Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted

Someone probably explained this but how does this bond work? I get how a criminal bond works where the court keeps the money until you appear and if you do then they refund it. What happens here? If Trump loses his appeals does the bond company forfeit the money it put up and then have to go after Trump for it?

Posted
8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

So someone who Trump already owes a lot of money to just got him even more over a barrel.

So Axos may have had a choice, lose $175 million against book value right now, or potentially more on liquidated property right now.  They may well still lose the same amount a few months from now, but at least for now they are able to kick the can down the road a bit.  

Do I have that right?  

Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Someone probably explained this but how does this bond work? I get how a criminal bond works where the court keeps the money until you appear and if you do then they refund it. What happens here? If Trump loses his appeals does the bond company forfeit the money it put up and then have to go after Trump for it?

Yup.  That's why they're typically 100% secured with liquid, foreclosure-free assets.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So Axos may have had a choice, lose $175 million against book value right now, or potentially more on liquidated property right now.  They may well still lose the same amount a few months from now, but at least for now they are able to kick the can down the road a bit.  

Do I have that right?  

If they took his stake in a property they hold the note on as collateral if he loses they get the whole property. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So Axos may have had a choice, lose $175 million against book value right now, or potentially more on liquidated property right now.  They may well still lose the same amount a few months from now, but at least for now they are able to kick the can down the road a bit.  

Do I have that right?  

Possibly.  An execution-style foreclosure can be an even bigger clusterfuck than a mortgage foreclosure, so pushing that off could have some value.

Posted
5 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

If they took his stake in a property they hold the note on as collateral if he loses they get the whole property. 

The question with that would be is the bond is less than what they stand to lose against the building(s) if liquidated.  This may well be a case of either way we are screwed, but this is better for us sort of thing.  If they take control after the fact it opens options for them down the line.  

Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Knight Specialty Insurance Group, can't say I've ever heard of them, though if their website is anywhere close to accurate they are gigantic.  From just glancing around, they are big in the reinsurrance market, which I'll be honest, I really don't know anything about at all.  

Did a Summer job for a reinsurance company in Austin back when I was in undergrad. They deal with amounts of money that are staggering.

Basically, the way it works is... if you want to insure something huge, like an entire resort complex, no single insurance company can afford to insure the whole thing; if it goes down, it'll take the company with it.

So a primary insurer takes, say, the first $1M worth of claims. They're responsible for everything under that. Then, they sell the rest of the value of the thing to reinsurance companies. The next $1M-$50M will be held by another company; the next $50M-$200M by another, and so on until the whole thing is covered. The reinsurance companies cover more of the value, but pay fewer of the claims, and the risk is managed by being covered by a bunch of companies.

To give you an idea of the kind of money they deal with -- and remember, this is back in the 1990s -- hear this true story.

It's late July. I'm helping one underwriter (let's call him Andy) with a printer issue, and another underwriter comes in (let's call him Bob) because he lost $75M on a claim. Bob is whining that the owner is going to fire him over it, while Andy's reassuring Bob that he did the numbers right and that these things happen. Bob meanders off, and Andy turns to me and says, "He's being modest. He could lose that much every day for the rest of the year, and still come out ahead."

That's one underwriter, in late July, who could lose $75M every day of the year and would stll be ahead. At 1990s prices.

They deal with amounts of money that are staggering.

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

All it means is that he’ll actually have to pay when he loses his appeals. Makes it a lot easier than trying to collect the hard way.

No, it means Knight will have to pay.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

All it means is that he’ll actually have to pay when he loses his appeals. Makes it a lot easier than trying to collect the hard way.

Well only the bond amount. Court reduced bond to about 1/4 of the judgment. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

In our modern media landscape, truth can always be defeated by a firehose of falsehoods. And by golly, that's trump's signature move

Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

 

Just now, Captainant said:

In our modern media landscape, truth can always be defeated by a firehose of falsehoods. And by golly, that's trump's signature move

We probably need to rethink what the concept of media is, in general. The media as a concept of true information is dead. It's all just televised or digital entertainment. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics.   The stories are out there, but people have their own facts now.

 

News story from 2/12 of this year.  Also talks about why people don't think it's true

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

We probably need to rethink what the concept of media is, in general. The media as a concept of true information is dead. It's all just televised or digital entertainment. 

