he declared his teachers du.mb, took SSCE in SS2 and gained admission to study Law at the university.

This same foods nurtured men like Chinua Achebe, Chuba Okadigbo etc.

We were physically fit as well.

WHAT ABOUT WOMEN TODAY?

They can't breastfeed exclusively because they don't want their breasts to fall. Of course, ashawo still dey their eyes.

They would rather feed babies with SMA gold, Aptamil, Peak 123 and nothing else.

No soy, no pap.

Most women today can't cook properly.

Most can't go to market to haggle and buy stuffs.

They would rather stay at home and order at outrageous prices online, further depleting scarce resources of their husbands.

They can't even push out babies because of unhealthy lifestyle and food choices.

They will have to rely on CS Operation and demand for push gifts thereafter as though they gave birth to Messiah.

They want expensive houses, cars, weavons, clothes just to keep up with the jonses and belong, even when their husbands can't afford it.

They end up pushing these men to crimes.

OP, there is absolutely no basis for you to compare economic hardship today to a romanticized past. It's true that our mothers back then were resourceful, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred access to modern conveniences if they had them. You are letting nostalgia bias cloud your thinking. The success of people like the great Chinua Achebe wasn't solely due to their childhood diet. With all due respect, that's a rather silly oversimplification. What about his talent and hard work? In tandem with access to quality education? Unless you have ulterior motives with your post, I don't see why you should readily handwave these factors away since they play arguably far greater roles than nutrition alone!

The problem with most people like you is that you're all too happy to make insensitive generalizations about the opposite gender. Plenty of women today are skilled cooks, savvy shoppers, and financially responsible partners. How does it make sense to paint them all with the same brush, in spite of the incredible diversity of experiences and choices modern women face? It's very easy for you to blame women for the economic woes in their families, but conveniently turn a blind eye to economic factors, systemic inequalities, and individual circumstances that bring about these societal problems. Your post reeks of thinly veiled misogyny.

The suggestion that women who choose formula feeding are somehow inferior mothers is borne out of pure scientific illiteracy. Both breast milk and formula can provide adequate nutrition for babies.

I'd advise you to stop letting nostalgia blind you to the realities of the present. Today's challenges are different, and solutions require nuance, not emotional finger-pointing.

cutecommend:
Jesus Christ is the way. Jesus loves you

Love is a beautiful thing, but I prefer to find my path through reason and exploration, not divine intervention. Thanks for the sentiment, all the same.

Well, well, well, isn't this a smorgasbord of logical fallacies served on a platter of historical amnesia? Painting entire cultures and their deities with such a broad brush demonstrates a profound ignorance of the rich tapestry of human belief systems throughout history. From the philosophical and scientific advancements of ancient Egypt to the artistic and cultural achievements of the Aztec Empire, attributing societal progress solely to specific religions betrays your staggering naivety on this subject. Furthermore, your assumption that because some societies with traditional religions haven't achieved the same level of technological advancement as the West, their deities must be inherently inferior, is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Factors like geography, resource availability, and historical circumstances play a far greater role in societal development than any specific religious belief system.

Perhaps the most stupid thing about your post is its' appeal to colonial apologia, conveniently ignoring the exploitation, oppression, and cultural destruction often inflicted by colonizers in the name of spreading their faith. The fact that you are all too happy to credit the technological advancements of the West solely to Christianity while ignoring the contributions of countless other cultures throughout history, shows that you are not only wantonly ignorant, but terribly insensitive.

Your "Jesus Christ is the way" rhetoric holds absolutely no weight. It's a subjective belief statement, not an objective truth. Instead of seeking to rank religions based on personal beliefs, don't you think a more constructive approach would be to appreciate the unique contributions each faith makes to the richness and diversity of human spirituality?

Adakintroy:
Open your mind.

Already ajar, just waiting for something interesting to peek in.

Adoption, is by the way borrowing a child of a man and a woman. In simple terms..it still the offspring of male female binary. So you still stuck with dependency.

This isn't about ownership, my dear. It's about creating families, not replicating biology. It's about love, commitment, and forging deep bonds that transcend the limitations of DNA. And yes, while adopted children may have biological parents, their adoptive family is the one they choose, the one that nurtures them, and the one they build a future with. As for dependency, we're all interdependent. It's the very fabric of society!

Surrogacy is a woman having a child for another couple..but still a man and woman binaries. Artificial inseminations are sperms of men into a female. Same male female order. Just different re twist. Yet you brought that up so like you found a glitch.

It's cute watching you express unwavering commitment to tradition, even in the face of inconvenient facts, but let me enlighten you. Surrogacy and assisted reproduction challenge the rigid binary you cling to, rather than enforce it. They showcase the beautiful complexities of modern families, where love and commitment, not rigid gender roles, dictate what constitutes a family. It's not about men and women fulfilling their "biological destinies," but about creating loving homes for children, regardless of the path taken. And yes, I brought it up because it dismantles your narrow argument about inherent bias stemming from procreation. Perhaps, instead of fearing possible "glitches" in your worldview, embrace them as opportunities to expand your understanding. If you really want to have this conversation honestly, you must be willing to engage with facts and logic, not outdated biological determinism.

You consider human evolution as something petty..independent of procreation. With a wave of hand you casually dispose it as nothing. See how you stepped over it as nothing. Human existence and continuity is tired to procreation. There are no evolution without procreation. Certainly no modern era.

What do you know about evolution really? I'm afraid you've mistaken evolution for a cosmic game of hot potato. It's not a relay race where the baton must be passed on at all costs. Evolution is a complex dance of adaptation and environmental pressures, not a linear march towards ever-increasing numbers. Suggesting that my stance on social issues somehow disrupts this grand evolutionary ballet is, well, let's just say it wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Besides, focusing solely on biological continuity paints a rather uninspired picture of human existence. Don't we, as a species, strive for more than just perpetuating ourselves? We create art, push the boundaries of knowledge, and build cultures that transcend mere procreation. To suggest that these endeavors hold no evolutionary value is not only shortsighted but frankly, a little insulting to the ingenuity of humankind.

Old stale information but true and who is responsible these? Male/ females. Not gays.

Attributing societal advancements solely to "male/females" erases the contributions of countless individuals who defy such rigid categorization. Intersex folks, non-binary individuals, and those existing outside the gender spectrum have all played vital roles in shaping the world we know today. You need to revisit your argument because it suffers from a distinct lack of nuance.

They are weak sterile and incapable of making meaning contributive progress. Only in times of social stability ado we need them. Pro gays laws are regressive laws as I said. In a count from zero to complexities they are static.

Pro-gay laws promote equality and basic human rights, something I would hope we can all agree is a fundamental good in any society. I suspect you'd be more comfortable in a bygone era, clutching your pearls and fainting at the sight of someone who doesn't conform to your narrow definition of normalcy. It's really unfortunate that your comments on this topic so far are rife with the same tired tropes used to marginalize countless groups throughout history, and if you are at all capable of honest introspection, you'd see how it speaks to your own baselines. I also find it hilarious how you boldly claim that LGBTQ+ individuals are incapable of contributing meaningfully to society. The LGBTQ+ community has consistently enriched the world with their talents and perspectives, from scientists to entrepreneurs and activists. Maybe you've simply chosen to ignore their contributions, blinded by your own prejudice.

isolate the whole gay community in an island and withing a century they all die off with no continuity. While heteros stay striving .

Frankly, your obsession with procreation as the sole measure of societal value is tiresome, and based on redundant ideals. Adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies are just a few terms that reveal the thoughtlessness of your hypothetical.

"Progressives" my royal ass!

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone clinging to the past to understand the value of progress.