Printable View
I was laughing at you for jerking off over the trial like it was ever in serious doubt, and then having blue balls after the verdict came in, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That you felt the need to defend your pathos in detail is even funnier and more pathetic. Thanks for that.
lol we all know your IQ is low. You don't have to keep confirming it with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So the question, still unanswered, is....What exactly do you think Trump did that would rise to the level of impeachment? Why exactly is he fucked?
I've laid out the known, irrefutable, objective facts. The law is clear. Please explain where my logic has gone wrong
Ya of course everyone knows it's physically impossible to give someone cash without writing it down. How silly of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Just today I went to the store, bought some gum, and the clerk offered me a receipt. I said 'no thanks' and he called the cops on me for refusing to confirm our transaction with a paper trail.
what are you even saying here? Are you denying that the paper trail exists? Are you saying Cohen DIDN"T send Trump monthly invoices for $35,000?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I said it already, but I'll say it again just so it's easier for you to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're not going to listen so there's no point going over the same things again and again. You're just going to keep spewing the latest bullshit you heard on Fox News, add a bit of your own, call me a few names, scramble my sentences around, and claim you've won the argument.
Lol you don't even know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's like trying to argue with a child.
"This is wrong."
"But that!"
"That is irrelevant."
"But this!"
And so on.
No, I really am. I really do want to know what you think about the FACTS, and am anxious to learn how you think they can be arranged into a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm only asking for you to do it onceQuote:
there's no point going over the same things again and again
Enlighten me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do the invoices exist? Or don't they?
Why are we arguing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm just trying to find out what exact crime you think Trump committed, and why?
I'm trying to find out what evidence you think exists, or doesn't exist.
I'm simply looking for simple answers to simple questions.
This is called discussing. The fact that you see it as arguing shows how insecure and fragile you ego really is.
Are you really afraid of what might happen if we volley the facts back and forth a bit and settle on what is plausible and what isn't? Are you that deathly afraid of potentially finding out that maybe Trump isn't fucked?
baby want a bottle now?
Listen carefully because i'm not going to keep explaining this to you over and over again. You might want to get your dictionary out for the bigger words.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here was my 'reason for impeachment that we know about no. 1':
1. Trump tried to get Cohen to pay SD with cash. So his first instinct was to be greasy and not leave a paper trail.
2. Cohen was the one who insisted it be done above board, so as to give it at least the air of legitimacy should it ever come up in, say, a courtroom.
You seem to be trying to argue, for whatever reason, that cash doesn't mean cash it means checks, securities, bonds, whatever. If you actually believe this then you are mistaken.
You also seem to be saying that Trump suggesting to his lawyer to pay a porn star off, with cash, weeks before the election is just a coincidence and had nothing to do with helping his campaign.
My riposte is good luck getting a jury to believe that.
My 'reason for impeachment that we know about no. 2' was that Trump and his kids are now being charged with misappropriating funds from his own charity. Cohen has been subpoenaed in this regard and is a willing cooperator, so by appearances has some inside knowledge.
Your counterargument to this seems to be that Trump isn't responsible for what his kids do. Of course, no-one (obviously) says that he is being charged for what his kids did.
Clearly the prosecutor believes there is a good case that all of them, separately, used the Trump Foundation to appropriate funds from.
That would be (very) illegal.
You cannot run a charity and then use the proceeds of that charity for yourself. That's what he and his kids have been doing (allegedly), and if they are guilty, it's not like jaywalking. It's a serious crime. It would in fact fall under 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.
I'm providing them and you're not listening, so this is pretty disingenuous really.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maybe you can explain that, and how it makes you feel, to your angry cunt counsellor.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ask him/her about projection and what that means. It could be very enlightening, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your bottle ran out and you want another? Is that what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
here is the justice department's statement on Cohen
Quote:
In January 2017, Cohen in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment Cohen had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional "$50,000." The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for "tech services," which in fact related to work Cohen had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. Cohen added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company "grossed up" for tax purposes Cohen's requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to Cohen in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that Cohen should send invoices for these payments.
On February 14, 2017, Cohen sent an executive of the Company ("Executive-1") the first of his monthly invoices, requesting "[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017." The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company ("Executive-2") the same day by email, and it was approved.
