IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Fred Trump , Ivanka Trump , money scandals , politics scandals , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 20th October 2018, 02:17 PM   #81
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
People who are not guilty pay all the time. To save money from litigation, to avoid the uncertainty in civil cases. Lots of reasons. That doesn’t mean President Trump wasn’t going to rightfully lose
He's guilty as sin. There are facts in that case that are not in question.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 02:29 PM   #82
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,620
What Trump said...
Originally Posted by Trump
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing
And how it must be interpreted to coincide with River's whimsical imagination:
Originally Posted by Trump per River's imagination
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. They were inadvertently lost in Moscow somewhere.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 02:52 PM   #83
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
What Trump said...
And how it must be interpreted to coincide with River's whimsical imagination:
Originally Posted by per River's imagination
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. They were inadvertently lost in Moscow somewhere.
Exactly!
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 03:05 PM   #84
michael44
Critical Thinker
 
michael44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Blasphemy St.
Posts: 395
If only Trump would join the ISF's forums, he could then proclaim his innocence by offering up his tax returns.

michael44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 03:16 PM   #85
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by River View Post
I'm pretty sure to be a criminal, you have to be guilty of a crime. Can you tell me which family members are guilty and what they are guilty of? Thanks.

Wanting it to be true, does not make it so.
Quote:
Criminal: A person who has committed a crime.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal

...you do not need to meet the legal threshold of "guilt" in order to meet the definition of a "criminal." Merely committing a crime is sufficient.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 04:03 PM   #86
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal

...you do not need to meet the legal threshold of "guilt" in order to meet the definition of a "criminal." Merely committing a crime is sufficient.
Prove Trump has committed a crime then.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 04:25 PM   #87
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by River View Post
Prove Trump has committed a crime then.
You mean convict him? All in due course.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 04:37 PM   #88
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by River View Post
Prove Trump has committed a crime then.
...again: not a standard required to meet the threshold of being called a "criminal." The threshold for calling him a "criminal" has been met by people participating in this thread. It may not meet your personal threshold: but why should I care about that?
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 05:20 PM   #89
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
TRUMP is a criminal Tax Cheat.

Quote:
David Cay Johnston: It’s the most extraordinary thing: The New York Times said that the sitting president of the United States engaged in “outright fraud.” From the documents, the 100,000-plus pages of mostly private Trump family documents, backed up by various public records, and interviews and other work they’ve done, two things can be said: Donald Trump in particular, and the Trump family as a whole, are criminal tax cheats. They won’t ever be indicted for the crimes the Times described, because the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution is only six years, and the Times covers a half-century from the 1950s to the turn of the century. They can be prosecuted for civil fraud for every single dollar, and Donald has already had two civil tax-fraud trials. He lost both of them.https://www.thenation.com/article/do...nal-tax-cheat/
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 05:47 PM   #90
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 23,884
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
People who are not guilty pay all the time. To save money from litigation, to avoid the uncertainty in civil cases. Lots of reasons. That doesn’t mean President Trump wasn’t going to rightfully lose
Who cares? Regardless of his motivations, he admitted fraud when he wrote the check. The attack ads don't have to mention that he didn't admit wrong doing; the spots only have to be done well enough so the charge sticks in voters' minds. You don't have to be honorable when going after a traitor like Trump; you just have to win.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 05:50 PM   #91
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 23,884
Originally Posted by River View Post
Prove Trump has committed a crime then.
It's not what you can prove it's what you can make stick in the voters' minds. Questions of honor and morality don't apply to Trump. If it hurts him and is legal it's not only fine, it's patriotic. When he goes low, go lower.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 06:16 PM   #92
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by River View Post
Prove Trump has committed a crime then.
He's been convicted of precisely as many as his major party opponent in the last election.

The one he calls "crooked".
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 06:45 PM   #93
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
It's not what you can prove it's what you can make stick in the voters' minds. Questions of honor and morality don't apply to Trump. If it hurts him and is legal it's not only fine, it's patriotic. When he goes low, go lower.
Trump is so incredibly lucky. If he hadn't been chosen for The Apprentice, it's likely he would be much poorer. That show gave him cred setting up lots of marks to fall for his cons. And the con continued on to the White House and hasn't stopped there. He said, he would release his taxes, but he lied.

