Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:51 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 7:06 am

Wow, he's worth even less than we thought....

“He’s never won a championship at a course he doesn’t own and operate,” Reilly, who has golfed with Trump, said on MSNBC on Tuesday. “He’s played in Pebble Beach, he’s played in the Tahoe one, where there are rules and judges and cameras. And in those, he’s never finished in the top half. So he wins when anybody who disagrees that he won is out of the club. That’s how he gets it.”

Reilly, who wrote an entire book on how Trump cheats at golf, said the former president even confessed one of his methods: When he buys a golf course, he plays the first round alone and declares himself the course champion.
...
The former president “always gets a turbo-charged golf cart that goes three times as fast as yours, so he’s always 200 yards ahead, and that gives him time to cheat.”

Trump moves his ball to better spots and kicks his opponents’ balls into the bunker.

“One time in L.A., he was playing $50 a hole with these three guys, he hits it in the pond. They see the splash,” Reilly said. “By the time they get there, it’s in the middle of the fairway, and they’re like, ‘What the F, Donald?’ And he goes, ‘It must’ve been the tide.’”

Reilly said Trump cheats “like a mafia accountant” and called his latest championships “fake as Velveeta cheese.”

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:56 pm Liberal Hypocrisy

Jon Stewart benefited by 829% ‘overvalue’ of his NYC home even as he labels Trump’s civil case ‘not victimless’
https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/real-esta ... me-by-829/

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:15 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:56 pm Liberal Hypocrisy

Jon Stewart benefited by 829% ‘overvalue’ of his NYC home even as he labels Trump’s civil case ‘not victimless’
https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/real-esta ... me-by-829/

Just because you didn't read the article doesn't mean you should assume nobody else did.

John didn't try to get banks to give him money based the "overvaluation", BD. Big difference.

For entertainment purposes why don't you show us where the fraud occured?

GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:01 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:15 am




Just because you didn't read the article doesn't mean you should assume nobody else did.

John didn't try to get banks to give him money based the "overvaluation", BD. Big difference.

For entertainment purposes why don't you show us where the fraud occured?

The only places Stewart goes wrong is where he says that Trump was avoiding taxes by doing what he did and the idea of banks losing money. In that way, Stewart's NYC home, which was valued for tax purposes significantly lower than the market value, and hence yielding a smaller tax burden, was the same thing. No one's saying Stewart committed fraud by paying taxes on a property assessed far lower than what he could ultimately sell it for on the market. And the banks have never said that they suffered any loss in dealing with Trump and his valuations. On the contrary, the banks said they profited well from working with Trump. If they didn't, one of them would be bringing a lawsuit against Trump.

In the end, nothing Trump did around his real estate fraudulently avoided tax bills and nothing he did caused the banks to give him a loan they didn't want to give. If there was a case of lawfare, this is probably the best candidate to fit that classification. Doesn't mean the other ones are, and many aren't, but this one likely is.

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 pm

GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:01 am

The only places Stewart goes wrong is where he says that Trump was avoiding taxes by doing what he did and the idea of banks losing money. In that way, Stewart's NYC home, which was valued for tax purposes significantly lower than the market value, and hence yielding a smaller tax burden, was the same thing. No one's saying Stewart committed fraud by paying taxes on a property assessed far lower than what he could ultimately sell it for on the market. And the banks have never said that they suffered any loss in dealing with Trump and his valuations. On the contrary, the banks said they profited well from working with Trump. If they didn't, one of them would be bringing a lawsuit against Trump.

In the end, nothing Trump did around his real estate fraudulently avoided tax bills and nothing he did caused the banks to give him a loan they didn't want to give. If there was a case of lawfare, this is probably the best candidate to fit that classification. Doesn't mean the other ones are, and many aren't, but this one likely is.

...moving the goalposts.

The shareholders in the bank were defrauded and it isn't up to the bank execs call to make that determination. If you or me did what was done here to get a better rate on our home mortgage we would be charged with filing a false financial statement.

I don't know why you want to push the false dichotomy between Trump and Stewart, but that is of course your right. Let me know when Stewart tries to borrow 100 times the building's worth from a bank with the building as security

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:00 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 pm

...moving the goalposts.