No, you listen carefully, because your little diatribe here is missing a lot of FACTSQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This oughtta be good.Quote:
Here was my 'reason for impeachment that we know about no. 1':
This is not a crime. There's no law requiring a paper trail. And Trump could have any number of plausible reasons for not wanting to leave one. Furthermore, why do you think it would be better if Trump knew, off the top of his head, how best to handle a situation like this. And Cohen corrected him about an eighth of a second later. That's what lawyers are for. You need to explain this to me with more words now because I really have no idea why you think this is credible support for impeachment.Quote:
1. Trump tried to get Cohen to pay SD with cash. So his first instinct was to be greasy and not leave a paper trail.
2. Cohen was the one who insisted it be done above board, so as to give it at least the air of legitimacy should it ever come up in, say, a courtroom.
Fine. Let's say he meant small, pre-circulated, unmarked, non-sequential currency delivered discreetly in a pizza box. What's the problem?Quote:
You seem to be trying to argue, for whatever reason, that cash doesn't mean cash it means checks, securities, bonds, whatever. If you actually believe this then you are mistaken.
Umm, she chose the timing, not Trump. Read the statement from the justice department on this. Trump paid her when he did, because she had a second offer for her story. Also, the first woman tried to sell her story in August 2015. More than a year before the election.Quote:
You also seem to be saying that Trump suggesting to his lawyer to pay a porn star off, with cash, weeks before the election is just a coincidence and had nothing to do with helping his campaign.
Why would it be a question of fact for a jury? Where is the crime for which Trump can be charged in any the above?Quote:
My riposte is good luck getting a jury to believe that.
Trump is most definitely not being charged. We've been over this. A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. You may be confused here. Maybe you're thinking of a civil, not criminal case. In which case, who cares? Or maybe you're mistaken about Trump being a part of this at all. In which case, who cares? Seems to me that CNN would be screaming about this non-stop if it were credible at all. Yet the loudest voice on this one seems to be YOU.Quote:
My 'reason for impeachment that we know about no. 2' was that Trump and his kids are now being charged with misappropriating funds from his own charity. Cohen has been subpoenaed in this regard and is a willing cooperator, so by appearances has some inside knowledge.
Great, I'll be watching MSNBC to hear all about it.Quote:
Clearly the prosecutor believes there is a good case that all of them, separately, used the Trump Foundation to appropriate funds from.
Maybe. Though, good luck proving it. Like if Ivanka took a flight somewhere and went shopping, out to dinner, to a club, etc. but then the next day did charity business before going home....then the flight can be charged as a charity expense, even though she could have stayed home and had the meeting on skype. Egregious yes, criminal no. Have fun.Quote:
That would be (very) illegal.
You have to prove intent. You have to prove that the billionaires who run a charity are really cheap fucks who purposefully used it as a piggy bank. If we're just talking about misfiled paperwork and misapplied tax treatments, and stupid administrative stuff like that (which is what this sounds like), then it is exactly like jaywalking.Quote:
You cannot run a charity and then use the proceeds of that charity for yourself. That's what he and his kids have been doing (allegedly), and if they are guilty, it's not like jaywalking. It's a serious crime. It would in fact fall under 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.
That's fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean it's fascinating that you think that quoted section of a document is in any way exculpatory for Trump, or even relevant to anything. Maybe you're still on that little thing where if something doesn't directly prove someone guilty in a court of law, they're irrefutably, irrevocably, objectively innocent, I dunno.
Let me give you a little law lesson here (don't forget the dictionary).
If you have a lawyer and you order him to do something illegal, and he does it, you've BOTH broken the law. So Trump can't claim innocence just because he didn't personally hand over a bag of cash to SD, no.
Here's an analogy: If Trump told Hope Hicks to go break Sean Spicer's legs in the WH parking lot, and Hicks did it under orders, Trump is a conspirator in that assault. By law, he could also be charged and be found as irrefutably guilty as Hicks.
It actually shocks me that you think this is an impeachable offense.Quote:
1. Trump tried to get Cohen to pay SD with cash. So his first instinct was to be greasy and not leave a paper trail.
2. Cohen was the one who insisted it be done above board, so as to give it at least the air of legitimacy should it ever come up in, say, a courtroom.
I'm seriously asking you here. What is wrong with this?
What did Trump order Cohen to do that was illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Having an affair is not illegal. Neither is paying the bitch to shut up about it.
It's only a campaign finance violation if Trump didn't use his own money. However, even the Justice department admits that Trump paid Cohen back, with his own money.
Please explain what's impeachable here.
