Many Blue States torch "rule of law" to satisfy TDS urges.

Author: Greyparrot
FBI
3 letter agency
FJB

Posts

Total: 66
Topic's author
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
1) trump isn't like you or me. He is a billionaire and it is his company applying for the loans. The loan process for him is not the same as the same process they would follow for you. 
Then you are extremely ignorant about how private banks work. Equifax and Experian apply to everyone, no matter what item walks into the pawn shop of loans. You might be thinking of a government institution where they just believe whatever is written on paper, but most certainly not a private bank. It doesn't matter who you are or what your name is, if a private bank loan officer approves a loan without asking for documents such as bank statements and credit history, they will be fired on the spot. It's not at all like a government institution where you just fill out a paper and you get money.
#32
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@HistoryBuff

I think what G is saying is "Make Slovenian Sex Workers Great Again!"
#33
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Oh I know, You Really Don't Care, Do You?
Topic's author
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Nobody asked for porn today. Take this into another forum please.
#35
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
He should be talking to Trump about his obsession with Trump's wife and Slovenian "sex workers" in general. He at least shares the interest and likes to talk about pussy grabbing.
#36
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yea, almost like it's not lying to pick a number on the high end of plausibility like everyone else in the universe does....
saying your apartment is 3 times larger than it is, is not "high end of plausible". It is fraud. Square feet are not negotiable. An apartment is the size that it is. Tripling the size of the apartment to triple it's value is not even questionably fraud. Saying mar-a-lago is worth 10 times what anyone else thinks it is worth is not plausible. His defense of why it was plausible was because some day he might make it into a bunch of different residences and that would make it worth more. But he hasn't done that, so it's irrelevant. And he legally can't do that because he signed a deal giving up that power in exchange for tax write-offs. So again, it's just straight up fraud.

That's why Fani Willis is going to jail along with Hilary Clinton.... oh wait... no "lying" suddenly means something quite different for those types.
No one is suggesting trump should go to jail for lying. He has lied thousands upon thousands of times. Probably hundreds in the last few weeks alone. No, the crime is lying on financial documents. Everyone knows that you are legally liable for them being accurate. Trump definitely knows that. He lied on them anyway. 

Or saying mar-a-lago is 10 times more valuable than it is (which trump also did).
False
He said it was worth 739 million dollars. Actual estimates say it is in the ballpark of 75 million. 

They cost banks around 100 million dollars.
False
lol, it is legally accepted fact in court. Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100? Or are you pretending like his fraud didn't cost them 10's of millions of dollars?

#37
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you are extremely ignorant about how private banks work. Equifax and Experian apply to everyone, no matter what item walks into the pawn shop of loans. 
Hey! you're actually right for a change! Good job! 

you have correctly pointed out why trump is guilty. Trump was required to report on his financials, by law, in order to apply for the loan. He lied in those financial filings. That is why he is guilty.

Me saying it is not the same for you as for him is basically everything else around that. When you fill in those documents, they question them much more thoroughly than they do for billionaires. The bankers testified that they relied heavily on the information trump provided. 
Topic's author
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
If that actually happened, the Bank would be suing the other banks that provided a false record, or be suing Equifax and Experian for providing false data.

Of course, that did not happen. The banks NEVER sued Trump for any document. Nor did the bank sue anyone else. There was no damage, no aggrieved party, and no fraud. The court should have zero standing in a private trade agreement between 2 willing parties. Period.

O' Leary was right when he said it is no longer safe for 2 private individuals to do consenting contractual business in New York anymore without the courts taking a side when nobody asked them to. Furthermore, the punitive fine is so obviously exaggerated beyond normalcy it makes it clear to all that this is a personal vendetta and not actual justice. It most definitely is not an application of the fair rule of law.
Me saying it is not the same for you as for him is basically everything else around that. 
Why stop at 400 million in damages.... when you could say.... 400 Billion! (insert Dr Evil laugh)
Topic's author
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

In this article, Hochul basically admits that the rules only apply to Trump. This is NOT a fair rule of law; it is rulership by fiat. People with a lot to lose will be nervous if there is no fair business environment. New York is now a place where a court could insert itself at any time if you support the wrong things and run for the wrong political offices.
#40
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
3) the ways in which he lied are harder to prove than if you lied to a bank. Like, how do you establish how much mar-a-lago is worth? It is a much harder question to answer than "how much is in your bank account" or "how much is your single family home worth". 
Yea, almost like it's not lying to pick a number on the high end of plausibility like everyone else in the universe does....
saying your apartment is 3 times larger than it is, is not "high end of plausible". It is fraud.
You pretended the context was different. Now restored. A little bit fraudulent of you.