Now being President brings a world of scrutiny. The latest news is that he stepped in to prevent the FBI building being sold so a hotel won't be built across from his new hotel in DC. And he said, he would divest himself from being involved in his real estate business. Guess what? Donald lied again.

My bet is on Trump's last day if not sooner, he will issue an unconditional pardon for himself and his relatives
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 06:48 PM   #94
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 21,625
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Trump is so incredibly lucky. If he hadn't been chosen for The Apprentice, it's likely he would be much poorer. That show gave him cred setting up lots of marks to fall for his cons. And the con continued on to the White House and hasn't stopped there. He said, he would release his taxes, but he lied.

Now being President brings a world of scrutiny. The latest news is that he stepped in to prevent the FBI building being sold so a hotel won't be built across from his new hotel in DC. And he said, he would divest himself from being involved in his real estate business. Guess what? Donald lied again.

My bet is on Trump's last day if not sooner, he will issue an unconditional pardon for himself and his relatives
Trump LIES? Oh, tell me it ain't so!

Do even his most ardent supporters claim he doesn't lie?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th October 2018 at 06:49 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 07:08 PM   #95
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 6,957
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
My bet is on Trump's last day if not sooner, he will issue an unconditional pardon for himself and his relatives
But to keep the hope of Schadenfreude alive, he and his family can still face multiple state charges, which are immune from his pardon powers.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 07:36 PM   #96
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
But to keep the hope of Schadenfreude alive, he and his family can still face multiple state charges, which are immune from his pardon powers.
True and if Trump does issue that Federal pardon, it will likely anger the various State AGs to only increase the pressure.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 08:36 PM   #97
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 25,628
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Trump LIES? Oh, tell me it ain't so!

Do even his most ardent supporters claim he doesn't lie?
YES. Which is what I find most unbelievable that the lot of them can't see it. Or won't.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 08:40 PM   #98
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 15,734
From Court transcripts we know he lied under oath almost constantly.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 08:54 PM   #99
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I doubt many people believed the "self-made man" lie to begin with.
A whole slew of voters certainly did and most of them still do.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:03 PM   #100
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by River View Post
I'm pretty sure to be a criminal, you have to be guilty of a crime. Can you tell me which family members are guilty and what they are guilty of? Thanks.

Wanting it to be true, does not make it so.
Oh for pity's sake. Why should anyone tell you again what has been cited and supported?

Try the NPR article. Try the NYT exposé on the Trump family.

This one's intriguing: Did the Trump Family Historian Drop a Dime to the New York Times?
A first cousin of the president kept a trove of financial records that appears to have provided evidence for a major investigation of the Trump family business.


Here's the main story going way back to when he ripped his father off and then to how they hid income by claiming false expenses. Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th October 2018 at 09:12 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:14 PM   #101
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
What Trump said...


And how it must be interpreted to coincide with River's whimsical imagination:
So I said he called on Russia to find Hillary's missing emails. I interpreted that as encouraging Russian hackers to further meddle in U.S. elections. The only argument I could think of, is, well, asking them to investigate Hillary could be totally unrelated to the elections; he just wants her corruption exposed for the greater good. She just happened to be the Democratic nominee for president and the person Trump had to best in order to win the election. That's the only difference I could immediately perceive that might call my paraphrasing into question. There may be something subtler that I'm missing.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:20 PM   #102
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
My interpretation: "Trump did call on Russian hackers to further compromise the U.S. election process."

Trump: "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

To me, those statements do match up. But I'm curious about the perceived conflict. There may be some nuance that I am missing (per my post right before this one).

River, if you're reading this, I would like to hear from you about why you think these statements don't match up. You said you were leaving the conversation, though. If you want to explain why I'm wrong, I'm listening.

Last edited by Minoosh; 20th October 2018 at 09:30 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:38 PM   #103
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by River View Post
Can you support this by linking us to proof of their convictions? Thanks. Otherwise, it's noise.
Why do we need that to discuss the 'more probable than not' evidence against Trump? You cite a magic red line and stand behind it as if it is evidence or even an evidence supported position. It is not.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:43 PM   #104
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by River View Post
Not according to California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.


