|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 29, 2024 6:16:56 GMT -5
Despite all the lies and charges Democrats have aimed at him Trump isn't impressed. Apparently he owns a website "Truth Social" or something like that. I've never been to it. Also apparently he listed it for stock sales, making it a public company a couple of days ago and the stock doubled gaining something like 3 billion dollars in value to him. Trump has now returned to the list of wealthiest people.
Some reporter at an interview asked Trump how he felt about the bond he has to post in one of the trials and he said he'd be honored to pay it. Then the idiot reporter asked how he was going to pay for the bond and Trump looked at the reporter, smirked and said "Cash".
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 29, 2024 8:34:50 GMT -5
 Keep drinking that Kool-aid, Bruce. Another billionaire buddy bailed Trump out on the Truth Social deal. The social media platform isn't worth anywhere near that by value of it's traffic. It was a gift from a friend. I'll agree that the NY case against him is WAY over blown. If it would have gone to a jury, he'd have been fined $100 Mil or much less. $450 Mil is absurd. Sure he lied and inflated value. But the loans were paid off. And it should be a bank's responsibility to do their due-diligence and question the collateral of any loan. If anything, the bank should be investigated. Even the Stormy Daniels payoff is just a tax avoidance issue and deserves a fine for shady bookkeeping. But it's not all that uncommon in NY business practices I would surmise. |
|
|
|
Post by John B on Mar 29, 2024 9:21:43 GMT -5
Even the Stormy Daniels payoff is just a tax avoidance issue and deserves a fine for shady bookkeeping. But it's not all that uncommon in NY business practices I would surmise. Not quite. From NPR (easier to cut and paste than to think for myself write out my thoughts): Not many in "NY business" have the same issue (election interference). And why should NY business practices be treated any differently than IN practices? I understand in IL it's pretty common to pay of inconvenient people, but not every state has Chicago. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 29, 2024 9:24:49 GMT -5
You stick with the Kool-aid. I'll stick with Scotch. Bernie Madoff got a 10million fine and he did commit fraud of a lot more than that. No one lost money with Trump. The banks made money and Trump's bills were paid with interest. None of the shit you believe about Trump is true. You know enough about real-estate, being an architect to know the seller wants more, the buyer wants less and the actual value of a property is whatever the selling price becomes. I never heard anything from a Democrat that turned out to be true so stack it neatly and cram it. I know what I had under Trump and I want it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 29, 2024 9:32:36 GMT -5
You stick with the Kool-aid. I'll stick with Scotch. Bernie Madoff got a 10million fine and he did commit fraud of a lot more than that. No one lost money with Trump. The banks made money and Trump's bills were paid with interest. None of the shit you believe about Trump is true. You know enough about real-estate, being an architect to know the seller wants more, the buyer wants less and the actual value of a property is whatever the selling price becomes. You're right about all of that. . . . , particularly about the Scotch !  |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 29, 2024 9:38:15 GMT -5
Even the Stormy Daniels payoff is just a tax avoidance issue and deserves a fine for shady bookkeeping. But it's not all that uncommon in NY business practices I would surmise. Not quite. From NPR (easier to cut and paste than to think for myself write out my thoughts): Not many in "NY business" have the same issue (election interference). And why should NY business practices be treated any differently than IN practices? I understand in IL it's pretty common to pay of inconvenient people, but not every state has Chicago. My apologies to Howard for demeaning NY. Yes, these practices are more common. And I get the Election Interference angle. But I will surmise that making such a big deal out of it (Stormy Daniels in particular) has backfired. It's galvanized Trump's martyr syndrome with those that are inclined to be against the perceived over-reach of BIG GOVERNMENT. |
|
|
|
Post by Moderators on Mar 29, 2024 9:41:56 GMT -5
Keep it civil.
