President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#39,177
#39,177
DinkinFlicka said:
Oh I was kidding there, making fun of AppVol's sub-2nd grade grasp on his native language.

Though you can say you don't care, but you're still throwing your 2 cents. No one brought up the pride flag until you did.

Like it or not, it is without any doubt that you are emotionally invested in your opinion, and that's normal.
Click to expand...
OK sure. But when it comes to flag burning, no one clutches more pearls than the multi colored crowd. It's a hate crime dude. Burning the American flag is a constitutional right. All I know is if I'm in the woods without TP and I have a choice of the two which I'd use.
 
#39,178
#39,178
hog88 said:
There is a difference in being an employee and an elected official.
Click to expand...


That's not what Trump et al said. Lutnick this morning said, squarely,if you commit fraud you are disqualified from being a member of the federal government. Period.

He did not say its okay for an elected official but not for an appointed one.

And if in the end that's the distinction that ends up being what Team Trump relies on, its not going to go well for them in Court. Because its stupid.
 
#39,180
#39,180
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK sure. But when it comes to flag burning, no one clutches more pearls than the multi colored crowd. It's a hate crime dude. Burning the American flag is a constitutional right. All I know is if I'm in the woods without TP and I have a choice of the two which I'd use.
Click to expand...


Unless its mine, I don't care if you burn a flag. I will ignore your effort to goad me into a reaction. That is the best revenge.
 
#39,181
#39,181
lawgator1 said:
That's not what Trump et al said. Lutnick this morning said, squarely,if you commit fraud you are disqualified from being a member of the federal government. Period.

He did not say its okay for an elected official but not for an appointed one.

And if in the end that's the distinction that ends up being what Team Trump relies on, its not going to go well for them in Court. Because its stupid.
Click to expand...

Picking knits is what you are doing. People get fired over allegations every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and SpaceCoastVol
#39,185
#39,185
hog88 said:
Picking knits is what you are doing. People get fired over allegations every day.
Click to expand...


LOL, I am picking nits? Lutnick squarely said that if you commit fraud you cannot be in the federal government. Cook is fired by a guy CONVICTED of fraud -- on many many occasions - and she alleged to have done it once.
 
#39,186
#39,186
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#39,187
#39,187
lawgator1 said:
LOL, I am picking nits? Lutnick squarely said that if you commit fraud you cannot be in the federal government. Cook is fired by a guy CONVICTED of fraud -- on many many occasions - and she alleged to have done it once.
Click to expand...
We all knew about Trump's record before going to the voting booth in November. If a guy gets the most votes he gets the job of President fair and square. I could go into what the American people felt about that verdict but we've already been there done that
 
#39,190
#39,190
lawgator1 said:
No. And I've said that if she did commit fraud she simply ought to resign.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that Trump fired her "for cause," with the cause being she is accused of financial fraud. And Trump's people go on tv saying that if a person commits fraud, they are disqualified from having office in the federal government.

Trump ticks all of those boxes, and even more, as he was tried and convicted.

If the argument is, well, he's appealing, then that makes no sense since she hasn't even been charged, much less tried and convicted, and hasn't had the same chance to appeal.

Bottom line is that the rationale offered for firing her is not being applied evenly. At all.
Click to expand...


Cook's case is criminal, felony fraud case that can/does bar one from office....no criminal mortgage fraud case has been proven against Trump that would bar him from office.
 
#39,191
#39,191
jmacvols1 said:
Cook's case is criminal, felony fraud case that can/does bar one from office....no criminal mortgage fraud case has been proven against Trump that would bar him from office.
Click to expand...

Ok, excuse and false difference number 57 .... one is "criminal fraud," the other "civil fraud."

Never mind hers, if true, was to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand and his was in the neighborhood of half a billion.
 
#39,193
#39,193
lawgator1 said:
LOL, I am picking nits? Lutnick squarely said that if you commit fraud you cannot be in the federal government. Cook is fired by a guy CONVICTED of fraud -- on many many occasions - and she alleged to have done it once.
Click to expand...
Does civil vs criminal make a difference to you??? Her allegation are refered for criminal charges...not civil like Trumps.
 
#39,194
#39,194
whodeycin85 said:
Does civil vs criminal make a difference to you??? Her allegation are refered for criminal charges...not civil like Trumps.
Click to expand...


The decision at what level to charge makes no difference. She is alleged to have done it once, he was convicted of doing it, what, 30-something times?
 
#39,196
#39,196
lawgator1 said:
Ok, excuse and false difference number 57 .... one is "criminal fraud," the other "civil fraud."

Never mind hers, if true, was to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand and his was in the neighborhood of half a billion.
Click to expand...
What Trump was fraudulently convicted of could be used against every developer in NY. When this case was ongoing other developers say they do the same....The guy on Shark Tank (Kevin O'Leary) said he was getting out of NY if they start prosecuting developers for this (see GROK below with my emp).