1995: O.J. Simpson verdict is not guilty

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Do you know how silly your position is? OJ even admitted it once he was safe from double jeopardy.

If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer

Amazingly, a lot of criminals like OJ have a psychological need to confess.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:45 PM   #105
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't care what they think. I care about truth.
That's two BTC posts I actually agree with.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:47 PM   #106
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by River View Post
You called him and his family criminals. I asked you to support it with facts. You could not. I'll take that as withdrawing your claim.
This is a blatant falsehood.

You can't seem to distinguish between "evidence" and "conviction".
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:50 PM   #107
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by River View Post
You are mistaken. What I did say is; the American public has proof of her committing multiple felonies. The proof comes straight from her lips, and James Comeys.

Why wasn't she prosecuted? (hint: there are ongoing investigations to the mishandling of the case - and many have lost their jobs due to that) Why did the state dept lie?
So Comey's conclusion in your mind is as good as a conviction in a court. But an entire expose on how Trump and his family are criminals is not as good as a conviction.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You have no proof Clinton was convicted because she wasn't.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 10:08 PM   #108
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,525
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
He's been convicted of precisely as many as his major party opponent in the last election.

The one he calls "crooked".
No, Trump has more than one conviction on the books. Clinton has zero.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 11:11 PM   #109
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Definitely further proof if any was needed, that reporters need to consult experts in the field they are reporting on in order to understand it. There are so many glaring errors and shadings of the truth in the Pro-Publica article that it's kind of embarrassing.

For starters, how involved was Trump in these transactions? The article tries to have it both ways:

Quote:
The Trumps were typically way more than mere licensors or bystanders in their often-troubled deals. They were deeply involved in these projects. They helped mislead investors and buyers — and they profited handsomely from it.
But a paragraph or two later:

Quote:
Another pattern: Donald Trump repeatedly misled buyers about the amount (or existence) of his ownership in projects in Tampa, Florida; Panama; Baja and elsewhere. For a tower planned in Tampa, for example, Trump told a local paper in 2005 that his ownership would be less than 50 percent: “But it’s a substantial stake. I recently said I’d like to increase my stake but when they’re selling that well they don’t let you do that.” In reality, Trump had no ownership stake in the project.
Now seriously, first of all, how stupid do you have to believe that Trump had no stake in the project? Why would he lend his name to it otherwise? He may have had no money of his own invested in the deal, but that is a completely different thing. And of course the initial argument was that Trump was far more involved than he claimed in the licensed projects, not far less involved.

Most of the other points raised in the article turn out to be the fact that Trump and his people hyped themselves and their projects and sometimes (gasp!) overstated how well they were doing.

I do find the highlighted claim supposedly proving Ivanka guilty herself is almost immediately corrected:

Quote:
When pressed by her interviewer about what she meant by “I sold 40 units,” Ivanka backed off, saying, “We did, our project,” a transcript of the interview shows. Studnicky, who was deeply involved with Ocean Club sales at the time and generally praised the Trumps, said Ivanka didn’t sell any units that he knew of.
So she made it sound like she was this genius real estate saleswoman? But when pressed on it, immediately said she meant some sore of royal "I". Of course, she should have gone with the usual, "My team and I sold 40 units."

Most of the other statements amount to standard real estate puffery, which is not illegal. If Trump was a publicly traded company you could raise an argument that it is deceiving investors, but buyers do not have quite the same protections. Go into any real estate sales office at a condo development and ask them how sales are going. Unless the project has been taken over by the bank, expect them to tell you that sales are brisk, but they do have a few very nice units for sale.

And even some of those "statements" are are weakly sourced:

Quote:
More than 50 buyers claimed Ivanka said the Trump Organization was a developer on the project at a 2007 sales event, according to a lawsuit quoted by Univision.
Seriously? His source is a lawsuit quoted by Univision? I mean, he can't even vouch for the lawsuit itself. And it gets much worse:

Quote:
Claim: Trump announced the hotel/condo was “pretty much sold out” in April 2006, according to a broker who attended the presentation.
That is a source?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 20th October 2018 at 11:26 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 12:26 AM   #110
zorro99
Graduate Poster
 
zorro99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,056
Originally Posted by River View Post
I'm pretty sure to be a criminal, you have to be guilty of a crime. Can you tell me which family members are guilty and what they are guilty of? Thanks.