In this hot-headed election year the moderators have no patience and no tolerance for incivility between forumites.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 29, 2024 9:49:33 GMT -5
... I know what I had under Trump and I want it back. If you are referring to your retirement portfolio, I don't get it. Markets are in record territory and investment returns are strong. So if there is anything you are unhappy about in the regard, it is whoever is in charge of your portfolio you should be upset with, not Biden. [there isn't a "Trump Market" or a "Biden Market", there is just "The Market", an ocean liner to a president's canoe paddle.] |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 29, 2024 10:05:51 GMT -5
... I know what I had under Trump and I want it back. I admit that I made the leap to the markets, you could have been referring to something else you had under Trump that is gone and you want back. Hair, for instance. Perhaps you have less hair now under Biden than you did under Trump and you want it back. I can understand that, but is it fair or reasonable to credit Trump or blame Biden for that? I had more hair when Nixon was prez than I do with Biden, but, it isn't fair or reasonable to blame Biden or credit Nixon for it. Or, it may not be hair. I don't know what you had under Trump that is now gone, but is it fair or reasonable to blame Biden for it? It might be, but it usually isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 29, 2024 10:09:31 GMT -5
... I know what I had under Trump and I want it back. If you are referring to your retirement portfolio, I don't get it. Markets are in record territory and investment returns are strong. So if there is anything you are unhappy about in the regard, it is whoever is in charge of your portfolio you should be upset with, not Biden. [there isn't a "Trump Market" or a "Biden Market", there is just "The Market", an ocean liner to a president's canoe paddle.] Well, when I look at a 4 year chart of my IRA within the first year of Biden I lost 60K. Now I'm only down 40K since the rebound last year but if y'all reelect Biden I'm expecting a crash like the 2008 crash that came with Obama. I lost 80K in that one and only recovered after Trump got in. I have a managed account with Fidelity which they gave me in 2012. Sometimes I think they're Democrats but they did get me back to what I had had and a few K more after 2018. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Mar 29, 2024 11:10:07 GMT -5
You Should of bought gold awhile back Bruce.I have no complaints.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 29, 2024 11:23:20 GMT -5
Catherine Rampell wrote about the Trump fraud case in a Washington Post opinion piece. Seems about right to me. " Donald Trump’s real estate empire shall live to grift another day. So declared a court Monday in ruling that the former president does not have to put up the full $464 million legal judgment against him while he appeals a civil fraud case.
Even so, that eye-popping sum has fueled criticism that prosecutors are pursuing Trump too zealously. The objections usually boil down to two arguments: First, that Trump’s white-collar cases are “victimless” and therefore not worth enforcement. And second, that every lawsuit and charge against him plays into his persecution narrative, thereby strengthening him as a presidential candidate.
Both criticisms are off-base, at least in a society that values rule of law."She explains why in the article. 'Two myths about Trump’s civil fraud trial' wapo.st/3PJ7hEd(gift link) |
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Mar 29, 2024 11:23:51 GMT -5
Sometimes the market dips. Sometimes it rises. I don't think it is contingent simply on who happens to be the President when these fluctuations occur. It is way more complicated than that. I have always been advised to look at it in the long term, and that lasts longer than four years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 29, 2024 11:30:11 GMT -5
"Sometimes the market dips. Sometimes it rises. I don't think it is contingent simply on who happens to be the President when these fluctuations occur." I read that it's been booming through the first quarter of the year. That's good news for me. I give Joe Biden total credit.  |
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 29, 2024 11:58:02 GMT -5
It’s kind of a catch 22 isn’t it.
We want stable candidates that are of sound mind, experienced, have demonstrated qualities of leadership, and are gifted with a personality that promotes unity and compromise. Not mentally flawed crackpots..
The massive exposure with the current cyber nutcase environment not only to the candidate but their families tends to make running appealing to mentally flawed crackpots.
That said I think Joe has never been the brightest bulb but has survived some of the most traumatic life experiences imaginable and is basically a good person with flaws that are within the spectrum of normality.
Donald was best described by Gen. John Kelly. The most highly flawed human being he had ever met.
As a centrist I would have strongly considered voting Republican this year with almost any candidate other than the apparent selection. I think there are a lot of folks like me. If both are still breathing In November I’ll vote for Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 29, 2024 13:06:51 GMT -5
YES!
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 29, 2024 13:08:48 GMT -5
YES, YES, YES!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marty on Mar 29, 2024 13:34:48 GMT -5
"Sometimes the market dips. Sometimes it rises. I don't think it is contingent simply on who happens to be the President when these fluctuations occur." I read that it's been booming through the first quarter of the year. That's good news for me. I give Joe Biden total credit. What I hate about these elections is that I always end up having to vote for the lesser of the evils. And if some truly honest candidate wins they will get maligned, harassed and eaten alive buy the controlling political parties. We haven't had a honest President in office for over 60 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Hobson on Mar 29, 2024 13:54:22 GMT -5
I really wanted Nikki Haley. And not because she's a woman. I might vote for her as a write-in. If I vote for either of the two major party candidates, I'm sure I won't feel good about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 29, 2024 15:27:38 GMT -5
Looks like I'll have to vote for the one sentient being.
|
|
