this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
5 points (72.7% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won't automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety."

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

"Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won't have a stay [on enforcement]," he wrote.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

yet another post where the title says "Trump To Actually Be Held Responsible For Crimes Committed On Live TV" and the article is just people who ahve nothing to do with either Trump or the law guessing that someone could possibly do something with no idea as to whether anyone will actually do anything. It's raw speculation and it degrades the platform, but anything that says "Trump Good" or "Trump Bad" will of course get a million upvotes.

Feels like I'm back on fucking Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That article was quite the incoherent circlejerk

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Welcome to the new Newsweek. It's shit so consistently, I no longer click.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

To be honest, I find myself reading them more. Their goals are to drive clicks more than political ideals. It's garbage, but consistent garbage with minimal bias compared to most other options. At least you know where they stand...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Screw Trump but this whole article is nothing more than conjecture from two dudes on twitter. When the hell did stuff like this become news?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

When we stopped funding news

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

FTA:

"Thus NY AG James looks to be soon greenlit to execute on her $450 million judgment against Trump as if Trump posted no bond."

That was my #1 question in all of this, assuming a bond failure, does she get to go after $175 million in assets or $450 million?

Now we know...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Because we elected a black dude and holy shit did that break the right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Obama really did open the floodgates on all the racists. I guess I was really naive, but I had no idea there were so many racist everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

As a white guy with a beard in a blue collar industry, I'm shocked at what strangers will just assume I'm cool with hearing out of their mouths. They truly have no shame anymore. It's fucking wild.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

My colleagues and I are all mechanical or industrial engineers. We travel around the country to project sites. I'll be on a job site and hear all the trades guys saying the most vile shit. And be completely shocked I tell them to knock it off or I'll tell the general contractor to get someone else out.

The part that pisses me off the most though is how often they're union members.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Add tattoos. Yea. People are awful. "I like Alex Jones". I have never wanted to punch a coworker so much in my life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The way I respond is always 'neutral' but calling them what they are. So for Alex Jones I might say 'oh the dude who lied about dead kids?' the key is to sound neutral and then just disengage if they try to start a conversation about it. 'yea I don't care dude'.

'tate? The rapist and woman beater? OK.' just disengage on that topic. Make it see like you're stating a fact, because you are and there's no room for them to argue or engage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For real. It's like they completely don't get that it sounds so bad when you just stick to the facts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah: “Isn’t he the guy who [insert atrocious fact or quote from whichever asshole here]” either gets them confused, usually resulting in a “but Hunter’s laptop” response, no matter the topic. Or they quiet down and move on in my experience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I usually do the same thing in relation to donnie with magats that start up and don't know me - I don't engage on any of their latest insider ragebait too-online/too much Faux Cinematic Universe, and usually feign general uninterest in politics, but ask questions like - "Isn't Trump the guy that was convicted of rape?"

If I really want to go there and there are not children around, I'll ask if Trump isn't the guy that wants to fuck his own daughter? I do the same "many people are saying" tactic that donnie himself does and it usually shuts them right the hell up because if they want to start up with nonsense about Biden, I'll just feign ignorance about any of their latest poutrage porn that they consume all day and ask why they don't know that donnie wants to bang his own daughter.

For the magats that are terminally online/in their own little magat bubble, someone saying this in such stark terms really tends to shock them for a few minutes. They might be used to trying to debate "nice" liberals/leftists on their terms, or with their framing, or hoping they can flip it into a conversation about something else....

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My favorite is when racists say "We've had a black president so we can't be a nation of racists."

Like....somehow having a black president now makes it okay for all of the shit conservatives want to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They did it on CNN. I remember some Republican prick saying, "you know why we're not racist? Obama."

It just so happened that the racists got outvoted. Their party really seized upon being racists though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Oh, so did that repub vote for Obama, then? I realize that was on tv, but when I hear that IRL, I'll ask if they voted for Obama. If they did, could they explain why the hell we had the birtherism shit? And why donnie, who is king of the birthers, is the choice of the cons and how did he get into office?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The US failed to hang traitors in the 1860s and now here we are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

And again with the business plot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This all goes back to those neighborhood apps where everyone was openly racist. All around the time of BLM. Download anyone of them today to find out how racist your neighbors are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We never had a reckoning for slavery, for segregation, redlining, employment discrimination. Or any of the thousands of other racist touchstones of our country. In fact, far too many Americans still blame the victims and their descendants for the struggles they still experience. Too many Americans blame their own struggles on the victims as well. Obama opened no floodgates. These people were always wildly racist. They'd just not had such an opportunity to so vocally and visually demonstrate it.

My ignorance of just how much it permeated my childhood and young adult years was terrifying. Even colloquial phrases and sayings picked up in my youth were coded with racism. And with how little we promote understanding and learning. It's easy to see how so many getting called out for it rather than stopping to learn. Just push back and double down self-righteously. America is a wildly racist country, and always has been.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

It's to the point where some of them are now trying to find ways to make it worse to call someone racist than being a racist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I think that is indeed true - they got somehow even worse than they were before, but honestly, after Clinton, they would have done the same thing. They'd let a WAB like donnie the vain Manhattanite born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a 2-hour beauty regime get away with nearly anything, because they think he's a bigly strong businessman and one of them, lol.