Well formerly trusted sources (read: MSM) stopped being about informing the public a long time ago and became another entity that exists SOLELY to generate a profit for its shareholders. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, locodos said:

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics..

I didn't say there was zero media coverage, but mainstream media outlets tend not to fact check these wild claims when he makes them.  Granted, they'd be fact-checking something pretty much every day, but it's part of the job description.

Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

Well formerly trusted sources (read: MSM) stopped being about informing the public a long time ago and became another entity that exists SOLELY to generate a profit for its shareholders. 

I know, that's what I'm saying. But even know, even posters like us who know this, still complain and say "oh, the media doesn't do shit." Even that statement still gives a gravitas, an expectation of "the media" that it absolutely doesn't fucking deserve anymore and we should reset accordingly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

We have an unprecedented ability to get accurate information from various media and non-media sources.  We just have to be vigilant and critical in how we process that information.

The blame lies with the voter.  Not 100%, but so much so that nothing else matters.

That's democracy's fatal flaw.

The left is banking on it working, the right is committed to finding an alternative.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Posted
18 minutes ago, locodos said:

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics.   The stories are out there, but people have their own facts now.

 

News story from 2/12 of this year.  Also talks about why people don't think it's true

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

I actually had a conversation with my old boss about this a few weeks ago. He was convinced all of the big cities were in the middle of a huge spike in violent crime. When I told him the actual statistics did not support his argument he told me "Oh yea, I have heard that, but it's just that the FBI has been under reporting the crimes."

How in the fuck do we deal with this? I know it's something that comes up on here daily, but how can you reach people like this if we can't even agree on a shared reality? This is a smart and very successful person - he just won't accept any data that doesn't support is priors. I just shook my head and laughed in his face.

  • Rage+1 8
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

We have an unprecedented ability to get accurate information from various media and non-media sources.  We just have to be vigilant and critical in how we process that information.

The blame lies with the voter.  Not 100%, but so much so that nothing else matters.

That's democracy's fatal flaw.

The left is banking on it working, the right is committed to finding an alternative.

I get this point, and somewhat agree to it. But we used to have guardrails to help the voter stay informed. So there is shit that can be done. But we set it on fire for corporate and personal profit. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In our modern media landscape, truth can always be defeated by a firehose of falsehoods. 

i started to read hamilton's reynold's pamphlet the other day and saw this in the intro.  the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Lies often detected and refuted are still revived and repeated, in the hope that the refutation may have been forgotten or that the frequency and boldness of accusation may supply the place of truth and proof. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

image.png.2b07317454343ad3c83549d8d5aecd04.png

 

I fully expect to have an order from a judge within the next months:

Judge Impotent expands the restraining order In Endless Trump Case #6 to include directly ordering the public to kill court officials, attorneys, clerks, family pets, and jurors. This follows the firebomb attack on a dog house in the yard of a jury foreperson. Police have started what will be an interminable investigation of whether the firebomb, which included an asbestos note saying "Trump ordered me to do this," is related to the attack. 

The burning dog asked, "why is this fuckwad not in jail awaiting the results of the trial?" Newspeople huffed about decorum and ex-president precedents, and lawyers debated the definition of firebomb.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

That's democracy's fatal flaw.


Democracy’s fatal flaw is that everyone who can fog a mirror gets the same vote.

Technology has laid this flaw bare.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

image.png.2b07317454343ad3c83549d8d5aecd04.png

 

I fully expect to have an order from a judge within the next months:

Judge Impotent expands the restraining order In Endless Trump Case #6 to include directly ordering the public to kill court officials, attorneys, clerks, family pets, and jurors. This follows the firebomb attack on a dog house in the yard of a jury foreperson. Police have started what will be an interminable investigation of whether the firebomb, which included an asbestos note saying "Trump ordered me to do this," is related to the attack. 

The burning dog asked, "why is this fuckwad not in jail awaiting the results of the trial?" Newspeople huffed about decorum and ex-president precedents, and lawyers debated the definition of firebomb.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But we used to have guardrails to help the voter stay informed.