The shareholders in the bank were defrauded and it isn't up to the bank execs call to make that determination. If you or me did what was done here to get a better rate on our home mortgage we would be charged with filing a false financial statement.

I don't know why you want to push the false dichotomy between Trump and Stewart, but that is of course your right. Let me know when Stewart tries to borrow 100 times the building's worth from a bank with the building as security

I didn't move anything, I was just answering your post - you're the one that included Stweart in your post and made a point about that. I love John Stewart so I don't hold any grievance against him.

As for who was defrauded, that's where you are actually moving the goalpost. First you say the banks were defrauded - the banks disagree and there's no evidence they were duped (they actually made changes to Trump's filings anyway so they clearly made their own determinations as to the value of the assets). Then you said that taxpayers were defrauded. But this had nothing to do with how the properties were assessed by the taxing authorities. And trying to make the false comparison between market value and assessed value is always a wrong turn as assessed value on most things is significantly different than market value (even the homes you and I owe most likely). Now you've shifted the goalpost to say that the shareholders were defrauded. Again, the shareholders don't seem to think so since there's never been an example of shareholders suing over this. And it goes back to the first goalpost and the banks being duped - the banks did their own research (as they do with even private homes like yours or mine) and they do their own assessment independent of whatever we report, and the loans are based on those assessments.

Have you ever heard of a private person like you or me being charged with filing a false financial statement on a loan document for a house? If so, point me to it since that never appears to be news. It isn't news because 1) the banks do their own checking (in our case sending out a home inspector to do an independent home appraisal and 2) if they don't like your numbers then they just don't give you a loan. In this case, they didn't like Trump's numbers, they made adjustments, they freely decided to give Trump loans based on the revised numbers, and they appeared to be very happy to do business with him, as did their shareholders.

There's not a crime here, only that people didn't like Trump and wanted to get him on something, anything (I think that was the campaign slogan for the prosecutor). That's lawfare, and it doesn't help anyone as it dilutes any confidence in the integrity of the legal system. Get Trump on the other stuff that he's clearly guilty of (inciting an insurrection is the obvious one, refusing to hand over documents would appear to be the other one) and leave the vindictive stuff for vindictive sakes on the sidelines.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:29 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:00 am

I didn't move anything, I was just answering your post - you're the one that included Stweart in your post and made a point about that. I love John Stewart so I don't hold any grievance against him.

As for who was defrauded, that's where you are actually moving the goalpost. First you say the banks were defrauded - the banks disagree and there's no evidence they were duped (they actually made changes to Trump's filings anyway so they clearly made their own determinations as to the value of the assets). Then you said that taxpayers were defrauded. But this had nothing to do with how the properties were assessed by the taxing authorities. And trying to make the false comparison between market value and assessed value is always a wrong turn as assessed value on most things is significantly different than market value (even the homes you and I owe most likely). Now you've shifted the goalpost to say that the shareholders were defrauded. Again, the shareholders don't seem to think so since there's never been an example of shareholders suing over this. And it goes back to the first goalpost and the banks being duped - the banks did their own research (as they do with even private homes like yours or mine) and they do their own assessment independent of whatever we report, and the loans are based on those assessments.

Have you ever heard of a private person like you or me being charged with filing a false financial statement on a loan document for a house? If so, point me to it since that never appears to be news. It isn't news because 1) the banks do their own checking (in our case sending out a home inspector to do an independent home appraisal and 2) if they don't like your numbers then they just don't give you a loan. In this case, they didn't like Trump's numbers, they made adjustments, they freely decided to give Trump loans based on the revised numbers, and they appeared to be very happy to do business with him, as did their shareholders.

There's not a crime here, only that people didn't like Trump and wanted to get him on something, anything (I think that was the campaign slogan for the prosecutor). That's lawfare, and it doesn't help anyone as it dilutes any confidence in the integrity of the legal system. Get Trump on the other stuff that he's clearly guilty of (inciting an insurrection is the obvious one, refusing to hand over documents would appear to be the other one) and leave the vindictive stuff for vindictive sakes on the sidelines.

But he still committed fraud, no?

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:39 am

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:29 am

But he still committed fraud, no?

