He'll probably use campaign funds if/when he does actually pay up, it's a piggy bank for him. Why use your own money when you can use other peoples
$83 million for being unable to shut yer fucking yapper is something, him then going off on social media with the usual Biden is behind it, it's a conspiracy etc, when in reality, if he had just moved on and not been so petulant, he would have paid the what, $5 million and that been it, but no, he just couldn't leave it alone. You can't make this shit up, it's so stupid.
A fantasist, narcissist and cunt all rolled into one. Quite the combination
.
(27-01-2024 14:57 )skully Wrote: [ -> ]He'll probably use campaign funds if/when he does actually pay up, it's a piggy bank for him. Why use your own money when you can use other peoples
$83 million for being unable to shut yer fucking yapper is something, him then going off on social media with the usual Biden is behind it, it's a conspiracy etc, when in reality, if he had just moved on and not been so petulant, he would have paid the what, $5 million and that been it, but no, he just couldn't leave it alone. You can't make this shit up, it's so stupid.
How dare you put Trump and stupid in the same sentence.The man is a stable genius.he tells us often enough.
(27-01-2024 17:08 )Snooks Wrote: [ -> ]A fantasist, narcissist and cunt all rolled into one. Quite the combination .
All qualities in a person you would want to avoid.A five star GRADE A TWAT.
As far as I'm concernred if he is prez a second I hope whoever is our PM has the tenacity to deny him entry on state visits.
It's bad enough for us to be dealing with all the political cunts in our own country, as well as having to deal with his brand of cuntness as well when he comes over.
The whole of this CNN segment is interesting for showing how pointless it is to prosecute the Trump organisation for “over valuing” its assets.
Laura Coates Live
But Laura Coates’ attitude at the end is disgusting. The guy is quite rightly calling for an end to politics-by-prosecution on both sides and asking to hear about policy differences between the two parties.
And she gets sarcastic and calls him “Mr Wonderful” as if the media — and her outlet in particular — are not a large part of this problem.
(29-01-2024 07:14 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]The whole of this CNN segment is interesting for showing how pointless it is to prosecute the Trump organisation for “over valuing” its assets.
It doesn't do any such thing. First of all, a quick internet search shows that the guy in the video, Kevin O'Leary, is quite a fan of Trump. A Trump supporter defending Trump is nothing new. Second, what the court found in the case of Trump is that the tricks he pulled with his valuations went far beyond the typical real estate practices that O'Leary describes. O'Leary gives an example of a disagreement on value of $500m against $400m. But Trump for example had a property which he claimed was 3 times bigger than it actually was and so inflated its value accordingly. O'Leary seems to have convinced you Goodfella that negotiating on a value of a property and plain straight up fraud are pretty much the same thing.
He didn’t convince me of anything. I’ve been saying since this case was brought that the whole thing is over-blown and counter-productive.
I have actually done a lot of work in real estate. And he is 100% right in saying that it is absolutely standard practice for developers to maximise their valuations — with often spurious claims — in order to secure better construction loans. Most will flirt with the truth, many will trample it, but they absolutely all do it.
I get that Trump obviously went over the line. He must have or the case wouldn’t have gotten as far as it has. His argument will be that if the building is worth $X in normal circumstances as a mature asset, then mine must be worth 3X because it has the name “Trump” on it and the brand has value — which isn’t entirely wrong. Banks tend to underprice brand value because they have no objective measure for it, so in order to reach the 3X valuation, they did things like over-state the square footage and the rent roll of his existing properties.
I’m not condoning any of this. I’m just agreeing with the point that everyone does it. That they are prosecuting Trump for it — in a situation where no one has lost money and there is no apparent “victim” — is purely political.
And it will backfire in a spectacular way when the maniac is re-elected.
I watched a YouTube video earlier of a Barrett-Jackson auction in Arizona, it was a mixed bag of cars, some truly amazing stuff that most people can only dream of owning, but one that stood out to many was a Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster, once owned by Trump. The car was very nice for what it was, but the fact is was previously owned by Trump (from new) meant it went for stupid money, we're talking something like four times the estimate. I read an article that said a rare example went for $410,000, but they normally sell for around $300,000, this one sold for $1,100,000.
As wrong as it is to inflate the value of the things he owns by so much, in order to get more money in loans due to the asset value etc, this auction was proof that a certain section of society aren't bothered by it, in fact they celebrated it and cheered when the car came to the auction block and made record money. Quite a few people actually left after it was sold, it was weird thing to watch, but I get it, as wrong as it is, I get it. Trump has a hold on some people and despite what we see him doing and saying, which makes him abhorrent, he's somebody that a large majority on one side of politics love, it's sad but true (Metallica).
(29-01-2024 17:16 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]His argument will be that if the building is worth $X in normal circumstances as a mature asset, then mine must be worth 3X because it has the name “Trump” on it and the brand has value — which isn’t entirely wrong.
In that case he should have declared the same value to the tax authorities. If a property is worth 3X because it has the name “Trump” on it then how come his tax returns showed much lower property values? You surely can't have it both ways.