I directly mentioned the New York case about trumps real estate as something I am very knowledgable about, but sure I am super vague... Have you ever talked to someone in a cult? That is the reason I dont typically go deep.
I directly mentioned the New York case about trumps real estate as something I am very knowledgable about
Cool, and what specifically did you say about the New York case about how it is a problem? Did you share any of that knowledge?
I saw your post and thought "Interesting, maybe there is an angle on the New York case I am unaware of", but you failed to actually say anything other than your displeasure.
Ignore this idiot. He has no critical thinking skills and is so far up his own ass you’ll eventually give up and he’ll just think he won another internet argument.
The entire case is nonsense. To be specific, he didnt do anything wrong and it was exactly what every other serious investor does, and its not fraud, its literally just advocating your position. I can expand on this if you wish, but I dont write gigantic comments because they become unreadable and wastes everyones time.
he didnt do anything wrong
The law seems to say otherwise.
it was exactly what every other serious investor does
"They are all criminals" is not the defense you think it is.
its not fraud
It's literally fraud.
So because a government person said its true you just believe them? And they are all not criminals and its not fraud, its literally perfectly normal.
So because some rando on the internet said it's not true you expect me to just believe them? People on the internet say the Earth is flat too, I'm not just going to take them at their word. You've presented no evidence other than "IS NOT!"
Feel free to watch the Kevin OLeary guy talk about it too, he is a non partisan real estate person not a government official with an agenda, and he can go in a lot more detail than a post does.
I dont know what to tell you, if you have a direct question about the case I can answer that, I have no evidence to give because nothing they did was wrong.
Feel free to watch the Kevin OLeary guy talk about it too, he is a non partisan real estate person
Right, I'm sure some rich asshole (the one that makes other rich assholes say "what an asshole" if you've ever watched shark tank) is completely neutral in his stance that "rich assholes can say whatever they want and it's totally legal."
not a government official with an agenda
Also not a lawyer. Nor an American as far as I'm aware. So I don't know why I would trust him to be an expert on the American Legal system instead of, say, the judge on the case who has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence.
Billionaires are not your friend. You don't have to defend them I would strongly suggest not taking advice from them.
if you have a direct question about the case I can answer that,
Okay: What are the specific laws Trump was found guilty of breaking, why do they not apply in this case, and how were they misinterpreted to get the guilty verdict?
Gotcha dont trust a rich guy but trust the government...
The crime was probably called "Fraud", and again, he did nothing wrong. People dont know how the financing system works, and think that its fraud to claim a property is worth more than the government thinks its worth. There was no party harmed, and it was all a normal interaction.
The crime was probably called “Fraud”
So much for being "Very knowledgeable about the case" then...
I dont know legalese, but if that is the excuse you have to escape an argument that you should never have gotten into then so be it.
What argument? You still haven't presented an argument other than "Is Not!" Which is so juvenile it doesn't even need to be addressed.
You're the one who has presented yourself as "very knowledgeable on the case". I would guess Trump's legal team presented a defence more substantial than "NUH-UH" that you could have at least shared. But you don't know what the actual legal argument of the defense was, nor the actual charges (other than "probably fraud"). If you don't know the "legalise" how do you know it was interpreted wrong?
No wonder you think Kevin O'Leary is an expert on the case: you know less than he does and O'Leary barely knows anything about the case.
I did as you asked, gave you a direct question, and was met with a shrug. You've made your ignorance on the case clear and I will not waste any more time seeing if you have a novel view on the case to consider. You are just parroting the billionaire taking points I've already heard.
The argument is that it was a normal financing process and there was no victim or person/corporation that claimed to be wronged. People are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish. Its really that simple and obvious. That is why I say you dont know anything about the case because you only have the standard NPC insults.
I directly mentioned the New York case about trumps real estate as something I am very knowledgable about, but sure I am super vague... Have you ever talked to someone in a cult? That is the reason I dont typically go deep.
Cool, and what specifically did you say about the New York case about how it is a problem? Did you share any of that knowledge?
I saw your post and thought "Interesting, maybe there is an angle on the New York case I am unaware of", but you failed to actually say anything other than your displeasure.
Ignore this idiot. He has no critical thinking skills and is so far up his own ass you’ll eventually give up and he’ll just think he won another internet argument.
The entire case is nonsense. To be specific, he didnt do anything wrong and it was exactly what every other serious investor does, and its not fraud, its literally just advocating your position. I can expand on this if you wish, but I dont write gigantic comments because they become unreadable and wastes everyones time.
The law seems to say otherwise.
"They are all criminals" is not the defense you think it is.
It's literally fraud.
So because a government person said its true you just believe them? And they are all not criminals and its not fraud, its literally perfectly normal.
So because some rando on the internet said it's not true you expect me to just believe them? People on the internet say the Earth is flat too, I'm not just going to take them at their word. You've presented no evidence other than "IS NOT!"
Feel free to watch the Kevin OLeary guy talk about it too, he is a non partisan real estate person not a government official with an agenda, and he can go in a lot more detail than a post does.
I dont know what to tell you, if you have a direct question about the case I can answer that, I have no evidence to give because nothing they did was wrong.
Right, I'm sure some rich asshole (the one that makes other rich assholes say "what an asshole" if you've ever watched shark tank) is completely neutral in his stance that "rich assholes can say whatever they want and it's totally legal."
Also not a lawyer. Nor an American as far as I'm aware. So I don't know why I would trust him to be an expert on the American Legal system instead of, say, the judge on the case who has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence.
Billionaires are not your friend. You don't have to defend them I would strongly suggest not taking advice from them.
Okay: What are the specific laws Trump was found guilty of breaking, why do they not apply in this case, and how were they misinterpreted to get the guilty verdict?
Gotcha dont trust a rich guy but trust the government...
The crime was probably called "Fraud", and again, he did nothing wrong. People dont know how the financing system works, and think that its fraud to claim a property is worth more than the government thinks its worth. There was no party harmed, and it was all a normal interaction.
So much for being "Very knowledgeable about the case" then...
I dont know legalese, but if that is the excuse you have to escape an argument that you should never have gotten into then so be it.
What argument? You still haven't presented an argument other than "Is Not!" Which is so juvenile it doesn't even need to be addressed.
You're the one who has presented yourself as "very knowledgeable on the case". I would guess Trump's legal team presented a defence more substantial than "NUH-UH" that you could have at least shared. But you don't know what the actual legal argument of the defense was, nor the actual charges (other than "probably fraud"). If you don't know the "legalise" how do you know it was interpreted wrong?
No wonder you think Kevin O'Leary is an expert on the case: you know less than he does and O'Leary barely knows anything about the case.
I did as you asked, gave you a direct question, and was met with a shrug. You've made your ignorance on the case clear and I will not waste any more time seeing if you have a novel view on the case to consider. You are just parroting the billionaire taking points I've already heard.
The argument is that it was a normal financing process and there was no victim or person/corporation that claimed to be wronged. People are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish. Its really that simple and obvious. That is why I say you dont know anything about the case because you only have the standard NPC insults.