Like i said, it's going to be real fun watching you walk and talk the Fox News line for the next little while, add a few of your own bullshit defenses in there, insult anyone who disagrees with you, and then go silent when it's all over and you've lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I actually kinda feel sorry for a lot of his supporters who are so brainwashed into thinking what a great president he is that they will honestly be shocked and disappointed when it all comes crumbling down.
But when it comes to you, who claims to be so smart and who should thus know better, I'm actually going to enjoy your pain. And it's not because you support Trump; it's because of how you carry yourself.
Well played. I've enjoyed our conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by A low IQ Individual
That's hilarious. I suggest you show it to your angry cunt counsellor in your next session to show him how constructively you're spending your time these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I think it's funny how you've been ranting for two pages now, towing the fake-news line, about how Cohen and Trump colluded to commit election fraud. And then you suddenly go silent when confronted with factual challenges to your pathetic dreams.
Oh, and where's your source for the charity thing? Where is there a criminal action filed against the President of the United states? These things are matters of public record you know. Easy to find. Funny you just shut up about that rather than produce the evidence.
Anytime you wanna take this conversation back to sensible-land, you just tell me what specific crime Trump committed.
Because this is not even close:
I mean, you admit right there in #2 that Cohen made him do it "above board". All Trump did there, was use a lawyer for its exact purpose!!Quote:
1. Trump tried to get Cohen to pay SD with cash. So his first instinct was to be greasy and not leave a paper trail.
2. Cohen was the one who insisted it be done above board, so as to give it at least the air of legitimacy should it ever come up in, say, a courtroom.
And if Trump truly is named as a criminal defendant in a case over charity skimming...I'm all ears. Where's your source?
No I just don't want to waste my time responding to every bullshit counter-argument you can think up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's a civil case and yeah it's well documented and been going on for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Like I said though, it doesn't matter because he's going to get smoked in the midterms and best case is going to sit in the Oval Office as a decoration for the last two years of his presidency. Except of course when he goes golfing or has some rallies with his loser base.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA FUCK YOUQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I wonder how low a person's IQ has to be to think Civil Case = High Crimes
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Take an angry cunt pill dude.
Yup, keep talking the Fox News talk. It's really gonna help you in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Looking forward to three days of silence after the midterms.
So far, the only counter-argument that I've had to present is "not a crime"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Whenever you have a credible counter-counter-argument, let me know.
Here's a hint, it would go something like this...
"X is a crime" and you would replace "X" with something Trump actually did.
Yup ok. Whatever you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Poop, how do you dare have the audacity not to hit refresh on an abandoned message board 24/7.
I made that joke twice. The second time I commented on how lazy it was to repeat the same idea twice. It's just: quantify a number that doesn't represent a quantity, and then play on the idea that that quantity has quantity-like properties. You of course stop at the first part, and repeated the same idea about a dozen times since you jacked it from me. I don't expect much of you, but don't jack my jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If it wasn't for a certain person having tirades with anyone who dares to disagree with him, this forum would be completely empty. Even Wuf has given up on defending Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Trump paid porn stars with his own money
If you think that's true, then what do you think happened that is an impeachable offense?
If you think that's not true, where is your evidence, and why does the Justice Department say it is true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's like when I called Trump a demagogue once; he's been using that word ever since and still doesn't know what it means.
Lol what a goofball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yayayayaya, you're absolutely right. Trump is objectively irrefutably innocent of everything forever and for all time because you don't have the actual evidence of his crimes right in front of you. We get it.
And Banana, notice how I didn't reply to your insane posts about how Manaford was clearly 100% innocent. I could either try to convince you of something that's overtly obvious, or I could just wait a week or two until it's over. Same with Trump. I said over a year ago that he won't finish his term. I was sure of it when there was 1/10th the evidence. He's not finishing his term, and we can talk about the why and the how after it's done, because in all honesty... This is not a cop-out: I think you're incredibly boring to talk to, and I wish you'd be a lot less prolific because there are some people on this board who are fun to talk to but your attention whoring is making it difficult to even see their posts in your wall of inane shit.
He's also the best president you ever had and if you get him for two full terms you will totally be getting what you deserve.
Anyone who says otherwise is a low IQ demagogue.
Sorry, I'm too fucking smart to be creative.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
when did I say Manafort was 100% innocent?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Iv'e been saying that it's plainly obvious he had no part in Russia collusion with regard to the election. Has that been disproven even a little bit?
