The latest Prosecuting Donald Trump is a discussion of more or less this topic, led by Chris Hayes. He starts by comparing what happens to a random who steals $500 in copper wire from a construction site (gets criminally charged) to a developer stealing $50k from a contractor by just refusing to pay (maybe gets a civil suit brought against him).
1 Like
I think this is the best way to get him. It shows how stupid he is thinking he can add a clause to a document that says you shouldnât believe anything else in this document and that allows him to lie. I hope the fine is so big he has to auction off some of his properties to pay it. That would hurt him more than going to prison.
It depends on if enough people cause enough harm vs the good created by positive use.
How much risk of ruin does there need to be before something should be made illegal? Overstating values of assets to get a loan increases the risk that if the bank runs into problems it will not have the ability to get out of trouble. Also, I think loans are a zero sum game. If I loan you a dollar I canât loan that dollar to someone else. So if you get a loan based on bogus assets you are preventing someone with valid assets from getting a loan. How much of that is alright before it needs to be regulated?
1 Like
Rich people getting loans effectively multiplies their wealth temporarily. Multiplying their wealth multiplies their power. Maybe we should make it harder for the wealthy to increase their power.
I think Trumpâs humiliation from the two NY cases finding him to be a fraudster and rapist is underestimated. Anyone with a functional brain knows heâs just a criminal. I donât think anyone has ever been as beat up in the courts so consistently.
Iâm still waiting for the new political science model: âActually, voters are dumb as rocks and insane to boot.â
I mean, this has basically been the UP consensus since inception.
Itâs really hard for me to buy into the âcourts are workingâ narrative unless and until heâs either bankrupt, in jail or both.
Ok Susan Colins.
1 Like
I get where youâre coming from but itâs kind of hard to write a law where lying to a bank in a significant financial transaction is OK, but making fraudulent representations to some random citizen is an actual crime.
Hereâs another way to think of it. If someone at a Trump rally came out the crowd and killed him with a bullet to the head, I wouldnât exactly be broken up about it, but I would still think that person should be prosecuted for murder. Murder is murder even if it happens to someone you donât like. And if you try and miss, thatâs a crime too.
Similarly fraud is fraud even if it happens to someone you donât like.
2 Likes
most of the media running this without explicitly saying Trump is speaking at an anti-union place in connection with the anti union right to work coalition is exactly how we got trump v. 1.0 and how we could still manage to get trump version 2.0
every outlet should be highlighting that heâs doing the exact opposite of biden.
3 Likes
The look of utter satisfaction on his face after he lands that zinger is so good. You know heâs workshopped that on his family and has been so excited to share his geniusnwith the world.
1 Like
But then it wonât be an ultra close race we have to keep our eyes on for the next 13 months and they wonât make any money.
1 Like
lol they are absolutely not âvictimsâ when they approve shady-ass loans to scam artists.
That was in response to this being a victimless crime. I think the only party hurt by the fraudulent activity is the banks giving the loans, so the banks would be considered victims. My whole point was that I donât actually care about them.
The actual victims are the various contractors and other schmuks Trump has ripped off over the years. DB was hoping to get a piece of that action and instead got double-crossed because of course. Theyâre victims in the same sense that the bank robbers in The Dark Night were victims.
I donât know why you think I disagree with that statement.