That's why Fani Willis is going to jail along with Hilary Clinton.... oh wait... no "lying" suddenly means something quite different for those types.
No one is suggesting trump should go to jail for lying.
Yes that is exactly what you just suggested. Try not to lie about lying.


No, the crime is lying on financial documents.
Which is lying. Just like perjury is lying.


Or saying mar-a-lago is 10 times more valuable than it is (which trump also did).
False
He said it was worth 739 million dollars. Actual estimates say it is in the ballpark of 75 million. 

That's what 110 million dollars on that road looks like. 3.58 acres 12k square feet.

Mar o Lago is 62,500 sq ft with a lot size of 17 acres. That is not to mention the 5 tennis courts and a bunch of other stuff including the fact it's setup to be a resort and thus a business ready to go. Also the historical importance. Also the recent notoriety.

Let's do some math:

62,500 sq ft / 12000 sq ft = 5.208
17 acres / 3.58 acres = 4.749
~5

110 million dollars * 5 = $550,000,000

Lets adjust for inflation (fake numbers inflation is worse than this, especially in housing):
2018 - 2024 ~ $675 million

You should stop trying to perpetrate a fraud on the public.


They cost banks around 100 million dollars.
False
lol, it is legally accepted fact in court.
...and yet still false.


Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100?
I'm saying it's zero.


When you fill in those documents, they question them much more thoroughly than they do for billionaires.
Your brain on TDS: They do less verification when hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line vs hundreds of thousands.
#41
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
In this article, Hochul basically admits that the rules only apply to Trump.
Yea, I mean a lot of people already knew this is the way government works. Anyone who has dealt with county officials knows it's not about the law, it's about the path of least annoyance for them.

She basically just admits "Yea don't worry we won't do this to you if we think you're more honest than Trump (even if you do the exact same things Trump does because it's basic business to favor the higher estimates in collateral)"

That's their idea of "rule of law". It's what John Adams called "a nation of men, not laws"
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If that actually happened, the Bank would be suing the other banks that provided a false record, or be suing Equifax and Experian for providing false data.
what are you talking about? Trump submitted these documents directly to the bank. He gave them forms telling them exactly what he owned and a wildly incorrect value of those properties. 

Of course, that did not happen. The banks NEVER sued Trump for any document. Nor did the bank sue anyone else. There was no damage, no aggrieved party, and no fraud.
The banks didn't know he had defrauded them. And if they sued him, other rich criminals might decide to do their banking elsewhere. So it isn't in their interest to sue, even though he defrauded them and shorted them 100 million. 

I don't know how much clearer I can be. He cost the banks 100 million dollars. They gave him loans at better rates because he lied to them. That is damage. You keep repeating there is no damage, but you have yet to actually argue why you think that. Did he no lie to them? Did they not give him better terms based on his lies?

The court should have zero standing in a private trade agreement between 2 willing parties. Period.
this is incorrect. Those documents are legally binding. Filling them in correctly isn't optional. It is required by law. And the government has the authority to enforce those laws. Saying that it's fine for businesses to lie on these documents would be hugely damaging to the economy. 

O' Leary was right when he said it is no longer safe for 2 private individuals to do consenting contractual business in New York anymore without the courts taking a side when nobody asked them to.
I mean, he's right. It is not safe for 2 private individuals to do consenting contractual business while one of them is defrauding the other. And I don't see why anyone would want that to be safe. 