I never made any definitive statements about his tax and bank fraud crimes. I merely relayed some pertinent clues throughout the trial to the group here.
The fact that you see this as an unmitigated success for Mueller is kinda funny. The guy skated on half the counts, and jurors are going public saying it's a witch hunt. Nice probe.
Generally true, but it is kinda fun to watch him lose his shit and post a wall of text that no-one's ever going to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I also found the Manafort play-by-play pretty hilarious.
Can you describe any of this evidence and explain how it implicates Trump in anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah Oskar, I remember you clearly NOT saying that so it must be what you were thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
A mistrial is referred to as 'skating'. fyi.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
the only surprising thing about this is that it was only 1 juror. They must not have let the other 11 watch Fox News during the trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ikr, what an abject failure to convict someone of 8 counts at a trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If your charge is to uncover Russian influence in an election, including whether or not candidates colluded with foreign governments.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
....and then you get the guy at the center of it all over a barrel. You hold 305 years in prison over his head and offer him the chance to walk if he implicates the president......
.....and then all you get is half a conviction on a decade-old tax scheme
that kinda is an abject failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
yeah I know what a waste of time. Who hired the guy who hired Mueller as the special counsel? That guy should definitely be fired.
And the other 10 counts were mistrials that hung on a single juror, that will be tried again... and this is the first of two trials. Manafort is clearly playing for a pardon, because if there's no pardon, he'll die in jail.
Can we talk about how awesome Elisabeth Warren is, trying to pass a bill that would fuck over almost every other congressman? If you want to drain the swamp, she's your guy, not Donny-whoops-my-entire-cabinet-is-corrupt-lol-Trumpf
I'm gonna take a wild guess that single juror was the one watching Fox News calling the trial a witch hunt in between sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Pretty much. His only miscalculation is that an impeached president can't even pardon a sandwich.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yeah, but where's her birth certificate? I heard she might have some funny-coloured blood in her.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Source for the bolded?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And yet he still hasn't flipped.Quote:
... and this is the first of two trials.
If there's no pardon, and he doesn't want to die in jail, he can always implicate the president and get immunity.Quote:
Manafort is clearly playing for a pardon, because if there's no pardon, he'll die in jail.
Wanna speculate why he might not have done that??
I really have to laugh at the "manafort playing for a pardon" angle. It's so absurd. First, Manafort and Trump only knew each other for about 10 weeks. There's no loyalty there. Trump doesn't owe him anything.
Second, why is a pardon more advantageous for Manafort than flipping and getting immunity?
If you say a pardon is more advantageous...what specific advantage does it bring? Manafort is 69 years old and already has an ostrich coat. Trump can't buy him.
Third, why would Manafort risk a pardon? A) He can't be sure he'll get one at all anyway. B) Trump could be impeached. C) Trump could get shot. D) Trump could have a heart attack as a result of being a 72 year old man living on cheeseburgers.
Why would Manafort sit in solitary when all he has to do is say "Yeah, I set up the deal with Putin, now let me out so I can go on a book tour"
Barack Hussein ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can't even google mistrial? Just go do something else with your afternoon.
He'll try before the midterms. Have you ever heard a president call someone who just got convicted for tens of millions of dollars in tax evasion and bank fraud "a very good guy" who has been treated "very unfairly."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He's setting up for a pardon, and this congress might not stop him. Idk, maybe it would.
Impossible. He's irrefutably irrevocably objectively innocent and can't be convicted of a crime while he's president. And thus since there's no way to convict him he can't be impeached either. Sheesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maybe he wasn't the one who set up the deal with Putin, and so he can't provide any evidence about it. It's not like Mueller's going to give him a deal where he walks free if he just makes up some things up about Trump; that's not how this works.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yea, it looks shady doesn't it? OTOH, i wouldn't put too much stock in anything Trump says or try to read any logical pattern into his words. He's basically just a babbling idiot really.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If he pardons Manafort I think he's toast. Doesn't mean he won't, but if he physically manages to do it while Guiliani and his other lawyers are holding onto both his arms and legs I'll be impressed.
Juror number 11?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
And of course it's just a coincidence that's the guy who never offered any evidence against the pres., while the guy who does is automatically painted as a scumbag.
Just heard the Trump Foundation (allegedly - lol) made a $2.83 million contribution to the Trump-for-president campaign.
That sounds kinda greasy.
Obviously not a crime though that would get anyone in trouble.
Hold the fort! I don't think we have considered how without this thinking, the market would crash.
