Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

If Trump had so much wealth then it seems he has back taxes to pay.

[Breccia]

If Trump had so much wealth then it seems he has back taxes to pay.

Indeed, that's been the NY AG's stance this whole time. You cannot give two different values to two different official sources and pretend they're both right. Team Trump (including Eric, and you know how much trouble you're in if Eric Trump is leading the charge) has been saying "all the loans were paid off" -- a statement that's false, many loans are ongoing -- but, yep, if that's admission that the loans and insurance were based on "real" values of a billion dollars, then he had assets worth a billion dollars and lied by, what was it, 2300%? Meaning it doesn't matter if he paid those loans off, he didn't pay his taxes off, and there are laws against that sort of thing.

And bear in mind, the records spanned decades. Trump is a serial offender. Oh, and a serial tax offender, too.

I don't know which would cost less, admitting the loans were false but the taxes were correct, or admitting the taxes were false but the loans were correct. The current lawsuit is about fraud, so it's possible Trump won't have to pay any back taxes, because his properties were really worth far less than he told the people he was scamming. But you're right: if the properties were worth as much as he told the tanks, then he lied to NYState, and Trump's accountants are already looking for the fire escape.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to quote more Cohen, just to get the max value of a CNN point.

Cohen said that damages trial is likely to be the end of Trump’s businesses, as losing business licenses means that the operations have to shut down.

“As a result of the receivership, those companies will end up being liquidated, especially now that this case is no longer solely about … liability. The judge has already determined that the fraud existed,” Cohen said.

He also said the suit going after Trump’s business empire is the most effective way to legally attack the former president.

“If you want to get to Donald, the way to do it is through his bank book,” he said. “It’s not by saying he’s a narcissistic sociopath or that he’s definitely not 6’3” and he’s not 215 pounds. You go after the wallet. … Once you start hitting that bank book, that’s what really gets to him.”

“The one thing Donald Trump is so good at is delaying the inevitable,” Cohen added. “Donald is incapable of fault.”

Trump has derided the ruling, attacking both New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and the judge in the case. In lengthy statements Tuesday, Trump claimed that the judge did not account for the value of his personal brand in assessments of his worth.

Cohen argued that argument holds little merit.

“When it comes to the value of the brand, sure there’s a value of the brand. What’s the value of the brand now? Obviously significantly less,” Cohen said. “But if you’re talking about the asset, what does the brand value have to do with overinflating the square footage of your primary residence by triple on 5th Avenue, to 33,000 square feet, when the unit is actually 11,000 square feet?”

“What does the brand value have to do with claiming it’s worth $15,000 a square foot or whatever he put down onto it, when in fact nothing in the entire area, that building for sure, even approached a price-per-square-foot even in that stratosphere?” he continued.

Indeed, it's possible to make the argument that, based on recent trends, Trump's brand is literally worth less than nothing.

[Jastall]

I feel like Trump being a fraud is news to nobody. He has a long and rich history of very shady dealings and creative accounting. There's three camps of people; those who know but don't care (likely thinking every politician/businessman is a fraud anyway, or that he's politically useful so it doesn't matter to them), those extremists who are informed of such but reject reality to replace it with their feeling that he's actually a hard-working red-blooded straight-shooter because he tells them what they want to hear about the Democrats being bad people, and the ones who do know and care about it but wouldn't vote for him anyway so it doesn't matter that much to them either.

All of Trump's legal troubles so far, including being liable for sexual assault, have hardly even dented his approval rating, because controversy does nothing to Trump due to the above reasons. I'm not sure even being a convicted felon will tank his approval in a truly significant manner.

[Breccia]

I feel like Trump being a fraud is news to nobody.

Yes, but don't forget that Trump has intentionally created an audience of people who refuse to admit they made a mistake. Having the proof of that smeared over their eyeballs will get to enough of them. It only needs to be a few percent to change a few states. And we know it can and has happened, because even with expanded 2020 voting meaning more people voted in 2020 than 2016, a lower percent voted for Trump. Even when it was easy to vote, they still didn't do it. Or, at least, not enough.

Yes, the extremists will still go and yes, the people who would literally vote for Hitler if he was pro-life would go, but the people drawn in by Trump's projected image of being a wealthy, powerful, brave man are seeing the FBI march into his own home, seeing him dragged to court, seeing him flake on the debates, and shortly, might see him selling off chairs and office supplies just to pay his back taxes. That's going to be demoralizing to them, to have spent 8 years worshipping someone they now have proof even they can't ignore was a giant phony the whole way. It might not be enough to force a public confession, but it might be enough to keep a few sulking at home with the lights off during the election.