Of course there was, never said he didn't. The bigger question is the impact of this fraud - what happened because of it. Based on the lack of concern from the presumed affected parties (no case brought by the banks or shareholders, not even a complaint either), it would appear there was little to no impact. Like I said, the banks weren't relying on his financial statements to determine if they wanted to give the loans, they did their own homework and made adjustments as they saw fit. This didn't impact tax payments so there was no injury to the public either. So yes, guilty of submitting incorrect financial statements to banks. The big leap from doing that and having the banks sign off their approval on the corrections to the same and $450M in penalties is where the lawfare part is real. But if you're in it just to penalize him for anything then that gets lost in the confusion.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:54 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:39 am

Of course there was, never said he didn't. The bigger question is the impact of this fraud - what happened because of it. Based on the lack of concern from the presumed affected parties (no case brought by the banks or shareholders, not even a complaint either), it would appear there was little to no impact. Like I said, the banks weren't relying on his financial statements to determine if they wanted to give the loans, they did their own homework and made adjustments as they saw fit. This didn't impact tax payments so there was no injury to the public either. So yes, guilty of submitting incorrect financial statements to banks. The big leap from doing that and having the banks sign off their approval on the corrections to the same and $450M in penalties is where the lawfare part is real. But if you're in it just to penalize him for anything then that gets lost in the confusion.

Why do we have laws against fraud?

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:22 am

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:54 am

Why do we have laws against fraud?

To be able to give people redress who have been victims of fraud.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:27 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:22 am

To be able to give people redress who have been victims of fraud.

So we don’t ever prosecute victimless crimes? Victimless crimes are ok? How about threat of punishment as a form crime prevention? What about the economic impact of lowering lending standards for the wealthy?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:33 am

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:27 am

So we don’t ever prosecute victimless crimes? Victimless crimes are ok? How about threat of punishment as a form crime prevention? What about the economic impact of lowering lending standards for the wealthy?

The victimless crime angle that MAQA yahoos use is a red herring. But it is fair to question why NY has overlooked this kind of victimless fraud for decades but now wants to punish trump for it. As Ganny says, this one is probably the closest to lawfare of all the trump prosecutions. And because of that, it helps to legitimize that argument which hurts the other and in my opinion, much more legitimate, prosecutions.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:08 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:33 am
The victimless crime angle that MAQA yahoos use is a red herring. But it is fair to question why NY has overlooked this kind of victimless fraud for decades but now wants to punish trump for it. As Ganny says, this one is probably the closest to lawfare of all the trump prosecutions. And because of that, it helps to legitimize that argument which hurts the other and in my opinion, much more legitimate, prosecutions.

That’s all fair.

And the amount seemed excessive. I just think dismissing it as “lawfare” is another example of stored justice system for not just Trump but banks as well.

Pritzker is the Democratic nominee, a venture capitalist, and a very wealthy man — an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, he's worth $3.2 billion.

In 2007, Pritzker and his wife bought a second mansion next to the one they live in on Chicago's Astor Street, for $3.7 million. As The Chicago Sun-Times reported, that mansion remained vacant and was allowed to fall into disrepair.

And then in October 2015, according to a report by Cook County Inspector General Patrick Blanchard, the Pritzkers had five toilets removed from the second house so that it would be classified as "uninhabitable" in a property tax appeal filed by the Pritzkers. Cook County assesses vacant properties at 10 percent of the market value.

The toilets were removed shortly before the affidavits in the property tax appeal were submitted. The county assessor's office "lowered the 6,378-square-foot mansion's assessed value from $6.3 million to about $1.1 million," The Chicago Tribune reports.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:53 am Is this fraud?

Illinois Governor Candidate Removed Mansion's Toilets To Dodge Taxes, Report Finds

Pritzker is the Democratic nominee, a venture capitalist, and a very wealthy man — an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, he's worth $3.2 billion.

In 2007, Pritzker and his wife bought a second mansion next to the one they live in on Chicago's Astor Street, for $3.7 million. As The Chicago Sun-Times reported, that mansion remained vacant and was allowed to fall into disrepair.

And then in October 2015, according to a report by Cook County Inspector General Patrick Blanchard, the Pritzkers had five toilets removed from the second house so that it would be classified as "uninhabitable" in a property tax appeal filed by the Pritzkers. Cook County assesses vacant properties at 10 percent of the market value.