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

truth GIF

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media outlets to not only cover controversial topics but fairly report differing viewpoints on those topics.  Given that the average American is loathe to actually read, this was a pretty effective way to reach the masses in an unbiased manner.  Whether this drove people towards the center is not particularly clear.

Of course, the FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and here we are, permafucked.

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media outlets to not only cover controversial topics but fairly report differing viewpoints on those topics.  Given that the average American is loathe to actually read, this was a pretty effective way to reach the masses in an unbiased manner.  Whether this drove people towards the center is not particularly clear.

Of course, the FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and here we are, permafucked.

 

 

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

 

I don't think the answer is / ever was forcing fairness in ideas.

 

I think the real issue is that while we've democratized voting and information (i.e. the internet), we've enacted incredibly un-democratic $ policy.

The trickle down economics /  tax cutting / $ = speech has allowed for a relative few to control and manipulate messaging.

 

I'd argue we were always as dumb as this. There just wasn't an ability to have so few controlling the message to persuade the dumbs.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
24 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

That's probably true, but I was trying to point out that the "guardrails" we had in place pre-cable news didn't necessarily drive people to the center as was asserted.  I don't think there's much evidence of that.  If there is, I'd like to see it.

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

Because these people never leave their trailer parks to see the world for themselves so they believe everything that’s shoveled at them by Trump. These dimwits are the exact reason why the GQP wants to dismantle the education system in this country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

Are guradrails limitations to the "truth?" Well, assuming we're talking about a Truth that isn't subjective...no. Facts, numbers, figurse, statistics, reporting that truth is...the fucking truth. And in a world of subjective topics, opinions, etc, yes, it can be limiting. And I couldn't give less of a company fuck if it is limiting, becuase we have limitations on all kinds of dangerous things these days. Speed limits, blood-alcohol limits. There's a reason some substances are controlled and you can't buy hydrochloric acid on the same aisle as vinegar. So as other's have posted with the "Cant handle the truth" bit, yeah. And I'm ok with that.

I agree with the rest of what you say about school, and no requirement to serve, etc. It's all true, we have no shared identity, and now that there are now guardrails, we don't even have shared truth. Our difference here is the subjective concept of what's best for society. And I'll take the gruadrails and pushing people to the center, thankyouverymuch. 

3 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

 

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

 

I don't think the answer is / ever was forcing fairness in ideas.

 

I think the real issue is that while we've democratized voting and information (i.e. the internet), we've enacted incredibly un-democratic $ policy.

The trickle down economics /  tax cutting / $ = speech has allowed for a relative few to control and manipulate messaging.

 

I'd argue we were always as dumb as this. There just wasn't an ability to have so few controlling the message to persuade the dumbs.

 

A smart society would pass law that would require all airwaves that are bought/leased/owned privately to follow a certain set of rules. So the concept that we'd be in the same place I reject, becuase this topic was that we could have guardrails. We COULD do something about this, but we don't. I don't know what the laws are elsewhere in the world, but I do know that Fox News doesn't act like Fox News as we know it in Europe, or Australia. Just here. 
 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm as full of disdain for for the people who support Trump as anyone on this website, but casually clasiffying them as people in trailer parks is dismissive, but more importantly dangerous. And it glosses over the true power this propoganda has had on American society. On my retired parents street, which is a retiree neighborhood, there are multiple doctors, succesfull businessmen, quite a few millionaires (or people with 2-3 homes), etc. And they all to a person vote for Trump and repeat all of the fucking lies. 40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park, but 40% love Trump. Dismissing them all as trailer trash is a mistake, imo. 

Yeah, I'm gonna quote myself on this one:

Quote

So I've posted this before, but Harper's published Who Goes Nazi in 1941. I think it's spot on and very revealing about the personality types that will support fascism. There's certainly more than one type, but the key takeaway for this discussion is that it typically takes a specific type of resentment that comes with achieving something but not receiving the social reward you think you're due. You see this with petty small business owners that think they're gods because they employ five people, you see it with aggy lawyers, etc. It's like a disease that is only found among the upper-middle class. That's what fuels fascism.

His base isn't the trailer park, it's College Station, Waco, Kingwood, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park,

Apropos of nothing, I laughed.  This almost implies 60% of Americans live in a trailer park.  (Yes, I know what you meant.)



×
×
  • Create New...