Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Trump last week: "100% of the black people should vote for Trump because I did more for black people than any president

Trump 3 days ago: "Any Catholic that votes for this numbskull [Biden] is crazy. Because you're being persecuted."

Trump today: "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves."
 

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 



This is a winning strategy from now to November. The Democrats just keep need to keep saying "Trump keeps asking if we are better off than we were four years ago.  Let's take a look at 4 years ago today.  4 years ago today, the supermarkets were in chaos as people were fighting over toilet paper"  or whatever horrendous thing happened on this date in 2020.  Just keep repeating that Trump keeps asking if we are better off than we were four years ago. I'll bet Trump doesn't ask that question again, but, yeah .. it was four years ago this week that COVID hit in earnest, so every day over the next 6-8 months four years ago is going to have really sucked. Just keep bashing Trump over and over with "better off than you were four years ago?"

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Trump last week: "100% of the black people should vote for Trump because I did more for black people than any president

Trump 3 days ago: "Any Catholic that votes for this numbskull [Biden] is crazy. Because you're being persecuted."

Trump today: "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves."

9a92b658-434c-491e-a267-6263cea10d77_tex

Posted (edited)

I’ll never understand the constant refrain of “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Most people at any given time will be better off, promotions, raises, having kids, moving to bigger houses, etc. but especially when four years ago we were hit by a once in a lifetime (fingers crossed) pandemic, so regardless of politics, yeah we’re all pretty much way better off. Add in that he unquestionably made the pandemic worse, and I don’t get who that line is supposed to appeal to, except the mouth breathers who already worship him.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I’ll never understand the constant refrain of “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Most people at any given time will be better off, promotions, raises, having kids, moving to bigger houses, etc. but especially when four years ago we were hit by a once in a lifetime (fingers crossed) pandemic, so regardless of politics, yeah we’re all pretty much way better off. Add in that he unquestionably made the pandemic worse, and I don’t get who that line is supposed to appeal to, except the mouth breathers who already worship him.

He’s trying to leverage inflation. Gas was probably cheaper 4 years ago, as were many food items. But that’s also mostly a constant and has nothing to do with the president. 

Posted (edited)

So Trump’s lawyers just so happened to pick 30 woke surety companies?  I didn’t realize that the financial services industry was so full of woke companies.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted
36 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He’s trying to leverage inflation. Gas was probably cheaper 4 years ago, as were many food items. But that’s also mostly a constant and has nothing to do with the president. 

I couldn’t buy toilet paper four years ago. 

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I couldn’t buy toilet paper four years ago. 

And that inflation looks worse when you are Trump and just make up current prices like 6 dollar gas and 10 for a dozen eggs. 

Posted
3 hours ago, 'stache said:

I’ll never understand the constant refrain of “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Most people at any given time will be better off, promotions, raises, having kids, moving to bigger houses, etc. but especially when four years ago we were hit by a once in a lifetime (fingers crossed) pandemic, so regardless of politics, yeah we’re all pretty much way better off. Add in that he unquestionably made the pandemic worse, and I don’t get who that line is supposed to appeal to, except the mouth breathers who already worship him.

Were women, LGBTQ, minorities, and BIPOC less visible four years ago?  Well then things must have been better.

Posted
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Oh I get it. Jews are supposed to be vote as a monolith. But it’s bad when black voters do that 

And when they do vote as a monolith in support of Israel, that's evidence of their disloyalty to America. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Yep.

Quote

“The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

“It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

“As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

A statement that Trump was liable for rape, including the COMMON USAGE of the term (that is, it's not limited to the narrow statutory definition of NY law), was 100% true.  As supported by a finding of a court.  In a matter in which Trump was a fucking party, so he damned well knows about it, and it may even arguably be res judicata on the matter (truly, I have no idea how that plays in the anti-SLAPP context, as I've never seen such a circumstance).

The motion for summary judgment and for fees should be following in rapid fashion.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

A statement that Trump was liable for rape, including the COMMON USAGE of the term (that is, it's not limited to the narrow statutory definition of NY law), was 100% true.  As supported by a finding of a court.  In a matter in which Trump was a fucking party, so he damned well knows about it, and it may even arguably be res judicata on the matter (truly, I have no idea how that plays in the anti-SLAPP context, as I've never seen such a circumstance).