Wanting it to be true, does not make it so.
By that standard, Al Capone wasn’t a crook either. He simply forgot to report some income on his taxes.
__________________
There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.
zorro99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 12:57 AM   #111
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by zorro99 View Post
By that standard, Al Capone wasn’t a crook either. He simply forgot to report some income on his taxes.
And they locked him up? Just goes to show that the Deep State (tm) was really really deep even back then.

__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 02:09 AM   #112
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
The American public now has proof Trump engaged in criminal violations of campaign finance laws and conspiracy to commit same (see Cohen's guilty plea).
Massive tax fraud, too. And using his charitable organisation as a personal slush fund.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 04:58 AM   #113
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,911
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Definitely further proof if any was needed, that reporters need to consult experts in the field they are reporting on in order to understand it. There are so many glaring errors and shadings of the truth in the Pro-Publica article that it's kind of embarrassing.

For starters, how involved was Trump in these transactions? The article tries to have it both ways:



But a paragraph or two later:



Now seriously, first of all, how stupid do you have to believe that Trump had no stake in the project? Why would he lend his name to it otherwise? He may have had no money of his own invested in the deal, but that is a completely different thing. And of course the initial argument was that Trump was far more involved than he claimed in the licensed projects, not far less involved.
There is no contradiction here at all. The article says that Trump was deeply involved in misleading investors and that Trump had no ownership stake in this company. Both claims could well be true.

Indeed, implying that one has an ownership stake that he doesn't is misleading investors. The two paragraphs are not merely consistent. The second is support for the first.

I skipped the rest of your post because this first big discovery of yours was just too silly.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 05:16 AM   #114
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 6,957
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No, Trump has more than one conviction on the books. Clinton has zero.
I am NOT going to take over River’s rein here, but...

I’m not aware of any criminal convictions. Numerous civil judgments, but those should not counted as convictions, as they’re not.

I think there’s plenty of evidence of criminal wrongdoing, going all the way back to evading sales tax by having a store ship an empty jewelry box to an out-of-state address. The statute of limitations may render him immune from prosecution for said tax evasion, but it certainly shows a pattern of contempt for laws he chooses to ignore. I recall there’s also evidence of using Trump Foundation funds for personal and campaign expenses - something as trivial as using said funds to pay Barron’s Boy Scout fee or equivalent, or paying a fine at a FL property involving an oversized flag.

Back on point, has Donald Trump ever been convicted of a crime?

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 21st October 2018 at 05:18 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 05:28 AM   #115
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,829
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Back on point, has Donald Trump ever been convicted of a crime?
Nope. Lots and lots of lawsuits, tons of investigations, a lot of settlements and undisclosed deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_...3%E2%80%931999
__________________
"When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Then there are no more answers, only better and better lies." - Jon Snow

"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 05:28 AM   #116
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 15,734
Trump and is businesses has been sued almost 2,000 times. Despite him declaring that he never settles,he did settle in at least 100 cases, with payouts in the 6 to 8 figure range.

Trump also has partnered up multiple times with convicted felons, including members of organized crime organizations.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 06:02 AM   #117
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 23,884
Originally Posted by River View Post
Link the recordings you speak of. I've not heard them. If Trump is found to be guilty of a crime I've said many times on this forum he deserves the consequences. That goes for all officials, not just him.
Seriously? You've never heard the Cohen tapes? Dude, they're everywhere. That's just straight up willful ignorance.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 06:24 AM   #118
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,620
Creating a summary of Trump's lies is an impossibility, even if you reduce it to the mega whoppers. People who ask for evidence of Trump lies are so disingenuous as to be in the realm of the surreal. Meanwhile, I'll repeat my challenge: I'll bet hard, cold cash that nobody is able to cite five minutes of Trump speaking, sans teleprompter, without lying.