By contrast, going to jail will have the opposite effect, in that people won't vote for him, but it'll be the classic conservatives. At some point, even a pro-life old-school Republican won't vote for a convicted felon. Again, doesn't need to be all of them, just enough of them, and that's not that many.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of people turning on Trump:

1) Wall Street Journal knocks Trump for ‘ducking’ GOP debates

Yeah the WSJ has a paywall I haven't figured out a good way around yet, so I'm using that third-party source stuff. Long story short, apparently, Murdoch's WSJ says Biden is down in the polls because Trump is hiding like a scared little schoolgirl. Once he is actually in public, everything he does will be every headline -- and most of what Trump does is bad news.

Many voters may have forgotten what it was like to hear from, and live with, Mr. Trump day after day. As President, Mr. Biden gets more attention now, and Mr. Trump is ducking the GOP presidential debates.

But if Mr. Trump is nominated again, his every word will get attention. That’s the baggage Republicans will carry — and the reason Democrats think even Mr. Biden can win.

Or, to put it another way,

What if some crank does and decides to shoot Gen. Milley in his retirement?

It's a fair question, Trump does support violent terrorism, after all. Trump cheering his violent criminal cultists on, possibly from behind bars, is "baggage" that, yes, the GOP has learned to live with, but the high has long since worn off, and more people will line up to vote against terrorists than for them.

2) Pence, as we all know, is afraid to say something unless his wife is in the room.

She went on CBS News and flat-out said Trump isn't a Republican.

“I think the president has stepped away from those conservative foundations, and you see it in a lot of the things that he’s been saying recently,” she said, adding that the shift was her husband’s inspiration to run as a “true conservative.”

Pence said if people listen closely to what Trump has been saying, they will raise questions that it is different from what he said five years ago. She said the job for her and her husband is to get people to listen more to what Trump has been saying and recognize the shift.

“That’s our job tonight at the debate. That’s Mike’s job to get his message out, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here today,” she said, referencing her appearance on the show.

That "our" is a big deal. The GOP at least pretends to be the party of traditional family values. Mrs. Pence is taking a stance that strongly indicates her husband will follow: convincing Republicans that Trump is not thinking of the party, but himself.

And, before you say "oh, it's just Karen Pence, who cares?" my response will be "Where's Melania?" Trump is skipping the debates to crash a UAW party nobody invited him to. I'm not sure it'll be shown live on anything except Newsmax.

(checks news)

Huh, I can't find who's showing it. C-SPAN, maybe? This Reuters article says he'll meet "hundreds" of people, and that's just pathetic. You could meet hundreds of people more directly by joining the picket line.

Trump's event, in contrast, will be held at a non-unionized auto supplier called Drake Enterprises, and UAW leaders will not be involved. Trump has sought to drive a wedge between union leadership and rank-and-file workers, arguing that he would better protect their jobs and boost wages in a second term.

To date, the UAW has declined to support either presidential candidate, making it the only major union not to back Biden.

The UAW, however, plans to release a video on Wednesday highlighting the shutdown of General Motors (GM.N) Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant in 2018, including criticism that Trump failed to prevent it, according to a person familiar with the union's plans.

Trump's address to workers comes a day after he was hit with his latest legal setback, when a New York judge found he and his family business fraudulently inflated the value of his properties and other assets.

During Trump's 2017-2021 White House term, his administration generally sided with businesses over the interests of workers, though some of his trade policies were aimed at protecting domestic manufacturing jobs.

Little is Trumpier than saying "Biden doesn't support unions, I do" at a factory that hires scabs. It's pathetic, really. But it's secondary to the massive craven coward move of refusing to debate people he keeps saying he's beating. Right now, Mike Pence's wife is a better debater than Trump. At least she's in the right zip code.

[Edge-]

https://themessenger.com/politics/tr...e-claws-report

Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, who is a practicing teetotaler, accidentally got drunk on White Claw hard seltzers during a meeting with the Office of Management and Budget director, according to a memoir written by Meadows' former aide.

The New York Post reported that Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows' aide who rose to prominence during the January 6 Commission's public hearings, detailed the incident in her new memoir, titled "Enough."

"My head started feeling funny, and I look down at the can and I saw that it was alcohol," said Meadows in Hutchinson's re-telling. "I’m drinking alcohol on a Monday morning and I’ve never had a drink before.”