The motion for summary judgment and for fees should be following in rapid fashion.

Who told Dotard it was a good idea to sue ABC?  You don't fuck with THE MOUSE, especially if you can't afford to do so.  Trump is about to have done to him, what he has been found liable of doing to others.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

He has also been living off of Trump license fees and management fees on the properties. 

Not a bad way to support a lavish lifestyle, but not so great for building wealth or liquidity. Most of us could do it but he can't. He relies on greater fool theory when he finally sells the property for that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If so...I eagerly await Habba Dabba Do's signature song....

 

Her next dance is right after someone says, "Next up on the main stage, give it up for Alina!" 

Posted
4 hours ago, Constant said:

This is turning into a bad reboot of Schitts Creek. 

Bizarro Schitts Creek! where everyone is mean and horrible and stupid and you hate them all. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, mchookem said:

Bizarro Schitts Creek! where everyone is mean and horrible and stupid and you hate them all. 

So its like watching NFL draft coverage?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I have to say I didn't believe she could seize something out of NY state but maybe so.

image.png.0a575c45815425dc6cd123775391148e.png

I think I read it's held by a NY-based LLC.  Food for though, Don-Don: don't shit where you eat.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

Trump’s team has sought out wealthy supporters and weighed what assets could be sold, and fast. The presumptive GOP nominee himself has become increasingly concerned about the optics the March 25 deadline could present, especially the prospect that someone whose identity has long been tied to his wealth would confront financial crisis. https://cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/trump-bond-deadline-panic/index.html

Edited by Jive Turkey
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I think I read it's held by a NY-based LLC.  Food for though, Don-Don: don't shit where you eat.

Guess it depends on the "seizure" mechanism. Traditional "execution" involves sending a sheriff or other such officer to a property to be executed upon. S/he confirms ownership by a defendant/judgment debtor and then commences a "Sheriff's sale" of the property. 

That would seem to be territorially limited by the jurisdiction of the officer. 

I have tried plowing through the NY statutes to see what they have got, but it is a bit of a slog. 

Normally, I would think you would have to domesticate the judgment in Florida and use Florida's procedures to seize/sell the property. 

It is true that James CAN seize Mar a Lago, but I don't think it will be particularly easy and maybe not a priority. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Guess it depends on the "seizure" mechanism. Traditional "execution" involves sending a sheriff or other such officer to a property to be executed upon. S/he confirms ownership by a defendant/judgment debtor and then commences a "Sheriff's sale" of the property. 

That would seem to be territorially limited by the jurisdiction of the officer. 

I have tried plowing through the NY statutes to see what they have got, but it is a bit of a slog. 

Normally, I would think you would have to domesticate the judgment in Florida and use Florida's procedures to seize/sell the property. 

It is true that James CAN seize Mar a Lago, but I don't think it will be particularly easy and maybe not a priority. 

Under the judgment, they would have oversight of some sort over the LLC, correct?  That might make things flexible.  I haven't dealt with this end of the law in some time, thankfully.

Posted
25 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Yeah, but it would be funny as shit, which is why she should do it if she can.

image.png.44cd34e489edd2247fec704f8330f9d0.png

That Eric rider is gonna torpedo his opportunities.

  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Under the judgment, they would have oversight of some sort over the LLC, correct?  That might make things flexible.  I haven't dealt with this end of the law in some time, thankfully.

I dunno.  At one time, long ago, I was pretty up on judgment collection in Texas and federal courts.  Not so much anymore, particularly in NY, and state entities often have things available that private parties don't.

And, although I am responding to you, I am explicating things you probably already know for the benefit of the thread.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

So Michael Dell just sold $465M worth of Dell stock.  I'm sure it's a coincidence, given how far in advance that had to have been planned.

 

My real concern is that Trump starts an Onlyfans, in which case, I think Dell should just give him the money to take it down, lest the screen grabs show up on IPIHB.

  • Haha 2


×
×
  • Create New...