CURRENT EVENTS July 31-Sept 27

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 62K
  • Politics 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ramrouser said:
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did.
Click to expand...
This is false. The whole point of laws like this one is that lenders often feel as though they cannot sue people in power. Not just lenders -- any contract claimant. Look at what Trump is doing now. Who is going to sue him and then feel the wrath? This was a big problem in city government during the machine politics era, and IIRC this law was part of the reform that reduced the corruption in cities. Cities always have trouble protecting against corruption, because there are so many opportunities and they can be hard to detect.

That's why it falls to public authorities to police the public good.
 
Ramrouser said:
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will adapt his position. In any event, Trump just had over a half a billion in fines wiped away due to an unconstitutional disgorgement order by the Trump hating trial court. Who cares about the injunction? Does Trump really care about serving on any boards of NY companies in the immediate future?

No matter how you slice it, it's a damn good day for Trump.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? An appellate decision upholding Trump's liability for fraudulently cooking his company's books is a "damn good day" for Trump? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you say things like that?
 
Ramrouser said:
Doesn’t seem like a big deal although I’ve never set foot in a Cracker Barrel.
Click to expand...

A significant part my job requires traveling to manufacturing/processing facilities in very remote/rural areas. It can be difficult to find a decent meal, but there is usually a CB and a Hampton Inn on many a rural exit throughout the SE US, where I do most of my traveling. The food isn’t gonna wow you…but it is decent and consistent.
 
superrific said:
This is false. The whole point of laws like this one is that lenders often feel as though they cannot sue people in power. Not just lenders -- any contract claimant. Look at what Trump is doing now. Who is going to sue him and then feel the wrath? This was a big problem in city government during the machine politics era, and IIRC this law was part of the reform that reduced the corruption in cities. Cities always have trouble protecting against corruption, because there are so many opportunities and they can be hard to detect.

That's why it falls to public authorities to police the public good.
Click to expand...
Except his lenders had no reason to sue him since their loans were repaid in full. I've always had a hard time understanding the purpose of the lawsuit (other than lawfare) because it's not like the AG was protecting some consumers from Trump's companies (no victim). Deutsche Bank is a sophisticated big boy who could independently determine the value of Trump's assets in order to determine whether to lend him money and would never blindly rely upon any of his financial statements. It is perfectly capable of entering into a voluntary commercial transaction without the protection of the State.
 
TigerBTM said:
A significant part my job requires traveling to manufacturing/processing facilities in very remote/rural areas. It can be difficult to find a decent meal, but there is usually a CB and a Hampton Inn on many a rural exit throughout the SE US, where I do most of my traveling. The food isn’t gonna wow you…but it is decent and consistent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, didn't mean to dump on it because I'm not a food snob. I was just relaying I was generally unfamiliar with the decor of the restaurant.
 
lawtig02 said:
Wait, what? An appellate decision upholding Trump's liability for fraudulently cooking his company's books is a "damn good day" for Trump? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound when you say things like that?
Click to expand...
I would imagine you would like to make the phone call to your client reporting that you just received the decision of the appellate court for the brief you filed and the court just wiped away a 500M fine imposed against you. But, unfortunately, the divided court left standing the civil fraud judgment which prevents you from serving on a corporate board of a New York corporation for the next few years while you're President of the United States.
 
Ramrouser said:
Except his lenders had no reason to sue him since their loans were repaid in full. I've always had a hard time understanding the purpose of the lawsuit (other than lawfare) because it's not like the AG was protecting some consumers from Trump's companies (no victim). Deutsche Bank is a sophisticated big boy who could independently determine the value of Trump's assets in order to determine whether to lend him money and would never blindly rely upon any of his financial statements. It is perfectly capable of entering into a voluntary commercial transaction without the protection of the State.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe in the law. Do you know how many people would sc banks for loans and pay them back if they had the chance…but laws exist for a reason.

They can manage risk correctly if he just tells the truth.

Why do you think he lied? do you think you should be able to provide banks false information for loans yourself too?
 
Ramrouser said:
I would imagine you would like to make the phone call to your client reporting that you just received the decision of the appellate court for the brief you filed and the court just wiped away a 500M fine imposed against you. But, unfortunately, the divided court left standing the civil fraud judgment which prevents you from serving on a corporate board of a New York corporation for the next few years while you're President of the United States.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. I'd be on the verge of vomiting while making that call. Because I lost, and my client would know it.
 
Ramrouser said:
Yeah, didn't mean to dump on it because I'm not a food snob. I was just relaying I was generally unfamiliar with the decor of the restaurant.
Click to expand...

No worries…didn’t take it that way…just know that if you are ever in the middle of nowhere, you may have options.
 
It feels like we're at this place.

Scene 1 --

Trump Administration -- We're going to nationalize key economic sectors and put undesirables in concentration camps.

MAGA- WOOHOO!!!

Everyone else - uhhhhhhh???

Scene 2 --

Trump Administration -- "Look if the Indians want to cut their dick off and be a women fine by me…If a women in India wants to be a Man go for it…But my tax money shouldn’t be paying for it . . ."

MAGA, including TAr1978Heel -- WOOHOO!!!

Everyone else -- "WHAT THE FUCK????"
 
Ramrouser said:
Except his lenders had no reason to sue him since their loans were repaid in full. I've always had a hard time understanding the purpose of the lawsuit (other than lawfare) because it's not like the AG was protecting some consumers from Trump's companies (no victim). Deutsche Bank is a sophisticated big boy who could independently determine the value of Trump's assets in order to determine whether to lend him money and would never blindly rely upon any of his financial statements. It is perfectly capable of entering into a voluntary commercial transaction without the protection of the State.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know your background as it relates to commercial real estate lending. I worked for over 20 years for one of the largest CRE lenders in the country and have originated in the billions of dollars of loans. The reason for the laws against fraud isn't because nobody was hurt in this particular case or because the lenders are "big boys". The reason is if every borrower was allowed to provide fraudulent information then when there is a downturn those flaws would make the downside correction even worse. Think about the great financial crisis in 2008 - mortgage fraud where buyers simply lied on their applications and the "big boy" banks didn't care because they were getting bonuses (and in many cases offloading the risk through MBS) made the crisis much more acute.

If borrowers feel emboldened to lie about their financials and lenders look the other way because they are getting fat bonuses it creates systemic risk for all of us.
 
CFordUNC said:


Okay, I lied, I can't quit because I can't stop laughing at right wing weenies acting like the friggin Cracker Barrel logo change is some horrendous existential crisis
Click to expand...

Are their any other restaurants/stores that would cause a Republican meltdown if they changed their logo?
 
Ramrouser said:
Another one bites the dust
Click to expand...
Ramrouser said:
I like Justice Friedman, especially his comment that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated they could have sued him themselves, and none did. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will adapt his position. In any event, Trump just had over a half a billion in fines wiped away due to an unconstitutional disgorgement order by the Trump hating trial court. Who cares about the injunction? Does Trump really care about serving on any boards of NY companies in the immediate future?

No matter how you slice it, it's a damn good day for Trump.
Click to expand...
This take is just ... weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top