So if you want Trump out because he wants Cook removed because you CLAIM they both did the same thing then do you want all developers taken to court and fined half a billion dollars same as Trump and have all real estate taken from them just like they tried to do to Trump?

I still stand behind my last post...what Cook is accused of is criminal and bars her from office what Trump was falsely accused of is civil and does not bar from office.

And should James be removed as DA since she is accused of MTG fraud, a crime?






GROK:
Kevin O'Leary (known as "Mr. Wonderful" from Shark Tank) has publicly stated that he would avoid investing in New York and effectively "move" his business interests out of the state due to cases like Donald Trump's civil real estate fraud case. While he hasn't explicitly said he would relocate his personal residence (he primarily lives in Toronto, Canada, with properties elsewhere), his comments focus on redirecting investments and incorporating businesses away from New York, citing the case as creating an unstable and hostile environment for real estate and business activities. This stems from the February 2024 ruling where Trump was ordered to pay over $355 million (plus interest) for inflating asset values to secure better loans and insurance.Key Statements from O'LearyO'Leary's remarks, made in multiple interviews shortly after the verdict, emphasize the broader implications for investors beyond Trump. He described the ruling as an "assault on real estate," a "victimless crime" that's common industry practice, and a threat to the "American brand" of stability. Here's a summary of his relevant quotes:
  • On Avoiding Investments in New York: In a February 19, 2024, interview on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto, O'Leary said: "It was already on the top of the list of being a loser state [due to high taxes and regulations]. I would never invest in New York now... And I’m not the only person saying that." He urged investors to "vote with their capital" by moving to "winner states" like Texas, Florida, North Dakota, or Oklahoma instead of "loser states" like New York (which he now ranks above California).
  • On Business Exodus and the Trump Case: On Fox & Friends Weekend (February 19, 2024), he warned: "What does this say to everybody that wants to do work in New York and wants to risk capital?... This is an atrocity. It's an embarrassment, but it's an assault on real estate... Move your business out." He framed it as non-partisan, saying "forget about the Trump factor," and predicted a "quiet exodus of capital leaving New York" due to the precedent set by the case.
  • On Global Impact and Asset Seizure Concerns: In a March 22, 2024, appearance on Jesse Watters Primetime (Fox News), O'Leary criticized the potential seizure of Trump's assets if he couldn't post the bond, calling it "concerning financial markets all around the world" and "tainting the American brand." On March 24, 2024, on The Ingraham Angle (Fox News), he added: "The collateral damage to the American brand is horrific... This is not America." He noted that while raising $3 billion for a U.S. data center, international investors repeatedly asked him, "What the hell is going on in New York?" and he had to reassure them it was an "anomaly."
  • Defense of Real Estate Practices: O'Leary has repeatedly argued that the behaviors in Trump's case—aggressively valuing assets high for loans (while banks negotiate down)—are standard. In a January 12, 2024, CNN interview with Laura Coates, he said: "Forget about Trump: Every single real estate developer everywhere on Earth does this... If you're going to sue this case and win, you got to sue every real estate developer everywhere." He called the case a "joke" and predicted it wouldn't survive appeals.
Context and Reactions
  • Why This Matters to O'Leary: As chairman of O'Leary Ventures and a real estate investor, he views the case as eroding trust in New York's judicial system, potentially leading to arbitrary fines and asset seizures without due process. He predicted in March 2024 that no new capital would flow into New York projects amid the appeals, exacerbating an existing business exodus (e.g., $1 trillion has reportedly left for states like Florida and Texas).
  • Criticism of His Views: Figures like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show (March 26, 2024) pushed back, arguing that widespread fraud doesn't make it acceptable and that the case protects the financial system by deterring misrepresentation. Legal experts note the ruling was based on "persistent and systematic" inflation (e.g., tripling Trump Tower's penthouse size from 10,996 to 30,000 sq ft), not mere negotiation.
  • Updates as of August 2025: The case is ongoing in appeals; the Appellate Division vacated the full penalty in August 2025 as "excessive" but upheld liability. O'Leary hasn't retracted his stance but hasn't commented extensively on the latest ruling. His comments went viral in 2024, sparking discussions on Reddit about business boycotts of New York.
O'Leary's position aligns with other critics (e.g., Fox Business host Charles Payne) who see it as a "legal banana republic" deterring investment.
 
Last edited:
#39,197
#39,197
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK sure. But when it comes to flag burning, no one clutches more pearls than the multi colored crowd. It's a hate crime dude. Burning the American flag is a constitutional right. All I know is if I'm in the woods without TP and I have a choice of the two which I'd use.
Click to expand...

What a strange "What if" scenario. Why would you have a pride flag with you on a camping trip?
 
#39,198
#39,198
SpaceCoastVol said:
Without a doubt. But he didn't, so here we are. Just imagine if Slutzilla had gotten elected.
Click to expand...

I have a question for you. Why do you refer to Harris as a whore and slut when your guy has probably ****ed ten times more people (mostly outside his marriage) than she has?

He's paid money to **** porn stars. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, MercyPercy, LouderVol and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top