A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

In today's news,

CBS

Comments on Jewish Democratic voters.

Trump's comments on Jews who vote for Democrats draw outrage

Donald Trump said Jews who vote for Democrats "hate Israel" and "their religion," igniting a firestorm of criticism from the White House and Jewish leaders.

www.cbsnews.com

The Pew Research Center reported in 2021 that Jews are "among the most consistently liberal and Democratic groups in the U.S.," with 7 in 10 Jewish adults identifying with or leaning toward the Democratic Party. In 2020, it found that nearly three-quarters of American Jews disapproved of Trump's performance as president, with just 27% rating him positively.​

​

U.S. Presidential Elections: Jewish Voting Record​

% of Jewish vote:

2016

Trump 24%

Clinton 71%

2020

Trump 30%

Biden 68%

Jewish Voting Record in U.S. Presidential Elections

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Ah yes. Labelling those that are on an opposite political side and defining them according to one’s own leanings.

Clinton did that to women who supported Trump.
Biden did it to black people supporting Trump.
Trump doing it to Jews now.

It’s an unsophisticated tactic and divisive. And shows no respect for the democratic process and those that choose to vote one way or another.

Not surprised though.

 

[mariomike]

Clinton did that to women who supported Trump.

As far as Women are concerned, according to an 11 March, 2024 article in Financial Review,

Women have voted for the Democratic candidate at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980.

 

[CountDC]

If you or I did that when going for a bank loan, they would pass it on to the police to prosecute you for fraud. If you under reported the value of your assets to the CRA, they would eat your soul and leave you broken.

A bunch of experts testified to both sides about whether or not it's common practice or fraud, so expect it's probably somewhere in the middle, but his behaviour and general disrespect of the court throughout didn't really help. If you get sent to the principle's office and continue to act like a complete arse, you should expect to be in the FAFO realm.

I think a lot of the Mar-a-lago valuations can be lower because he never actually paid the small contractors for the work and sued them instead like a rich bully. He owed something like $70M to 250ish contractors for the Taj Mahal which ruined a lot of them. He routinely gets sued for non-payment of contracting work by small firms, things like overtime for employees with thousands of small claims that he beats into submission with lawyers or just ignores until they go bankrupt.

How this guy framed himself as a man of the people I will never know; he is only a billionaire because he inherited it all, failed spectacularly at things he tried to do for himself, and regularly stiffs blue collar workers (while probably spending more on lawyers not to pay them, until he doesn't pay his lawyers as well).

This is all well documented public record stuff that goes back to the 80s, so this guy has been a snake oil sales man since I was a toddler. This case is really just him getting caught for the lies he routinely peddles.

You can say whatever you want for the value of your property, no bank is going to loan based on that. They do their own assessment and put a value to it which is what the banks he financed from stated so where is the fraud? They are not going to contact the police to have you charged because your estimated value doesn't match theirs which is why none of them did it to him. Are you sure it was a lie or did he actually believe his property was worth that amount? Ask any real estate agent and if they are honest for once they will tell you almost everyone overestimates the value of their property when they are looking to sell. Hardest job as an agent is getting that seller to take a reasonable offer.

Not paying small contractors is a common problem in the construction industry. Knew a couple people that stopped taking sub-contracts because they were ripped off by the contractors. In one cases the contract was a federal contract in Ottawa and the contractor blatantly told the sub-contractor to take what they paid him or they would ensure he never got another government contract again. As he was too small to fight them he walked away with a loss and refused to sub anymore. I suspect most of these cases are the same thing, sub-contractors that were not paid and sue the wrong person figuring they stood a better chance against him than trying to get it from the contractor.

He didn't inherit billions, high estimates are over $400 million but one report has that amount had to be split with his siblings. Even then a number of reports toss in the little "at todays rate" clause meaning he didn't actually inherit that amount. Some estimates are he is worth between 2.6 (Forbes) to 3.1 billion (Bloomberg).

Despite what anyone thinks of him none of this is about him committing a crime other than the perceived one of him running for president. This is all dirty politics at it's worse.

 

[KevinB]

Congressional Hearing into the Withdrawal from Afghanistan is ongoing currently.

Nothing earth shattering for those who followed it.

Gen Milley (USA ret.) has been testifying, as well as other former GO’s. Pretty much all the blame is being placed on the State Department and President Biden.

 

[mariomike]

My post did not mention Women or Black people.