I began this post intending to summarize the grifting -- Trump Foundation, Trump business, Trump U, stiffing contractors, hush money payments ... I need to punt; this is also a daunting list if it's to be comprehensive. He's been grifting non-stop his entire adult life after all.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 08:17 AM   #119
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Definitely further proof if any was needed, that reporters need to consult experts in the field they are reporting on in order to understand it. There are so many glaring errors and shadings of the truth in the Pro-Publica article that it's kind of embarrassing.

For starters, how involved was Trump in these transactions? The article tries to have it both ways:
No, in fact it doesn't. What you are pointing out are two different things. The Trumps were clearly involved in marketing and branding, but actual investment of their own was often little or none. They would tailor their message to who they were talking to.

To the suckers buying space, these were Trump properties and Trump was developing the projects. They 'were deeply involved', but the moment things went even the slightest bit sour they had almost nothing to do with it. What the Pro-Publica article clearly points out the fraud committed against all those investors.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Now seriously, first of all, how stupid do you have to believe that Trump had no stake in the project? Why would he lend his name to it otherwise? He may have had no money of his own invested in the deal, but that is a completely different thing. And of course the initial argument was that Trump was far more involved than he claimed in the licensed projects, not far less involved.
Who's now talking stupidly out of both sides of his mouth?

Do we think Trump may have preferred that they were a success for the people who bought space? Sure, but that's really not stake in the game.
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Most of the other points raised in the article turn out to be the fact that Trump and his people hyped themselves and their projects and sometimes (gasp!) overstated how well they were doing.
Some would say that's called misleading investors and fraud. You and I have different morals. Lying and cheating people is graft.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
i do find the highlighted claim supposedly proving Ivanka guilty herself is almost immediately corrected:
You mean after being caught outright lying and then backtracking? It should be noted she didn't correct her lies without prompting. I guess that makes her a tiny bit better than her father.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post

So she made it sound like she was this genius real estate saleswoman? But when pressed on it, immediately said she meant some sore of royal "I". Of course, she should have gone with the usual, "My team and I sold 40 units."
It wasn't her team.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Most of the other statements amount to standard real estate puffery, which is not illegal. If Trump was a publicly traded company you could raise an argument that it is deceiving investors, but buyers do not have quite the same protections. Go into any real estate sales office at a condo development and ask them how sales are going. Unless the project has been taken over by the bank, expect them to tell you that sales are brisk, but they do have a few very nice units for sale.
There is a difference between saying 'sales are brisk' and specifically saying that 90% are sold when in fact barely over 50% were sold. The first is puffery, the second is fraud.
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Seriously? His source is a lawsuit quoted by Univision?
Why? You're saying a Spanish television network is worse than NBC or CNN? This was about a project in Panama not in NY.

What I find amazing is just how much some people are willing to excuse lying and fraud from the Trumps That integrity, character and honor is tossed so easily into the garbage dumpster.

What a sad day in America.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 21st October 2018 at 08:22 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 09:19 AM   #120
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29,327
Let's look at the lies they told about Trump Soho.


Quote:
Business was slow, but the Trump family claimed the opposite. In April, 2008, they said that thirty-one per cent of the condos in the building had been purchased. Donald, Jr., boasted to The Real Deal magazine that fifty-five per cent of the units had been bought. In June, 2008, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka, alongside their brother Eric, gathered the foreign press at Trump Tower in Manhattan, where Ivanka announced that sixty per cent had been snapped up. “We’re in a very fortunate position where we have enough sales, and now we are strategically targeting certain buyers,” she said.

None of that was true. According to a sworn affidavit by a Trump partner filed with the New York Attorney General’s office, by March of 2010, almost two years after the press conference, only 15.8 per cent of units had been sold.
As someone who's entire career has been in sales. I understand the difference between puffery and outright lying. The moment you make a claim that is specific and demonstrably false, you are engaged in FRAUD! This wasn't just slightly rounding up say 65 to say 70%. No, they were saying that 5 or 10 or 15% was a whopping 60 %!

And Ivanka and Don Jr were almost assuredly going to be indicted. That is until certain politicians were paid off and mysteriously ordered the DA to drop the case.

Read the story.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...nal-indictment
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 21st October 2018 at 10:44 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.