Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 12:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I understand your mentality, but like i said with the GA case. 
When you go after Trump, get your effing Ducks in a row. Fanni blew that opportunity to put him down, now it's all turned against her.

But in the New York case when the court has their ducks in a row and wanted the paperwork filed properly you said:

(04-04-2024, 11:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sounds like someone is nit-picking and trying to find a way to get the money into a place where they have jurisdiction over it and can take it right before the appeal verdict so they can tie it up and keep it from Trump if he wins... Not sure how all that works, just putting my 1+1 together as to how this whole case has gone.

I mean, I get the feeling that everything that goes against Trump is iffy and everything he does is making mountains out of mole hills.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: But in the New York case when the court has their ducks in a row and wanted the paperwork filed properly you said:


I mean, I get the feeling that everything that goes against Trump is iffy and everything he does is making mountains out of mole hills.

I believe in NY he will be fined, but it'll be much lower than what the courts are requesting. 
I can almost guarantee you that you won't see another case like his even though there's likely plenty to choose from... Which just fits the narrative that they were only targeting Trump.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 12:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I believe in NY he will be fined, but it'll be much lower than what the courts are requesting. 
I can almost guarantee you that you won't see another case like his even though there's likely plenty to choose from... Which just fits the narrative that they were only targeting Trump.

I'll just go back to what I said about Trump a long time ago:

He was able to do whatever he wanted in NY.  His family name was established and no one would go after him because he had the money and time to delay everything until the other guy gave up.

Then he had to have the big spotlight and run for POTUS, and when the bright lights got on him all the little dark secrets jumped right out.  And he can't outspend or outwait the government.  State or Federal.

That's why he is running again.  If he wins he can make the federal charges go away and if he loses he can claim its all because of politics.  

He did most of this to himself.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll just go back to what I said about Trump a long time ago:

He was able to do whatever he wanted in NY.  His family name was established and no one would go after him because he had the money and time to delay everything until the other guy gave up.

Then he had to have the big spotlight and run for POTUS, and when the bright lights got on him all the little dark secrets jumped right out.  And he can't outspend or outwait the government.  State or Federal.

That's why he is running again.  If he wins he can make the federal charges go away and if he loses he can claim its all because of politics.  

He did most of this to himself.

No idea what you said a long time ago, but yes, he did it to himself as he's not a socially friendly person. 
Obama could have done the same, but he's much more friendly so people would probably ignore it if he did.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 12:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No idea what you said a long time ago, but yes, he did it to himself as he's not a socially friendly person. 
Obama could have done the same, but he's much more friendly so people would probably ignore it if he did.

What ifs get you nowhere.

Trump has always done this AND he was sloppy about it.

He got caught.

Just like someone who speeds all the time and never gets a ticket vs someone who got caught because they had the bright red car.

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 12:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No idea what you said a long time ago, but yes, he did it to himself as he's not a socially friendly person. 
Obama could have done the same, but he's much more friendly so people would probably ignore it if he did.

Trump doesn't make it as president if being unfriendly wasn't his "thing" either.  The perception that Obama was an overly friendly doormat (despite bombing the shit out of people) opened the door for this "We need a guy who isn't afraid to break the rules and bust some heads for our benefit" mindset that led to Trump beating Hillary...who was also perceived as an unfriendly rule-breaker who did terrible things...hmm.

Well, you get my point.  If I had a nickel for every person who played the "nice guys and goody two shoes don't make good presidents" card in defense of Trump but also talks about what rotten mean nasty people the Clintons and Biden are I'd have at least enough for one of those spicy crispy potato tacos from Taco Bell.  

(04-05-2024, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: What ifs get you nowhere.

Trump has always done this AND he was sloppy about it.

He got caught.

Just like someone who speeds all the time and never gets a ticket vs someone who got caught because they had the bright red car.

Getting caught and being overtly sleazy is part of his game, though.  That's why people who love him really LOVE him...they are at the point where they are defending him and making excuses for him.  Anyone who has ever been the abusive bastard partner in a relationship knows that once your partner starts fighting with their family on your behalf, you've sufficiently taken hold.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: What ifs get you nowhere.

Trump has always done this AND he was sloppy about it.

He got caught.

Just like someone who speeds all the time and never gets a ticket vs someone who got caught because they had the bright red car.

What if's?? LOL Life if full of What IF's but if that's the game you want to play. I can definitely return the favors

[Luvnit2]

(04-05-2024, 01:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump doesn't make it as president if being unfriendly wasn't his "thing" either.  The perception that Obama was an overly friendly doormat (despite bombing the shit out of people) opened the door for this "We need a guy who isn't afraid to break the rules and bust some heads for our benefit" mindset that led to Trump beating Hillary...who was also perceived as an unfriendly rule-breaker who did terrible things...hmm.