It was about this reported in today's news,

Trump's comments on Jews who vote for Democrats draw outrage

Donald Trump said Jews who vote for Democrats "hate Israel" and "their religion," igniting a firestorm of criticism from the White House and Jewish leaders.

www.cbsnews.com

Trump also only appeals to a minority of blacks, but what's important is that the minority is larger than it used to be and that blacks are a large enough share of the US population to really matter.

Biden did it to black people supporting Trump.

As far as Race is concerned,

87 percent of surveyed Black voters reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden.

2020 Presidential Election exit polls: share of votes by ethnicity U.S. 2020 | Statista

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 87 percent of surveyed Black voters reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden.

www.statista.com

Trump doing it to Jews now.

Right.

Nothing new about that.

That was the subject of my post.

CBS News

August 20, 2019

Trump says any Jewish people who vote for Democrats show "lack of knowledge or great disloyalty"​

 

[kkwd]

"We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James said of the standard court process for collecting judgments in civil cases.

Well AG James, you might find yourself with an administrative nightmare. First there would have to be court action to seize Trump Tower. If it passes muster of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment of the US Constitution then she may be able to seize it. But something else in the mix is who else holds partial ownership in the building. Then it is New York State property. In the meantime there is insurance to be paid, biannual taxes are due soon and utilities have to be paid along with other daily operating costs. Then there are about 38 top floors with residential condos and the lower part is offices and retail space. Does the AG collect the rent from all those people. That is many tenants to deal with. Just a side note, can those tenants sue if the terms of their lease are broken. They are likely not people without means and don't like disruption. Then she might avoid this mess by doing a quick sale. Well, not ideal. It would affect property values in the area to sell the building at a bargain price. With the AG's statements it would seem she is clear eyes in her mission "Get Trump", as stated in her campaign for office and nothing will get in the way.

 

[FJAG]

Well AG James, you might find yourself with an administrative nightmare. First there would have to be court action to seize Trump Tower. If it passes muster of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment of the US Constitution then she may be able to seize it. But something else in the mix is who else holds partial ownership in the building. Then it is New York State property. In the meantime there is insurance to be paid, biannual taxes are due soon and utilities have to be paid along with other daily operating costs. Then there are about 38 top floors with residential condos and the lower part is offices and retail space. Does the AG collect the rent from all those people. That is many tenants to deal with. Just a side note, can those tenants sue if the terms of their lease are broken. They are likely not people without means and don't like disruption. Then she might avoid this mess by doing a quick sale. Well, not ideal. It would affect property values in the area to sell the building at a bargain price. With the AG's statements it would seem she is clear eyes in her mission "Get Trump", as stated in her campaign for office and nothing will get in the way.

You're a bit off. The issue isn't seizing Trump Towers but seizing Trump's interest in various assets anywhere in the US and any reciprocating foreign countries. Essentially the NY AG's staff would be looking for the best and easiest low hanging fruit to attack. Such actions are difficult but by no means a nightmare since as part of these proceedings the NY AG's office has a fairly comprehensive understanding of what interests Trump has.

 

[kkwd]

You're a bit off. The issue isn't seizing Trump Towers but seizing Trump's interest in various assets anywhere in the US and any reciprocating foreign countries. Essentially the NY AG's staff would be looking for the best and easiest low hanging fruit to attack. Such actions are difficult but by no means a nightmare since as part of these proceedings the NY AG's office has a fairly comprehensive understanding of what interests Trump has.

Her specific words she looks at Trump Tower every day. I figure it's important to her to take it. You know how it is, rational thought and anything Trump just don't go together, revenge is good enough.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well AG James, you might find yourself with an administrative nightmare. First there would have to be court action to seize Trump Tower. If it passes muster of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment of the US Constitution then she may be able to seize it. But something else in the mix is who else holds partial ownership in the building. Then it is New York State property. In the meantime there is insurance to be paid, biannual taxes are due soon and utilities have to be paid along with other daily operating costs. Then there are about 38 top floors with residential condos and the lower part is offices and retail space. Does the AG collect the rent from all those people. That is many tenants to deal with. Just a side note, can those tenants sue if the terms of their lease are broken. They are likely not people without means and don't like disruption. Then she might avoid this mess by doing a quick sale. Well, not ideal. It would affect property values in the area to sell the building at a bargain price. With the AG's statements it would seem she is clear eyes in her mission "Get Trump", as stated in her campaign for office and nothing will get in the way.