They were spreading all kinds of BS in the 90s about Clinton and thought he should have been executed - and that's even before these weird freaks found out about the BJ. The fact that he "got away" with a BJ drove them up the wall.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Yeah but come on. He wore a tan suit once. What did you expect? It's like we were asking for this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

And the feet on the desk! And the latte salute!

Also, also, also! The looooooong form biiiiiirth sertifikate! We never saw it! He is the Kenyan usurper! And The Storm is still coming for Hillary and Obama and Hunter, by gawd.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Don't forget the terrorist fist jab.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

So did Reagan and both Bush’s but “that’s okay”. /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is what I come back to. The right's crazy was in check somewhat beforehand, but when Obama won it went off the cliff.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I just think they have a better megaphone now, and the liberal (lol) Big Tech seemingly has algorithms that prioritize engagement - and the crazy shit tends to get people angry and therefore, more engaged in, let's be honest, rehashes of John Birch Society and Protocols of the Elders of Zion levels of horse manure. Let's face it - there is very little new that's under the sun, it just gets new packaging.

They were crazy over the Clintons in the 90s. Hatriot radio didn't have algorithms though, and neither did USENET/BBSes or the very early web. Going further back, they didn't have Faux news or even BBSes; they had to stand out on a corner and try to hand out bullshit like Jack Chick tracts or Bircher literature. It'd be nice if they had to revert back to that level of spreading their nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Some went crazy before, but then the crazy took over when Obama won.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I definitely think they were able to be a lot more bold in their dogwhistles. I'd be interested in seeing surveys that had questions that serve as ways to suss out how it waxed and waned over the years...my guess is that their numbers may have actually gone down over the years, but they are more visible/have more influence in relation to their numbers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Remember when Bush was, what we thought, the lowest we could go? Dude is loveable by current standards.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I shudder to think what the repug party will manifest after donnie. It should be obvious that donnie did not make the repug party any different; they were always bad and on a trajectory of getting worse. People like Newt and Rush accelerated that for sure, along with platforms like hatriot radio and Faux "News".

I doubt they'll course correct after mainlining someone like donnie for years, they will be chasing that dragon ever after and will never settle for methadone like ronnie raygun or Bush Sr/Jr or Romney or McCain...I imagine at some point donnie himself will be declared "woke" or a "RINO", especially when I see him claiming he won't vote for a federal ban on abortion.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

Because he was found guilty in a civil trial and not a criminal one. Think of OJ, convicted of civil wrongful death but not murder in a criminal court. Lose money, but don't go to jail.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why is fraud against the state considered civil? It seems to be a crime for everyone else

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Not sure what answer you're looking for, but because the attorney general brought a civil case. Perhaps they couldn't prove criminal fraud, since criminal trials have a higher burden of proof. Perhaps they could satisfy certain elements of criminal fraud, but not all of them. Perhaps they could demonstrate that the actions (actus reus) took place but not the intent (mens rea) required. These would all be questions for the NY AG.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Edit: This article is garbage. Letitia James hasn't announced shit, this is reporting what some guys on Twitter are talking about. I wouldn't hold my breath until a better source reports about it.

The State of New York gets to collect on the entire judgement. That is the amount that the trial court found him liable for and that's the amount he must pay.

The bond amount being lowered only means that he needs to post that amount as a guarantee against the judgement in order to stop execution before he appeals. If he loses his appeal, he still needs to pay the full amount of the judgement. Since the bond was no good, it is the same as if he didn't post anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I often go to threads about Newsweek articles to see the discussion, but I never click the articles anymore. They're a total rag, and seem to have figured out that people on both sides will click an article saying Trump is going to get something that's coming to him.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Surely Hankey isn't offering up $175 million on Trump's behalf out of the goodness of his own heart. This is surely an investment where he can gain privileged access to the Trump administration if he gets into office again, maybe get some lucrative government contracts out of it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Shit, he offered to put in 475, but while on the call to set it up, trumps lawyers found out they got it lowered to 175, and told Hankey he was no longer needed.

Then had to go back for the 175 because no one legit would even know that.

It's very possible trumps lawyers knew a bond wouldn't work, but knew by the time that was found out, Hankey was on the hook.

It's a lot easier for trump to avoid paying Hankey than the government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So this article speculating a lot and discussing a couple of people who were speculating and discussing on Xitter? Wow this is worthless...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
  1. She was going to seize propert if no bond.

  2. This bond came in at the last second.

  3. A bunch of issues were found with the bond.

  4. A court ruled it's not valid.

  5. For some reason that means they have to pay the bond in cash, and trump has to cover the rest of the original?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A court ruled it's not valid.

Has this happened yet? all I've seen so far is the court asked the insurance co for more information, but no outright ruling on the validity.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A New York court has rejected Knight Specialty's paperwork and said it wanted to see more information on its financial backing. The company filed new paperwork on April 4.

It's my understanding that new paperwork didn't help anything.

Like, one of the issues was they weren't even licensed in NY, I don't know how paperwork could retroactively make it legal.

But while they can't promise to pay it under bond, they did sign something saying they were good for 175 million. And they don't have it.

So trump failed to post bond, and now they can seize property.

I think

Shits confusing and trump just says anything to delay this stuff. But I think if Knight doesn't cut a check for cash, they seize property up to what they couldn't out of the 175 million. Or maybe somehow the whole amount because he couldn't get the bond.

load more comments
view more: next ›