Furthermore, the punitive fine is so obviously exaggerated beyond normalcy it makes it clear to all that this is a personal vendetta and not actual justice.
It's not. Part of it is punitive, part of it is depriving trump of the profits of his crime. Defrauding the banks saved him 100 million. He used that criminally obtained money to make more money. The law says that both the originally ill gotten gains can be seized as well as the profits he made off of it. The punitive damages are also large, but only because he made them so. If he did what anyone else would have done and said, "oops, we made mistakes and won't do it again" he would have gotten off much lighter. but by saying he did everything perfectly while obviously having committed dozens of counts of fraud, he proved he would continue his criminal behavior. 
#43
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
saying your apartment is 3 times larger than it is, is not "high end of plausible". It is fraud.
You pretended the context was different. Now restored. A little bit fraudulent of you.
nope. Trump engaged in several kinds of fraud. I used 2 examples. 1 where he lied about the footage of his apartment and 1 where he lied about how mar-a-lago could be used and then said it was worth 10x it's actual value. 

Yes that is exactly what you just suggested. Try not to lie about lying.
nope. As in everything in life, context matters. If he wants to go on fox news and say he is king of the world, he is free to do so. No one will punish him for lying. But if you fill out a legally binding financial form and lie, now you can and should be punished. It's not that he lies, it's how and where he lies. 

That's what 110 million dollars on that road looks like. 3.58 acres 12k square feet.
you're comparing apples to oranges. Part of the reason mar-a-lago is worth less is that trump gave up the right to convert it into anything other than a club. He made a deal years ago to get out of paying some taxes. In that deal he gave up the right to change the property into something else. So you are comparing private residences to a club. they are not the same thing. 

Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100?
I'm saying it's zero.
what is your argument for that statement. Trump lied on those documents and massively over inflated his net worth. The banks used that inflated net worth to decide how much interest to charge him. Because he lied, they charged him less. That is why he lied to them in the 1st place. So how do you think you can justify that he didn't cost them money?
#44
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
1 where he lied about how mar-a-lago could be used and then said it was worth 10x it's actual value. 
I responded specifically to mar-a-lago. That's the point of quoting. So yes.


As in everything in life, context matters.
You don't wield the context magic, only Double_R has learned that power. Go train under him if you want to have the power to refuse to give examples.


That's what 110 million dollars on that road looks like. 3.58 acres 12k square feet.
you're comparing apples to oranges.
Houses to houses actually.


So you are comparing private residences to a club. they are not the same thing. 
Businesses are worth more. Commercial zoned land almost always costs more. Also it's his legal residence so it is impossible that it is illegal to live there.


Are you trying to say it was 90 million instead of 100?
I'm saying it's zero.
what is your argument for that statement.
They got more money from Trump than they gave to Trump. The sign of your answer is wrong.


Trump lied on those documents and massively over inflated his net worth.
Well only if you assume lies are true (75 million mar-a-lago clown-world)


So how do you think you can justify that he didn't cost them money?
Loss of a potential sale is not equivalent to losing money. Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't), assuming the difference was enough that he would have no other collateral to make up the value of the loan he was requesting, assuming that the bank was willing to lend without full value collateral at a higher interest rate, Trump could have just found a different bank or used multiple banks.
#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I responded specifically to mar-a-lago. That's the point of quoting. So yes.
ok. well that was still fraud. He tried to value it as if it was like 50 different houses on the property. Because theoretically a property could be sub-divided and sold that way. But he legally cannot do that. And he knows he cannot do that. He signed a contract. So saying it has a value of like 50 houses, when it isn't even 1 house is fraud. 

Houses to houses actually.
mar-a-lago isn't a house. It legally cannot be a house. It must be a club. If trump tried to shut down the club and live in it as a private residence, he would be violating his deal with the government.

Businesses are worth more. Commercial zoned land almost always costs more.
not in this context no. Because specifically it has to be a club. He can't open a factory or something. It's value can only be based on what it is worth as a country club.

Also it's his legal residence so it is impossible that it is illegal to live there.
he can choose to stay in one of the rooms there if he wants. But it isn't a "residence". It is a country club. it is a business. It can never be changed to being a residence. 