Well, you get my point.  If I had a nickel for every person who played the "nice guys and goody two shoes don't make good presidents" card in defense of Trump but also talks about what rotten mean nasty people the Clintons and Biden are I'd have at least enough for one of those spicy crispy potato tacos from Taco Bell.  



Getting caught and being overtly sleazy is part of his game, though.  That's why people who love him really LOVE him...they are at the point where they are defending him and making excuses for him.  Anyone who has ever been the abusive bastard partner in a relationship knows that once your partner starts fighting with their family on your behalf, you've sufficiently taken hold.

Liberals like you will never understand Trump voters because you close your mind and take the Democrats talking points, including they are a "cult" You are a Trump hater, so you buy all the BS from he is Russian Spy to he is a sleaze ball since he is a billionaire.

A Trump supporter sees 4 years of a Trump presidency versus 3 + years of a Biden Presidency. It is very simple; it is all about the economy.  Former Biden team are not telling the truth. The Biden economy killed the young voters, killed black and Hispanic voters. if you dive deep into the Biden job numbers, you will find that more illegal immigrants have received jobs (at less pay) than American citizens. The unemployment report is a mirage. Powell said as much yesterday in an interview on why he can't lower interest rates.

Democrats like you love to speak on emotion, but never want to discuss policy. In 2016, liberals said Trump would get us in another World War, but it is Biden on the brink of getting us into a war. 

Trump supporters are simple people, we want a POTUS:
1. Put America first always, Trump does it, Biden does not.
2. Keep taxes low, trump did it, Biden is proposing a tax hike and refused to attempt to keep the tax cuts under Trump in place.
3. Create jobs, for citizens, not illegal immigrants.
4. Force migrants to enter the country lawfully. We believe in legal immigrants; we hate illegal immigrants jumping line to force their way into our country. Biden created a mess by removing 92 executive Trump immigration executive orders in his first 100 days in office. For 3 years Biden told us the border was secure. Only now in an election year and because of the chaos in sanctuary states and cities the Biden administration admits, we have a border crisis. 
5. Trump supporters want energy independence to allow the country to lower inflation and drive prices down so everyone can enjoy a better economy. 
6. We believe in policies to keep interest rates low to buy a house or a car. High inflation causes interest rates to rise.
7. We believe in law and order. Illegal immigrants break the law and are allowed back on the streets with no bail. Laken Riley is just one example of Biden's poor immigration and poor law and order policies making our country less safe. 
8. We believe in free speech.
9. We believe in beating politicians at the ballot box, not in the courtroom. 

I am open to debate Trump policies versus Biden policies. But why does Biden refuse to debate his policies in unscripted interviews. Sage Steele just revealed her 2021 ESPN interview was scripted, she was not permitted to veer off script. Biden's team help ESPN write the script. Why do Biden supporters not demand he do interviews with Fox News or any news organization without a script, without knowing the questions ahead of time?

Trump will do a town hall or interview anytime and anywhere. Biden's hiding should scare the hell out of everyone. Who is really running the country? Biden recently sent out a message on "X" on Easter promoting transgender day. He was asked about it, he said he never did that. He was likely telling the truth, whoever is pulling the puppet strings probably sent the message, Joe had no idea the message existed. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 03:24 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Liberals like you will never understand Trump voters because you close your mind and take the Democrats talking points, including they are a "cult" You are a Trump hater, so you buy all the BS from he is Russian Spy to he is a sleaze ball since he is a billionaire.

Every time you post a long-ass reply to something I said I make it through the first sentence where you tell me I'm a dime a dozen dumbass who is brainwashed and then I tune out.  You either don't know how to actually engage in a meaningful debate with someone or you just need to convince yourself that everyone who doesn't like Trump is a 100% ultra liberal without a dissenting thought in his brain.

[Arturo Bandini]

There's not much to discuss with people actually proudly displaying a 'F*** your feelings' flag.

Is there ?

[Dill]

(04-04-2024, 07:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So you don't see the Democrats disdain for Constitutional law as a threat to democracy in and of itself? If you consider it a threat from one side whose demonstration that condition as a threat, how can it not be the same when the other side does likewise?  After all, we are talking about both sides of the same coin.

No, Sunset. 

I don't think "the Democrats" as a party have a disdain for Constitution law, or the Constitution. They are, at the moment, part of our front-line protection of it.