Meadows had three cans of the drink in quick succession before realizing the hard seltzers were alcoholic.

rofl

I don't really have anything further to add, I just think this is fucking hilarious and emblematic of Meadows as a fuckin idiot. Where the fuck were they meeting, and why were there alcoholic drinks available early on a Monday morning?

Real though, rofl

[Breccia]

why were there alcoholic drinks available early on a Monday morning?

Write down the names of five people who would voluntarily work for Trump in 2020 without being drunk.

In other news: in the Trump Org fraud trial, Trump's lawyers tried to argue the values of their properties were much higher, because even though there were restrictions on them ("you must use this as a golf club, like you said you would in the application") for tax benefits, they could ignore those restrictions.

No really, they said in court they would just ignore them, making the properties much higher in value.

The judge was having none of it.

This argument is wholly without merit. At the time in which the defendants submitted the SFCs, the restrictions were in effect, and any valuations represented to third-parties must have incorporated those restrictions; failure to do so is fraud

Also, they tried to argue that, someday, somehow, their properties would stop being rent-controlled, which increased their value. The judge pointed out, hopefully rolling his eyes, that that hadn't happened yet.

The SFCs are required to state ‘current’ values, not ‘someday, maybe’ values

Maybe the judge needed the hard seltzers on Monday morning to put up with this bullshit.

Also, this just in, Chutkan responded to Trump's motion for recusal with "why?" The motion was dismissed as without merit, and also, Chutkan accused Team Trump of judge-shopping. Joke's on her! Trump lost his business license and can't go shopping!

[postman1782]

Everyone said he was flat out unelectable in 2016 too.

They were wrong then.

What makes you right now?



Which is the reason you shouldn't take him losing for granted.

He won in 2016.
He came close in 2020.
He could win in 2024.

He has only lost support since 2020. Especially since Jan 6th. He lost about a million voters from Covid alone, millions left in 2020 from Jan 6th. The only reason that the polls show him ahead or even, is because they oversample Republicans, and its only Boomers that really answer those polls.

I get calls from them once in a while and if I answer them, I tell them I will not be voting Republican, and hang up. The problem is, they can't count that, because I didn't answer even part of their shitty questions.

[Shkar]

I don't know which would cost less, admitting the loans were false but the taxes were correct, or admitting the taxes were false but the loans were correct. The current lawsuit is about fraud, so it's possible Trump won't have to pay any back taxes, because his properties were really worth far less than he told the people he was scamming.

In a just world, the punishment (at least on the scake Trump did it on) would be the worst of both categories, plus fees and interests. He fraudulently claimed his properties were worth X? He pays taxes on X.

Admittedly, I'm not sure how to punish him the other way. Maybe the creditors get to take the difference?

[Egomaniac]

He has only lost support since 2020. Especially since Jan 6th. He lost about a million voters from Covid alone, millions left in 2020 from Jan 6th. The only reason that the polls show him ahead or even, is because they oversample Republicans, and its only Boomers that really answer those polls.

I get calls from them once in a while and if I answer them, I tell them I will not be voting Republican, and hang up. The problem is, they can't count that, because I didn't answer even part of their shitty questions.

I'll ask you the same question I keep on asking others...would you be as happy to learn you are wrong as I would be to learn that I am? It's a question that no one has actually answered yet...maybe you'll be the first?

I am not saying Trump will win. I am saying you shouldn't be celebrating him losing...until he has actually lost.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Everyone said he was flat out unelectable in 2016 too.

They were wrong then.

What makes you right now?



Which is the reason you shouldn't take him losing for granted.

He won in 2016.
He came close in 2020.
He could win in 2024.

"But 2016!" is a wild consideration when if one dives into those polls people always like to lean on, while the support from his base is stronger than ever, it's weaker than it's ever been amongst centrists.

If he does win, it will be due to massive election interference from Russia/Saudis for whom Trump being president is a big boon. They'll squash all attempts to investigate the interference (like they did for 2016 with burying and defunding investigations) and American Democracy will effectively be at an end.

Is there anything you or I can do about this as individuals? Not really.

Oh yeah good news, they've ordered the Trump Org to be dissolved. As Breccia has pointed out, the lie that he's a great businessman really carried him a lot in 2016. His lies are crumbling all around him. And again, we've got a lot of probable convictions coming down the pipe, and while all of them might not stick, it's highly likely that many of them will. Plus he's already a convicted rapist. Not that conservatives care about any of this, but I have to reitarate - we don't care how riled up the base is. It's the centrists/moderates that matter.