The toilets were removed shortly before the affidavits in the property tax appeal were submitted. The county assessor's office "lowered the 6,378-square-foot mansion's assessed value from $6.3 million to about $1.1 million," The Chicago Tribune reports.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:29 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:00 am

I didn't move anything, I was just answering your post - you're the one that included Stweart in your post and made a point about that. I love John Stewart so I don't hold any grievance against him.

As for who was defrauded, that's where you are actually moving the goalpost. First you say the banks were defrauded - the banks disagree and there's no evidence they were duped (they actually made changes to Trump's filings anyway so they clearly made their own determinations as to the value of the assets). Then you said that taxpayers were defrauded. But this had nothing to do with how the properties were assessed by the taxing authorities. And trying to make the false comparison between market value and assessed value is always a wrong turn as assessed value on most things is significantly different than market value (even the homes you and I owe most likely). Now you've shifted the goalpost to say that the shareholders were defrauded. Again, the shareholders don't seem to think so since there's never been an example of shareholders suing over this. And it goes back to the first goalpost and the banks being duped - the banks did their own research (as they do with even private homes like yours or mine) and they do their own assessment independent of whatever we report, and the loans are based on those assessments.

Have you ever heard of a private person like you or me being charged with filing a false financial statement on a loan document for a house? If so, point me to it since that never appears to be news. It isn't news because 1) the banks do their own checking (in our case sending out a home inspector to do an independent home appraisal and 2) if they don't like your numbers then they just don't give you a loan. In this case, they didn't like Trump's numbers, they made adjustments, they freely decided to give Trump loans based on the revised numbers, and they appeared to be very happy to do business with him, as did their shareholders.

There's not a crime here, only that people didn't like Trump and wanted to get him on something, anything (I think that was the campaign slogan for the prosecutor). That's lawfare, and it doesn't help anyone as it dilutes any confidence in the integrity of the legal system. Get Trump on the other stuff that he's clearly guilty of (inciting an insurrection is the obvious one, refusing to hand over documents would appear to be the other one) and leave the vindictive stuff for vindictive sakes on the sidelines.

But he still committed fraud, no?

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:00 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 pm

...moving the goalposts.

The shareholders in the bank were defrauded and it isn't up to the bank execs call to make that determination. If you or me did what was done here to get a better rate on our home mortgage we would be charged with filing a false financial statement.

I don't know why you want to push the false dichotomy between Trump and Stewart, but that is of course your right. Let me know when Stewart tries to borrow 100 times the building's worth from a bank with the building as security

I didn't move anything, I was just answering your post - you're the one that included Stweart in your post and made a point about that. I love John Stewart so I don't hold any grievance against him.

As for who was defrauded, that's where you are actually moving the goalpost. First you say the banks were defrauded - the banks disagree and there's no evidence they were duped (they actually made changes to Trump's filings anyway so they clearly made their own determinations as to the value of the assets). Then you said that taxpayers were defrauded. But this had nothing to do with how the properties were assessed by the taxing authorities. And trying to make the false comparison between market value and assessed value is always a wrong turn as assessed value on most things is significantly different than market value (even the homes you and I owe most likely). Now you've shifted the goalpost to say that the shareholders were defrauded. Again, the shareholders don't seem to think so since there's never been an example of shareholders suing over this. And it goes back to the first goalpost and the banks being duped - the banks did their own research (as they do with even private homes like yours or mine) and they do their own assessment independent of whatever we report, and the loans are based on those assessments.

Have you ever heard of a private person like you or me being charged with filing a false financial statement on a loan document for a house? If so, point me to it since that never appears to be news. It isn't news because 1) the banks do their own checking (in our case sending out a home inspector to do an independent home appraisal and 2) if they don't like your numbers then they just don't give you a loan. In this case, they didn't like Trump's numbers, they made adjustments, they freely decided to give Trump loans based on the revised numbers, and they appeared to be very happy to do business with him, as did their shareholders.