They are not the side which stormed the Capitol or submitted false electoral votes to overturn an election, now a party of millions solidly behind the leader who did that. A autocrat now threatening the families and lives of those holding him accountable to rule of law.

So your question just puzzles me. What are the Dems doing "likewise"? What are you counting as examples of "disdain."

Disdain which rises to the level of a threat to democracy?  I don't get it.

The last person in justifying bothsidesism to me on this topic was conflating rule of law with law and order, and pushing the latter:
the kind of argument used to justify autocracy--a strong leader needed to restore the latter.

[Dill]

(04-04-2024, 07:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The 2nd Amendment will never be to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.  That's the entire point of it and that's what you anti-gun "liberals" completely fail to understand.  I'm in favor of every single law abiding adult (i.e. not a convicted felon) who wants one to be able to own a firearm.  

Armed minorities are harder to oppress.

You forgot to explain WHY the 2nd Amendment will never be to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.

Will that leader's followers say "Well, we are not supposed to use guns to install our leader in power, so we'd better not"?

Wonder how much the set of primed up 2A supporters overlaps with the set of primed Trump supporters?  



Please don't tell me you've already explained this "numerous times."

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 05:03 PM)Dill Wrote: No, Sunset. 

I don't think "the Democrats" as a party have a disdain for Constitution law, or the Constitution. They are, at the moment, part of our front-line protection of it.

They are not the side which stormed the Capitol or submitted false electoral votes to overturn an election, now a party of millions solidly behind the leader who did that. A autocrat now threatening the families and lives of those holding him accountable to rule of law.

So your question just puzzles me. What are the Dems doing "likewise"? What are you counting as examples of "disdain."

Disdain which rises to the level of a threat to democracy?  I don't get it.

The last person in justifying bothsidesism to me on this topic was conflating rule of law with law and order, and pushing the latter:
the kind of argument used to justify autocracy--a strong leader needed to restore the latter.

In order to "save" democracy, you are trying hard to strip Trump of his assets and send him to Jail. 
Isn't that like how some of those other types did to their Political Rivals? 

And that's just getting warmed up. I have to jet out for a while, but i'll circle back around after you've digested that and find an excuse.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2024, 05:27 PM)Dill Wrote: You forgot to explain WHY the 2nd Amendment will never be to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.

No, I didn't forget.

Quote:Will that leader's followers say "Well, we are not supposed to use guns to install our leader in power, so we'd better not"?

Possibly.  Will the armed citizens who aren't their followers follow suit under such conditions?

Quote:Wonder how much the set of primed up 2A supporters overlaps with the set of primed Trump supporters?  

I'm sure you do, since you have the typical far leftist view of gun ownership.  One of my better friends is a left leaning black man.  We hit the range as a group fairly often.  He would scoff at your assertion.  As would Bel, if I may deign to speak for him with knowledge of his stance on this position.

Quote:Please don't tell me you've already explained this "numerous times."

Calm yourself, Dill.  Don't be the obnoxious person you claim to dislike.

[*pally*]

(04-05-2024, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: What ifs get you nowhere.

Trump has always done this AND he was sloppy about it.

He got caught.

Just like someone who speeds all the time and never gets a ticket vs someone who got caught because they had the bright red car.

Trump pissed off Michael Cohen...the man who knew where the proverbial bodies were buried. Trump's infamous 1-way loyalty came back to bite him in the ass.  As the old saying goes "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

[SunsetBengal]

(04-05-2024, 05:03 PM)Dill Wrote: No, Sunset. 

I don't think "the Democrats" as a party have a disdain for Constitution law, or the Constitution. They are, at the moment, part of our front-line protection of it.

Really? I find that sentence to be laughable at best. If the Democratic Party were the front line of protection of the Constitution, why are they always attempting to squash people's rights granted in the 1st and 2nd Amendments at the State and local levels? As well as infringing upon earnest citizens rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by initiating such policies as doing away with cash bail, putting criminals right back out there to do harm to the hard working, tax paying portion of our society?

[*pally*]

(04-05-2024, 06:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Really? I find that sentence to be laughable at best. If the Democratic Party were the front line of protection of the Constitution, why are they always attempting to squash people's rights granted in the 1st and 2nd Amendments at the State and local levels? As well as infringing upon earnest citizens rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by initiating such policies as doing away with cash bail, putting criminals right back out there to do harm to the hard working, tax paying portion of our society?

How have Democrats interfered with the 1st amendment at the state and local level?  I know that many red states have passed laws limiting free speech under the guise of "protecting" children.  They are censoring books going so far as to threaten librarians if they won't play book police for conservatives.  There are state legislatures who are blatant about the "Christian" bent of their legislation.