They got more money from Trump than they gave to Trump. The sign of your answer is wrong.
lol are you being intentionally childish? Let's say I sell you an apple for 1 dollar. It cost me 50 cents to buy the apple. You give me 4 quarters but one of them is fake. I still turned a profit, 75 real cents plus 1 fake coin. But i still made less profit than I should have because you defrauded me. The banks still earned a profit off their deal with trump. But their profit was 100 million less that it would have been if he hadn't lied to them. 

Well only if you assume lies are true (75 million mar-a-lago clown-world)
No one thinks it is worth what trump said it was. Even if he was right that he could subdivide it and sell it as residences (which he can't) it still wouldn't be worth the 740 million he said it was. And since he legally can't subdivide it, it is orders of magnitude less than he said it was. 

But if you don't want to engage with that example honestly, how about his apartment? He lied and said it was 3 times larger than it was. There is no getting around the fraud of that example. 

Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't)
you can literally go and check for yourself. It would take 5 minutes. Trump's lawyers didn't even deny that this happened.

assuming the difference was enough that he would have no other collateral to make up the value of the loan he was requesting, assuming that the bank was willing to lend without full value collateral at a higher interest rate, Trump could have just found a different bank or used multiple banks.
you're misunderstanding what he is doing. It isn't a matter of not having enough collateral to get a loan at all. It is a matter of getting better terms. If you have 1 billion dollars of assets and want 100 million in loan, you can almost certainly pay back the loan. The risk is low and so the interest rate they will charge is low. If you want that 100 million and you only have assets worth 500 million, the loan is riskier. So they would charge more interest. The reason trump was lying to the banks wasn't because he couldn't have secured a loan at all without lying. It was because he wanted lower interest rates on the loan. Paying, say 2% interest vs 4% interest saves millions upon millions of dollars when you are borrowing so much money. So Trump lied to trick the banks into offering him a lower interest rate. If they had known his actual asset values, he would have had to pay approximately 100 million dollars more in interest. So while they still made money, they would have made much more if trump hadn't defrauded them. 

* edit. Just an added note about trump and banking. He has limited options when it comes to banking. Many banks won't do business with him any more. He has a long record of being a shitty client. deutsche bank is the primary one that will still do business with him.
#46
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Businesses are worth more. Commercial zoned land almost always costs more.
not in this context no. Because specifically it has to be a club.
Clubs are no easier to build than houses. The value is enhanced by the potential income.


He can't open a factory or something.
If it was a factory it really would be worth less, however since it's an ultra-desirable area for residences and retreats houses are worth more especially if they are clubs too.


They got more money from Trump than they gave to Trump. The sign of your answer is wrong.
Let's say I sell you an apple for 1 dollar. It cost me 50 cents to buy the apple. You give me 4 quarters but one of them is fake.
No counterfeit money is being alleged. Analogy rejected.


No one thinks it is worth what trump said it was.
I know you don't consider people who agree with Trump to be human, but that's your problem.


Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't)
you can literally go and check for yourself.
How?


It isn't a matter of not having enough collateral to get a loan at all.
If he had enough collateral then there is no reason to lie.


It is a matter of getting better terms. If you have 1 billion dollars of assets and want 100 million in loan, you can almost certainly pay back the loan.
If a loan is fully secured with fixed long term assets it doesn't matter. The risk is infinitesimal and the only question is the underlying money market. When you put a house up as collateral they do not care how much money you make because the only thing that matters is whether they can recover the value on default.


He has a long record of being a shitty client.
You probably received that as gossip from Rachael Maddow types. Neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is in fact as if you had never said it.
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Clubs are no easier to build than houses. The value is enhanced by the potential income.
no. Most people do not want to live in a country club. So it has little value as a home, just as a business. Also, if it could be subdivided, the land could be sold as multiple homes. It can only be one club.

If it was a factory it really would be worth less, however since it's an ultra-desirable area for residences and retreats houses are worth more especially if they are clubs too.
you are just repeating back to me my point. It is a desirable area. But it cannot be made into residences. It can only be 1 club. That's it. no more, no less. that limits it's potential value.

Let's say I sell you an apple for 1 dollar. It cost me 50 cents to buy the apple. You give me 4 quarters but one of them is fake.
No counterfeit money is being alleged. Analogy rejected.
I was trying to find an example simple enough for you to grasp. The point is that trump defrauded them and cost them money. I'm not saying he specifically counterfeited money. But he did engage in fraud and cost them money. So this example was to help you understand how he both cost them money, and they also made a profit at the same time.