There's not a crime here, only that people didn't like Trump and wanted to get him on something, anything (I think that was the campaign slogan for the prosecutor). That's lawfare, and it doesn't help anyone as it dilutes any confidence in the integrity of the legal system. Get Trump on the other stuff that he's clearly guilty of (inciting an insurrection is the obvious one, refusing to hand over documents would appear to be the other one) and leave the vindictive stuff for vindictive sakes on the sidelines.

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 pm

GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:01 am

The only places Stewart goes wrong is where he says that Trump was avoiding taxes by doing what he did and the idea of banks losing money. In that way, Stewart's NYC home, which was valued for tax purposes significantly lower than the market value, and hence yielding a smaller tax burden, was the same thing. No one's saying Stewart committed fraud by paying taxes on a property assessed far lower than what he could ultimately sell it for on the market. And the banks have never said that they suffered any loss in dealing with Trump and his valuations. On the contrary, the banks said they profited well from working with Trump. If they didn't, one of them would be bringing a lawsuit against Trump.

In the end, nothing Trump did around his real estate fraudulently avoided tax bills and nothing he did caused the banks to give him a loan they didn't want to give. If there was a case of lawfare, this is probably the best candidate to fit that classification. Doesn't mean the other ones are, and many aren't, but this one likely is.

...moving the goalposts.

The shareholders in the bank were defrauded and it isn't up to the bank execs call to make that determination. If you or me did what was done here to get a better rate on our home mortgage we would be charged with filing a false financial statement.

I don't know why you want to push the false dichotomy between Trump and Stewart, but that is of course your right. Let me know when Stewart tries to borrow 100 times the building's worth from a bank with the building as security

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:25 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 pm

...moving the goalposts.

The shareholders in the bank were defrauded and it isn't up to the bank execs call to make that determination. If you or me did what was done here to get a better rate on our home mortgage we would be charged with filing a false financial statement.

I don't know why you want to push the false dichotomy between Trump and Stewart, but that is of course your right. Let me know when Stewart tries to borrow 100 times the building's worth from a bank with the building as security

You must be one of those who think’s Mar a Lago market value is/was worth only 18 million. Its a deed restricted property where the property appraiser uses an income-based valuation for the property. It has zero to do with market value ie how much it would sell for. Limbaughs Palm Beach mansion sold for 155 million, and Mar a Lago would sell for several times that.

Edit: I see GF pretty much already covered the assessed value has zero to do with the market value angle.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:42 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:25 pm
You must be one of those who think’s Mar a Lago market value is/was worth only 18 million. Its a deed restricted property where the property appraiser uses an income-based valuation for the property. It has zero to do with market value ie how much it would sell for. Limbaughs Palm Beach mansion sold for 155 million, and Mar a Lago would sell for several times that.

Edit: I see GF pretty much already covered the assessed value has zero to do with the market value angle.

I like how CNN recently said Mar a Lago was worth $240M and if Trump sold it, he could possibly scrape together the original $500M he needed for appeal.

Can't make this shit up.

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:27 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:22 am

To be able to give people redress who have been victims of fraud.

So we don’t ever prosecute victimless crimes? Victimless crimes are ok? How about threat of punishment as a form crime prevention? What about the economic impact of lowering lending standards for the wealthy?

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 7:12 am

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:27 am

So we don’t ever prosecute victimless crimes? Victimless crimes are ok? How about threat of punishment as a form crime prevention? What about the economic impact of lowering lending standards for the wealthy?

All this drama over Trump doing business as usual in NYC as a private citizen while Joey Rotten used his crack pipe whore bearing granddaughter son to peddle his name for millions funneled to his family while he was VP..

You guys are unbelievably infected

NYC is being crushed by a DA that doesn’t prosecute anything but they sure wanna get Trump

Total Bañana Republic

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 7:12 am

kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:27 am

So we don’t ever prosecute victimless crimes? Victimless crimes are ok? How about threat of punishment as a form crime prevention? What about the economic impact of lowering lending standards for the wealthy?

All this drama over Trump doing business as usual in NYC as a private citizen while Joey Rotten used his crack pipe whore bearing granddaughter son to peddle his name for millions funneled to his family while he was VP..

You guys are unbelievably infected

NYC is being crushed by a DA that doesn’t prosecute anything but they sure wanna get Trump

Total Bañana Republic