As for the 2nd amendment, wanting reasonable restrictions such as universal background checks, a waiting period, restrictions on people making violent threats having weapons, and restricting high-capacity magazines is not anti-2A.  It is using a common sense approach to increasing gun violence recognizing that the words in the amendment were interpreted in a much different way for a majority of its existence and understands that today's weapons can do far more damage than the muskets in use when it was written.

I'd love to hear some specifics 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-05-2024, 07:06 PM)pally Wrote: How have Democrats interfered with the 1st amendment at the state and local level?  I know that many red states have passed laws limiting free speech under the guise of "protecting" children.  They are censoring books going so far as to threaten librarians if they won't play book police for conservatives.  There are state legislatures who are blatant about the "Christian" bent of their legislation.

As for the 2nd amendment, wanting reasonable restrictions such as universal background checks, a waiting period, restrictions on people making violent threats having weapons, and restricting high-capacity magazines is not anti-2A.  It is using a common sense approach to increasing gun violence recognizing that the words in the amendment were interpreted in a much different way for a majority of its existence and understands that today's weapons can do far more damage than the muskets in use when it was written.

I'd love to hear some specifics 

I'm not wasting my time pulling dozens of links, simply to show you what the world sees.  Just enter "1st and 2nd Amendments being trampled on by these governments" into your search bar, you'll be amazed by the volume and severity of the results that you will see.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2024, 06:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Really? I find that sentence to be laughable at best. If the Democratic Party were the front line of protection of the Constitution, why are they always attempting to squash people's rights granted in the 1st and 2nd Amendments at the State and local levels? As well as infringing upon earnest citizens rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by initiating such policies as doing away with cash bail, putting criminals right back out there to do harm to the hard working, tax paying portion of our society?

Nailed it!  The modern left is the absolute biggest threat to our oldest Constitutional protections.  One need only look what they are doing in countries that used to be bastions of Western freedom such as Canada, the UK and Australia.  They're imprisoning people , literally taking away freedom, for having and voicing an "offensive" opinion.  They're cancelling your bank accounts for daring to oppose them.  I have zero truck with the 01/06 rioters.  But the biggest threat to our freedoms as we've had them since the enacting of the Bill of Rights is the far left, and it's not even close.  

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-polling-suggests-kids-are-not-alright-free-speech




"Progressivism" is a disease entirely at odds with basic Western freedoms.  Note this graph is about allowing a person who is "anti" the topic to speak.  Looks like the conservatives are the tolerant ones, not the "liberals".  Modern liberalism is not liberal, it is fascism hiding under the bloody skin of what used to be actual liberalism.  Conservatives have their issues, to be very sure, Charlottesville as one extreme example.  But the above is far more insidious as it is far more pervasive and it is far more accepted.  


Sorry, what passes for the far left these days.  You are not the good guys, you're the baddies and even old school, died in the wool liberals like Bill Maher are waking up to it.  And I say that as a hard core centrist, in the true sense of the word. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2024, 07:06 PM)pally Wrote: How have Democrats interfered with the 1st amendment at the state and local level?  I know that many red states have passed laws limiting free speech under the guise of "protecting" children.  They are censoring books going so far as to threaten librarians if they won't play book police for conservatives.  There are state legislatures who are blatant about the "Christian" bent of their legislation.

Keeping certain books out of a school library, especially for middle school and younger children is not an assault on free speech.

Quote:As for the 2nd amendment, wanting reasonable restrictions such as universal background checks, a waiting period, restrictions on people making violent threats having weapons, and restricting high-capacity magazines is not anti-2A.  It is using a common sense approach to increasing gun violence recognizing that the words in the amendment were interpreted in a much different way for a majority of its existence and understands that today's weapons can do far more damage than the muskets in use when it was written.

So many talking points crammed into one paragraph.  You've certainly learned the script.  Universal background checks require a national gun registry.  A national gun registry is illegal.  Not only that but such registries are already used to confiscate "banned" firearms"  Why were they banned, because of cosmetic features completely unrelated.  Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms.

What is a "high capacity magazine?"  Also, since we're at it, what is an "assault weapon?"  "Common sense" if used as something other than a talking point would dictate that we imprison career criminals, who account for the vast majority of gun related deaths.  Yet, for some reason, the Dems don't do this, leading to events like the recent murder of a NYPD officer by two career criminals released with no bail.

Also, your last point is blatantly false.  The Framers allowed people to own the most modern of military hardware, including actual warships.  Everything you regurgitated here is Dem gun control 101, all talking points, zero knowledge and zero substance.