“I’ll tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash. I think everybody would be very poor because without this thinking, you would see numbers that you wouldn’t believe. In reverse.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...he-s-impeached
lol, he's the one thing holding the economy together.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
After he's impeached we're all going to be living in straw huts. Enjoy the good times while they last guys.
LOL, Trump really is the best troll ever. 10/10 here Don.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not trolling.
a) He actually believes he is supernaturally blessed with talent; and
b) 33% of the US will believe it because they are that dumb
I wish there was some way I could literally bathe in your cognitive dissonance.
God it makes me feel so fucking good.
Fuck me, tell me they're going after the Clinton Foundation next. That will be entertaining.Quote:
2. NY just filed a case against Trump, Don Jr., Eric, and even precious Ivanka for misuse of funds within the Trump Foundation. If you don't know, this was registered as a charity, but has in fact been used by Trump and his kids as a personal bank account, including using it to pay off a lawsuit, and no doubt also while he was president. NY state subpoenaed Cohen over this, and Cohen just about broke his legs jumping up to offer them evidence.
Try not to get any in your eyes banana. You're gonna need those tears soon.
Scroll down to the bit where they claim the Trumptard family used $2.83m from their charity to fund their election campaign. That's gonna be a fun one to watch play out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It'd be funny as fuck if Trump got impeached, cleared at trial, then won reelection to office. That might be the greatest thing that could possibly happen. All those lefttards, celebrating like a meteor just dodged Earth by a mile, then their look of horror as it all happens again.
I wish I had a genie in a bottle.
I'll believe it when I see it. I don't really understand why a billionaire would need to take such stupid risks for a couple of mill, I mean that's a tenner to mere mortals like you and I.Quote:
Scroll down to the bit where they claim the Trumptard family used $2.83m from their charity to fund their election campaign. That's gonna be a fun one to watch play out.
I mean, let's assume you have £2000 in the bank. You need £150 for a new suit for a job interview. If you steal the money, you could lose your job in the future. But why would you need to steal it? You have two grand in the bank.
Ah fuck it, giz your wallet dickhead.
Why does a guy who's so rich need to set up a fake university and scam dummies for a few grand each?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You really think he's just been playing a giant game of monopoly really well all these years?
Fuck knows. But surely you credit Trump with enough intelligence to know that if he got caught using a charity to fund an election, he'd be in danger of losing the job he's trying to get. It makes no sense for him to take this risk unless he's near bankrupt.
I don't credit him with any intelligence. At best I'll give him points for having the hubris to think it would never come to light and/or he'd get away with a fine or some shit if it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What's the worst penalty a civil court can impose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Spoiler:I hope your head just exploded.
I can't be fucked to get into a "is he or isn't he intelligent" debate, pretty sure that's trodden ground. The fact remains, he'd have to be unbelievably stupid to pilfer a chairty when he's a billionaire. Like, way too stupid to become a billionaire in the first place. And yes, I know there will be stupid billionaires. Did Trump win a lottery? Nope, he ran businesses. That's pretty easy to fuck up. He didn't.
He's done way too many complex things in his life to be stupid. Just way too many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does having "High IQ" mean reality is optional? Do you go around making your own reality and live in it? That's schizophrenia, btwQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017. In May 2017, he authored a memo which President Trump said was the basis of his decision to dismiss FBI Director James Comey.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170511...-comeys-firing
Later that month, Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and related matters based on the firing of Comey.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...el-Russia.html
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein
Which has many sub sources of its own JIC
I'm not going to jump on the "he's a genius" bandwagon, but I doubt very much he's stupid. If he is, he must be exceedingly lucky.
oops, you got me. I knew Rosenstein had been around for a while, so I assumed it was Obama. He's actually a Bush appointee. Who knew.
Good catch Jack. Glad you're here buddy.
In the sense of being born to a wealthy dad, yes he did. Dude was born on third base and claims to have hit a triple. Yeah, baseball analogies, must be high level calculus to BritsQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I thought going bankrupt is the very definition of fucking up. Particularly when you mention businesses/businessmen/women. He did so, 6 times. However, when you ask him he says 4 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.
Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.
PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.
Why the discrepancy? Perhaps this will give us an idea: Trump told Washington Post reporters that he counted the first three bankruptcies as just one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.3eacc3d806a5
How old is he now? Do you think most 72 year olds are as mentally together as they were in their prime?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Hint: the answer is no.