US Politics: Losing Appeals

[Kalbear]

Just now, Phylum of Alexandria said:

We certainly shouldn't bank on it, but so much of Trump's power is derived from perceptions about his success, and recently about his inevitability. To the ultra-faithful, nothing will shatter the brand. But to everyone else, he's looking and acting more and more like a loser.

There will likely never be one thing that takes him down. But collectively, they can compound and help do him in. Hopefully by making him an incompetent candidate in the coming election.

You misunderstand on a lot of levels. Trump's power is derived from people liking him. He has successfully framed all of this as attacks by corrupt enemies and can easily explain it away. The perception for a civil trial is not going to cause him any real issues. 

Mostly, however, I'm talking about the actual problems this is going to cause him. The idea that his properties and assets are going to be seized is a beautiful fantasy that I'm sure people can happily get off on, but it isn't going to actually happen. Why? Because when you owe someone $454 million it isn't your problem, it becomes theirs. They don't want to have to put liens on property and seize assets because that is going to be even more litigation and problems and hassle, and they'll likely not see that money, like, ever. They'll either settle for pennies on the dollar or they'll balk and give him more time. Possibly both. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You misunderstand on a lot of levels. Trump's power is derived from people liking him. He has successfully framed all of this as attacks by corrupt enemies and can easily explain it away. The perception for a civil trial is not going to cause him any real issues. 

The source of Trump's power is likely not one thing, but anyway, people loving him is more about his base, the MAGA-faithful. That doesn't get him across the threshold in a general election. There are plenty others who are more mixed on him, or at least a bit more circumspect. But part of the reason people who are mixed on him give him a chance is because they think he's an eccentric but successful businessman.

And even people who hate the man can sometimes unknowingly buy into the narratives he sells, such as the idea that MAGA is an unstoppable force, or that he is. A successful campaign against him will attack all such narratives. And his real failures can work against him in this way as well.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Mostly, however, I'm talking about the actual problems this is going to cause him. The idea that his properties and assets are going to be seized is a beautiful fantasy that I'm sure people can happily get off on, but it isn't going to actually happen. Why? Because when you owe someone $454 million it isn't your problem, it becomes theirs. They don't want to have to put liens on property and seize assets because that is going to be even more litigation and problems and hassle, and they'll likely not see that money, like, ever. They'll either settle for pennies on the dollar or they'll balk and give him more time. Possibly both. 

I am agnostic on the problems it raises with respect to his assets. I'm more focused on how it can affect his chances as a candidate. For instance, this businessman can't afford to pay his bond for a fraud trial? Sounds like the claims that he was inflating his wealth were true after all. More practically, if he's funneling all of the RNC's funds to his court cases, he's limiting resources for campaign spending. Not just his, but other Republican candidates as well. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

It was always patently obvious he has been lying about his wealth for years. It took everything the bancruptcy king had just to pay E.J. Carroll her $90 million and a lot of property is probably heavily leveraged, if not under water, from the levels he valuated them.

Heah Donald you just committed perjury claiming you had $400 million in cash. 

Lets add a perjury charge now to this serial lying, narcissistic, wannabe Dick-tator.

Trump is unable to make $464 million bond in civil fraud case, his lawyers tell court

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/trump-464-million-dollar-bond

Edited March 18 by DireWolfSpirit

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The source of Trump's power is likely not one thing, but anyway, people loving him is more about his base, the MAGA-faithful. That doesn't get him across the threshold in a general election. There are plenty others who are more mixed on him, or at least a bit more circumspect. But part of the reason people who are mixed on him give him a chance is because they think he's an eccentric but successful businessman.

Not really. It's because they got more money when he was POTUS. Again, you fundamentally misunderstand his appeal - it is either emotional (for his base) or transactional (for those who aren't decided). The idea that he's this amazing businessman and that's what he's running on now was barely true in 2016; it's definitely not true now. 

15 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I am agnostic on the problems it raises with respect to his assets. I'm more focused on how it can affect his chances as a candidate. For instance, this businessman can't afford to pay his bond for a fraud trial? Sounds like the claims that he was inflating his wealth were true after all. More practically, if he's funneling all of the RNC's funds to his court cases, he's limiting resources for campaign spending. Not just his, but other Republican candidates as well. 

That's fair, and that's already happening to some extent, but I doubt it'll affect Trump's success personally. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why? Because when you owe someone $454 million it isn't your problem, it becomes theirs. 

Works differently when you're just in debt verse having a court ruling against you. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Works differently when you're just in debt verse having a court ruling against you. 

Not really. It might make it harder to settle, but it still is the problem of the collector when they're owed that much money. It  also has issues similar to TikTok - if the buyers know that the assets need to be sold then seizing them and selling them won't get as much money as they were valued at previously. 