She's likely got some Democrat billionaires or consortium already lined up to take the mess off her hands. She'll get a very handsome payday for making that happen.

 

[FJAG]

Her specific words she looks at Trump Tower every day. I figure it's important to her to take it. You know how it is, rational thought and anything Trump just don't go together, revenge is good enough.

I've found dozens and dozens of articles today that speculate as to whether the NY AG will seize Trump Tower but have yet to find one where she says she will do that. Yes she says she's looked at Trump Tower every day but that's a step removed from what she says which is that she will seize his assets. Trump's interest in the Tower is an asset, but if you recall my initial comment was that seizing his interests would start with the easy assets first and would be nowhere near the nightmare that you speculate it would be.

I find it interesting how you classify her "getting Trump" - like it's some nefarious scheme. It's not. The man lost a court case because he is a proven fraud artist. There is a major judgement against him in favour of NY State. She'd be negligent in her duties to the people of New York if she didn't take actions to collect on the judgment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Don't forget. She has her court appointed snitch in place. Every financial transaction requires their oversight, approval and sending reports to James.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've found dozens and dozens of articles today that speculate as to whether the NY AG will seize Trump Tower but have yet to find one where she says she will do that. Yes she says she's looked at Trump Tower every day but that's a step removed from what she says which is that she will seize his assets. Trump's interest in the Tower is an asset, but if you recall my initial comment was that seizing his interests would start with the easy assets first and would be nowhere near the nightmare that you speculate it would be.

I find it interesting how you classify her "getting Trump" - like it's some nefarious scheme. It's not. The man lost a court case because he is a proven fraud artist. There is a major judgement against him in favour of NY State. She'd be negligent in her duties to the people of New York if she didn't take actions to collect on the judgment.

Your certainly entitled to your learned opinion, but even a lot of high mucky muck Democrats don't agree with you. They see the writing on the wall. In their endeavour to shove a stick in Trump's eye, they are going to find out about the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fallout won't be about one side or the other losing face nationally. What you are going to see, if this stands, is a lot of big business getting their ass out of New York. It'll send a message to investors everywhere that this isn't the place to invest, given the overzealousness of the courts and DAs that will prosecute you on a whim and bend the case to ensure they get revenge. No new investment in the US, companies fleeing, unemployment, crime, you get the picture. This not going to affect one family, it's knock on effects will damage hundreds of thousands of people. Because of a kangaroo court set up to satisfy a DAs ego and an exalted position in the DNC. You've staked out your side and I mine. I can leave it here.

Meh, Trump still has a couple of days.

 

[Lumber]

Your certainly entitled to your learned opinion, but even a lot of high mucky muck Democrats don't agree with you. They see the writing on the wall. In their endeavour to shove a stick in Trump's eye, they are going to find out about the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fallout won't be about one side or the other losing face nationally. What you are going to see, if this stands, is a lot of big business getting their ass out of New York. It'll send a message to investors everywhere that this isn't the place to invest, given the overzealousness of the courts and DAs that will prosecute you on a whim and bend the case to ensure they get revenge. No new investment in the US, companies fleeing, unemployment, crime, you get the picture. This not going to affect one family, it's knock on effects will damage hundreds of thousands of people. Because of a kangaroo court set up to satisfy a DAs ego and an exalted position in the DNC. You've staked out your side and I mine. I can leave it here.

Meh, Trump still has a couple of days.

Jesus Christ @Fishbone, how many times do people have to point it out for to you get the point: none if this was "on a whim". Regardless of whether or not the DA had a personal and partisan vendetta against a Trump, the mountain of evidence against him is incontrovertible. Businesses aren't going to start fleeing New York, because the vast majority of them aren't crooks!

 

[Lumber]

Something very interesting I think any of doom and gloom folk should take notice of. I just spent 3 days at a training conference in the US with about 35 Americans who came from all corners of the US. My time there also included meals spent together and some social events.

In 3 days, politics was never discussed once. There wasn't some warning at the beginning not to do it; it just never came up.

I didn't hear Trump's name for 3 days. I hear it at least once a day in Canada!

Maybe we should be more like the Americans and just go watch March Madness instead.

 

[dimsum]

Something very interesting I think any of doom and gloom folk should take notice of. I just spent 3 days at a training conference in the US with about 35 Americans who came from all corners of the US. My time there also included meals spent together and some social events.