Assuming the 30k square feet thing is real (which I don't)
you can literally go and check for yourself.
How?
I mean, google "trump size of apartment". You can find all sorts of information about it. Including Trump's team not denying this happened. It's extremely public and reported on information. 

It isn't a matter of not having enough collateral to get a loan at all.
If he had enough collateral then there is no reason to lie.
I've explained this multiple times. He lied to get better terms on the loan. Especially lower interest rates. 

If a loan is fully secured with fixed long term assets it doesn't matter.
Except they were "secured" with assets that were over valued. Like using his apartment which he tripled the value of in order to secure loans. So the size of the assets was critically important. 

The risk is infinitesimal and the only question is the underlying money market. When you put a house up as collateral they do not care how much money you make because the only thing that matters is whether they can recover the value on default.
you're kind of making my argument. He took out loans but his assets weren't worth enough to cover the loans. the banks thought they were, because trump lied to them and told them they were, but they weren't. If something had gone wrong, Trump couldn't have actually repaid the loan because the assets were worth a fraction of what he said they were. 

He has a long record of being a shitty client.
You probably received that as gossip from Rachael Maddow types. Neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is in fact as if you had never said it.
It's also well documented. He had a reputation in the 1990's for stiffing his lenders. Most US banks wouldn't do business with him. He had to go to germany to get loans. Here is an article with some information about it. 

#48
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
that limits it's potential value.
In your opinion. Not Trump's or mine.


So this example was to help you understand how he both cost them money, and they also made a profit at the same time.
You used a false analogy to help me understand. Mission failed.


He took out loans but his assets weren't worth enough to cover the loans.
So you claim, but you also claimed that it doesn't matter if he had other assets to make up the purported gap. You can't have it both ways.


If something had gone wrong, Trump couldn't have actually repaid the loan because the assets were worth a fraction of what he said they were. 
The bank disagreed.


He had a reputation in the 1990's for stiffing his lenders. Most US banks wouldn't do business with him. He had to go to germany to get loans. Here is an article with some information about it. 
Give me an article from the 1990s if that's when it happened.

#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
There was no damage, no aggrieved party
I you learned that I had your grandchild in my backseat while I took the car to 120, would you accept "no one got hurt" as a reason to forget it and move on?
Topic's author
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Let me know when a cop issues a ticket for speeding in the amount of 400 million, just because the guy also wanted to reform the police department.
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Is there a reason you are dodging the question?
Topic's author
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Is there a reason you are denying the OP of this thread?
#53
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2


I liked the contrast of Kamala Harris's "dictators put journalists in jail" (paraphrasing)
Topic's author
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I saw that. A perp walk for a misdemeanor. A 400 million dollar fine for a process violation. Don't tell me this isn't a weaponization.
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Is there a reason you are denying the OP of this thread?
Yes, because the point made was nonsense. I just haven't had time to respond to it in detail, so I responded to one point you made by pointing out an obvious logical flaw. Any reason you continue to  tap dance around having to acknowledge it?
Topic's author
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
A perp walk for a misdemeanor. A 400 million dollar fine for a process violation. Don't tell me this isn't a weaponization.
#57
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Lying about your financial records is not a process violation, it's fraud. That's not a weaponization, that's how the rule of law actually works.

Topic's author
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Also a possible 8th amendment violation. Not that it really matters as the electorate isn't going to wait for the appeals courts to correct the TDS judges according to the polls. More free promotion for Trump. Maybe next time, don't weaponize the government if you want to win an election in a free country.
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
As usual, you have hot a single coherent argument, just repeated assertions of your original point while accusing others of TDS.

What's maddening is not the blatant disregard for facts, logic, and reason of people like you, it's knowing how many more people like you are out there making decisions on the direction of this country.

Topic's author
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I don't have to argue anything. The polls are the default position. It's like the Oracle in the Matrix. You don't actually have to take a side. The side is already chosen. You just have to understand why it is that way.