[Egomaniac]

"But 2016!" is a wild consideration when if one dives into those polls people always like to lean on, while the support from his base is stronger than ever, it's weaker than it's ever been amongst centrists.

I'm going to ask you again...

Would you be as happy to be proven wrong as I would be?

[postman1782]

I'll ask you the same question I keep on asking others...would you be as happy to learn you are wrong as I would be to learn that I am? It's a question that no one has actually answered yet...maybe you'll be the first?

I am not saying Trump will win. I am saying you shouldn't be celebrating him losing...until he has actually lost.

There is even less of a chance of him winning now, than he did in 2016.

[Breccia]

Donald Trump’s low-energy, incoherent ‘speech’ at a non-union factory in Michigan was a pathetic, recycled attempt to feign support for working Americans. Americans have seen him try this before and they aren’t buying it.

They know who Donald Trump really is: a billionaire charlatan running on empty words, broken promises, and lost jobs. Under Trump, the ultra-wealthy and big corporations got richer, and American families paid the price. He left office with fewer jobs than when he entered. He created incentives for companies to ship manufacturing overseas. And, he let China get ahead in the race to the future.

We all remember, and Americans won’t forget come November 2024.

-- the Biden campaign

[gondrin]

I'll ask you the same question I keep on asking others...would you be as happy to learn you are wrong as I would be to learn that I am? It's a question that no one has actually answered yet...maybe you'll be the first?

I am not saying Trump will win. I am saying you shouldn't be celebrating him losing...until he has actually lost.

Nobody is saying that Trump cannot win. Just that his chance of wining compared to 2016 is lower. In 2016, unless you followed him throughout the years, he was an unknown. People only knew him from Home Alone 2, his random stuff that he shilled, Trump properties and The Apprentice. The fact that he went up against a candidate that had as much baggage as Hillary and still almost lost.

Is there a chance he could win? Yes. It is slim, however, as he no longer has that unknown factor. He is a known factor.

Remember, Presidents usually will win reelection during a crisis. Trump is one of the few that lost.

[Egomaniac]

Remember, Presidents usually will win reelection during a crisis. Trump is one of the few that lost.

But he still got ~10 million more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016.

Maybe you'll answer the question that nobody else will.

Would you be as happy to be proven wrong as I would be?

[Breccia]

You’re not here tonight not because of polls and not because of your indictments. You’re not here tonight because you’re afraid of being on this stage and defending your record.

You’re ducking these things. And let me tell you what’s going to happen, you keep doing that, no one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore, we’re gonna call you ‘Donald Duck'

-- Chris Christie, in the debates, in public, directly to the camera

(snipped, who gives a fuck)

-- Trump's lame-ass limp-dick IMPOTUS reply on social media, posted from his hotel room

[Endus]

Man, "Donald Duck" is just dumb enough it has potential to stick. Christie better start ramming that line into everything.

[Egomaniac]

Biden got 16 million more votes in 2020 than Hillary in 2016.

I'm not even sure why you're being contrarian on this. Sure, Trump got more popular(more votes). Biden destroyed that.

I'm just asking people not to assume Trump has already lost. Fight as hard to keep him out of the WH in 2024 as you did to get him out in 2020. That's it.

[Breccia]

So we know Donald Ducked the debates to crash a union rally to which he wasn't invited. He instead met "hundreds" at a non-union factory.

And this happened:

About 400 to 500 Trump supporters were inside a Drake Enterprises facility for the speech. Drake Enterprises employs about 150 people, and the UAW doesn't represent its workforce. It wasn't clear how many auto workers were in the crowd for the speech, which was targeted at them.

One individual in the crowd who held a sign that said "union members for Trump," acknowledged that she wasn't a union member when approached by a Detroit News reporter after the event. Another person with a sign that read "auto workers for Trump" said he wasn't an auto worker when asked for an interview. Both people didn't provide their names.

[Egomaniac]

I didn't get the impression that people in this thread were assuming he'd lose. They even provided empirical data to educate their opinion. I'm with them - I'm really fucking confident he's gonna lose. 2020 had the highest turnout in more than 100 years. We pretty much ran out of voters.

Hey, if I'm wrong...I'm happy.

What about you? You gonna be happy if you're wrong?

This seems like a really hard question for people to answer.

All I'm asking is that people take the possibility of Donald Trump winning seriously...and I'm getting treated like an asshole for it.