In 3 days, politics was never discussed once. There wasn't some warning at the beginning not to do it; it just never came up.

I didn't hear Trump's name for 3 days. I hear it at least once a day in Canada!

Maybe we should be more like the Americans and just go watch March Madness instead.

We (as in this group) talk about politics far more than any other group I’m part of.

My US family doesn’t talk about it - they are just waiting out to see what happens in Nov.

 

[dimsum]

Your certainly entitled to your learned opinion, but even a lot of high mucky muck Democrats don't agree with you. They see the writing on the wall. In their endeavour to shove a stick in Trump's eye, they are going to find out about the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fallout won't be about one side or the other losing face nationally. What you are going to see, if this stands, is a lot of big business getting their ass out of New York. It'll send a message to investors everywhere that this isn't the place to invest, given the overzealousness of the courts and DAs that will prosecute you on a whim and bend the case to ensure they get revenge. No new investment in the US, companies fleeing, unemployment, crime, you get the picture. This not going to affect one family, it's knock on effects will damage hundreds of thousands of people. Because of a kangaroo court set up to satisfy a DAs ego and an exalted position in the DNC. You've staked out your side and I mine. I can leave it here.

Meh, Trump still has a couple of days.

Excuse me what?

NYC will be fine. As it stands, the US economy (with NYC being a huge part of it) is still massive - companies won’t be leaving because of this. Their shareholders will insist that they stay because of the sheer scale of the US market. The big ones won’t leave NYC for Tweedledee, Tennessee.

Hell, major foreign companies weren’t leaving The People’s Republic of China, a place where you can be prosecuted on a whim, because of the size of the potential market.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I find it interesting how you classify her "getting Trump" - like it's some nefarious scheme. It's not. The man lost a court case because he is a proven fraud artist. There is a major judgement against him in favour of NY State. She'd be negligent in her duties to the people of New York if she didn't take actions to collect on the judgment.

That's some nice spin. I haven't found anything yet that would lead me to believe this is not the only time this law was applied this way, against a widely-reviled man, by people who openly threatened to "get him".

 

[Brad Sallows]

Companies are not going to pack up and leave New York just because of the judgement. Where the judgement is likely to be felt is mostly going to go "unseen" - companies that might move or develop there, and choose not to.

This isn't like people making empty claims that they're going to move to Canada if an election result displeases them, pretending that leaving jobs and communities and social circles behind is no big deal. Serious money is involved, and the cost of relocating will be weighed against the risk of being punished.

The outcome hangs over every company that has ever padded its appraisals. Either that's rare (as some claim), or it's not (as others claim). Having done this once, NY is safe if it looks like it will never do it again. Unfortunately, that tends to underline the appearance of selective enforcement. If NY does it again, the obvious lesson will be that no-one outside the lines of political favour is safe. Then there might be some departures.

 

[FJAG]

That's some nice spin. I haven't found anything yet that would lead me to believe this is not the only time this law was applied this way, against a widely-reviled man, by people who openly threatened to "get him".

It's not a spin, it's a fact. The duty of an AG is to uphold the laws that the people, through their legislatures--of both sides--over the years, have made.

Many, if not most, of the AGs in the US are--like James-- elected and run their campaigns on a "get tough on crime agenda." The proof in the pudding that she was right to get tough on this particular law-breaker is borne out by the judgment.

I find it hilarious that right wingers, who generally are tough on law-breakers, especially fat-cat rich ones, are loosing their shit over the fact that their fair haired golden boy is being prosecuted for the numerous crimes he has committed over the years. Get thee hence and find a new but worthy hero to worship. There are plenty of them out there.

 

[Kirkhill]

Companies are not going to pack up and leave New York just because of the judgement. Where the judgement is likely to be felt is mostly going to go "unseen" - companies that might move or develop there, and choose not to.

This isn't like people making empty claims that they're going to move to Canada if an election result displeases them, pretending that leaving jobs and communities and social circles behind is no big deal. Serious money is involved, and the cost of relocating will be weighed against the risk of being punished.

The outcome hangs over every company that has ever padded its appraisals. Either that's rare (as some claim), or it's not (as others claim). Having done this once, NY is safe if it looks like it will never do it again. Unfortunately, that tends to underline the appearance of selective enforcement. If NY does it again, the obvious lesson will be that no-one outside the lines of political favour is safe. Then there might be some departures.

I suspect money is already moving and contracts are being renegotiated to reduce exposure to NY courts