Trump is unable to find a seller for a $464 million bond

You pontificated about honesty, and I cited another thread where you failed on that count, of being 'honest'. That's not mixing up,. I provided the citation.

There was a glaring post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy in the OP of the thread I cited, a big one, that 'liberals are the criminals and are 817% more likely to rob you'.

And you let it slide, I gave the URL citation. Letting it slide is complicity in it's presentation.

That's not the shining hour of honesty.

You could have done better and you know it.

 

Fair to whom ? With a judgement on record , the presumption is that the defendant will not prevail . In fact, Trump may have to post a second bond to cover the state’s court costs as well. If he loses the appeal , he gets to pay those too.

 

With a guy like Trump? I wouldn't trust him. There are still judgements against him he hasn't paid.

 

You tried pointing out what you THOUGHT was dishonest.

You failed. I looked at the citation and pointed out how and why you were wrong in your assumption. You mysteriously are now acting as if I did not successfully refute your allegation.

 

Well, if he wins on appeal he wouldn't have had to pay it in the first place.

 

Tell you what, let's back up a little, maybe I misunderstood you. Now then

@Par10, provided some data in his OP, and drew this conclusion:

Basically, libs are about twice as likely to commit violent crime and a whopping 817% more likely to rob you.

It's not really clear to me what you mean when you say 'not the individual level' is that your way of saying that @Par10 cannot logically make the above claim given the data he provided?

SEe, this bit about 'level' isn't clear. To me, just as it is written, without reference ot any 'level' it's a false statement, PERIOD, it's not true, PERIOD, and we can discuss why. I think you know why.

 

No, I said there are other judgements, way in the past, that he still hasn't paid, and it was for a lot lot less. He had to be forced to buy the $91 million bond.

There is no reason to believe he will suddenly see the light and pay this one, if the verdict doesn't favor him.

Sorry, he has to be forced, pronto while the iron is hot, as they say.

 

Not all that surprising. He lies and exaggerates about EVERYTHING. This time it is coming back at him in full force. Karma. (and some accountability)

He is a victim of his own greed and fertile imagination. He has done it to himself. The problem is that he believes his own lies.

 

Karma can be wonderful.

 

You are probably right. The question is "how will he handle it"?? Or will he make up some fake explanation (rationalization) that will soothe his ego but remain deceptive. He has a long history of simllar conduct in response to hi stress financial situations.

He has NEVER been an effective or smart businessman. He had only one ambition...... look as rich as possible as money is power . Seems he is fundamentally lazy...... and it is the peoplearound him that did all the work. He took the glory.

Now , his self created problem is affecting what is most valuable to him.....MONEY. His Achilles heel.
He is unable to learn from previous experiences..............or does not think he has to (arrogance)

 

Again, it just shows your extreme bias because you could break the man regarding a kangaroo judgement which could be overturned in a fair court. But, you don't give a crap about that. You'd love to see him ruined, even if he wins on appeal after you ruin him. It just shows the kind of one sided justice you want to dish out with weaponized law enforcement and courts. To you, the end justifies the means. Take democracy away in order to save democracy.

 

Sincerely, this issue is not important enough to spend this much time. This is referencing another thread from several days ago and I truly do not feel like going back and reconstructing everything from where the discussion began with another poster and then morphed into this discussion.

Lets just agree to move on.

 

NEWSFLASH, Trump is a candidate, and candidates are fair game.

 

Well, if you are going to make a claim of honesty......let's just say....

When someone comes right out and claims my folks, liberals, are 817% more likely to rob you, and your reply is wishy washy, and then you claim 'honesty', sorry, I have a right to call you out on it.

 

Spiking the football because you think that some outlandish judgment that will undoubtedly be lowered if not overturned is the domain of those that play politics from the gutter.

You are free to conduct yourself how you see fit, but dignified people do not delve so deeply into the National Enquirer aspect of the political landscape.

 

I made the claim of honesty and have demonstrated as much several times now. Just because you start throwing around so much sand that after 20 posts people can not see because at that point they forget what is even being discussed and subsequently get tired of your game, changes nothing. You have taken this topic from another thread, brought it into this one about an entirely different topic. It is a colossal waste of time.

Outlasting someone in a conversation does not determine the winner of a debate. If it did, you would be one of the best.

A wise man once said not not argue with the village idiot because at some point people cannot tell you apart, so in instances such as this, the person that walks away once both sides have had their say, is typically the person displaying wisdom.

 

Piffle.

NEWSFLASH, Trump is a candidate, and candidates are fair game.

What part of 'candidate is fair game' do you not understand?

 

Your comments amounts to posturing, and posturing is a pseudo debate trick, posturing is not an argument.

More posturing, dismissed.

 

What part of being dignified did YOU not understand?

 

LOL...I intellectually dismissed your position quite a while back.

Your "dismissal" has as much relevance/ impact on me, as mine has on you. The self-aggrandizing claim is as hollow as it gets.

In other words, your belief that your "dismissal" carries any weight shows that you lack awareness to a shocking degree. Im sure if you were grading yourself as a debater you would give yourself an A+.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. You are dismissed (HaHa...what a SILLY notion!)

 

I wonder if the FBI and other intelligence agencies are monitoring the communications between the Orange Stain , his reps, and his big daddy Putin.
Any Russian money on the way to Orange for his bond ? On promise of giving up Ukraine if he gets elected ?

Stay tuned !

 

Rebuttals that do not rise above 'you are a liberal' or 'you are a conservative' are not arguments. Find a real argument.

Weasel words are not an argument, either.

If it's overturned, I'll accept the verdict, but my view is that justice has been served.

Any rational decency loving law abiding loving person, any democracy loving person would. He's a pervert, criminal, fraudster, and has been getting way with evil deeds for a life time, he's been ruining other people in wholesale quantities, has been lying to the people, conning thousands out of millions, and if the crows come home to roost on him, I'm' not losing any sleep over it.

The man is a threat to US National Security, and to prevent such a man from becoming president? Indeed, by any justifiable and legal means, let's get it done, pronto!

Nothing one sided about it, at all, justice has no political favor.

If he is guilty, and loses on appeal, it will because that is justice.

You do realize that appellate courts rarely reverse lower court finding of facts, and all the appellate court
looks for are errors in the proceeding (which are the basis for appeals in the first place) and if some are found, then they ask the question, 'but for this error, is there a likelihood more than not that the outcome would have been different? If not, Donald will lose the appeal. Appellate court might reduce fines, judgements, and sentences, as well.

If not, we'll discuss it at that juncture.

What boggles my mind is why you do not agree with me? The facts are in the public domain, have you not been following his career?

 

More posturing, posturing is not an argument.

Find a real argument.

 

You have been dismissed.

Go on........GIT!

 

The purpose of appeal is to do just that. The lawfare soldiers made it financially impossible to appeal. Common sense will prevail. I'm not sure how but I don't think the justice system is completely corrupt. The system will make the appeal available somehow.