You see this with all sorts of settlements in the real world, and I expect we'll see that here too - a reduction in the amount in favor of getting it. Alternately you could have Trump just decide to fight everything forever, because that's a good way to fund everything else. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The idea that he's this amazing businessman and that's what he's running on now was barely true in 2016; it's definitely not true now. 

It was definitely true in 2015 and 16, and even before, with The Apprentice cementing that perception in people's heads. That was a big component of how his base came to like him. They loved the notion of a millionaire businessman who sounded like a blue collar grunt. They related to his roughness, and eventually accepted the idea that he could be their millionaire; the guy who fights for them. Yes, there were plenty of other elements in the mix, and the perceptions of the base underwent some massive transformations over time, but his businessman persona was an important ingredient. It's been fundamental to Trump's whole identity for as long as he's been in the public spotlight; it can't not be an issue at this point.

But I'm really talking more about his success in general, political as well as in business. The whole Big Lie was birthed and fueled by Trump's massive self-confidence, and in the inevitability of his will to power. I won because I said so, and I'll prove it to you by doing what I want. The more he looks like a loser, the more that self-confident narrative sounds like BS. People will see that in fact he always has been a pathetic creature.

I'm not talking about mass defections, mind you; people who want zero taxes will justify anything. But among that 20-30% of Haley voters, there are portions that could be swayed not to vote for him, for various reasons. Him being a terminal loser and incompetent being one of them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. It might make it harder to settle, but it still is the problem of the collector when they're owed that much money. It  also has issues similar to TikTok - if the buyers know that the assets need to be sold then seizing them and selling them won't get as much money as they were valued at previously. 

You see this with all sorts of settlements in the real world, and I expect we'll see that here too - a reduction in the amount in favor of getting it. Alternately you could have Trump just decide to fight everything forever, because that's a good way to fund everything else. 

I guess the most basic difference is the government has a greater ability to seize assets than a bank does. And the latter is what you cited. When you owe the bank a little, they own you, when you owe them a lot, you own the bank. It's not exactly the same with the government and they can just straight up take things in a way banks can't to pay off your debts. This will likely happen sooner than not if Trump doesn't starting selling properties (which he will probably get pennies on the dollar for) in part because it takes a long time to negotiate a good deal and who knows what percentage of the stuff he really owns. That he wasn't already able to move stuff around to pay for the bond is telling. 

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I guess the most basic difference is the government has a greater ability to seize assets than a bank does.

Ish? When you get that level of involvement I suspect SCOTUS will get involved, and shockingly they may have a much different viewpoint on private property rights for individuals vs the government. 

11 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It's not exactly the same with the government and they can just straight up take things in a way banks can't to pay off your debts. 

This is  again both true and false; they have a lot of levers at their disposal but they also have significant barriers - the least of which is not having a ton of resources to devote to a long legal battle. The government settles all the time - look at what happened with the Sacklers as a good example.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When you get that level of involvement I suspect SCOTUS will get involved,

I doubt SCOTUS could bail Trump from a NY State judgement before the 1 week away deadline till Ms. James auctions his gaudy properties away.

I think hes between a very neatly fitting rock and a hard place and noone's coming to help him this time.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I doubt SCOTUS could bail Trump from a NY State judgement before the 1 week away deadline till Ms. James auctions his gaudy properties away.

I think hes between a very neatly fitting rock and a hard place and noone's coming to help him this time.

You'd be wrong, I think; SCOTUS could jump in quickly if necessary, especially if the government was being very aggressive in seizing properties. 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because when you owe someone $454 million it isn't your problem, it becomes theirs. They don't want to have to put liens on property and seize assets because that is going to be even more litigation and problems and hassle, and they'll likely not see that money, like, ever. They'll either settle for pennies on the dollar or they'll balk and give him more time.

Except this  particular sum is a court judgment, not owed to a creditor, a bank, not even a law firm. So much of what you say isn't necessarily applicable. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Zorral said:

Except this  particular sum is a court judgment, not owed to a creditor, a bank, not even a law firm. So much of what you say isn't necessarily applicable. 

Yeah, you're wrong. When it comes to having to actually forfeit assets it becomes a lot harder than it is seizing cash. 

[Zorral]

How about prison?

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How about prison?

You mean Trump going from the penthouse to the big house?  Works for me.   (lock him up!)

[DireWolfSpirit]

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You'd be wrong, I think; SCOTUS could jump in quickly if necessary, especially if the government was being very aggressive in seizing properties. 

Well your the lawyer or something, not me, I build ships for a living, but the following makes me doubt SCOTUS will save Trump on this-

The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), is a United States federal statute that restricts a federal court's authority to issue an injunction against ongoing state court proceedings, subject to three enumerated exceptions. It states:

"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."^[1]

The Act was originally enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1793. The current Act was enacted in 1948. As interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Act is a bastion of federalism and embodies the need to avoid "needless friction" between state and federal courts.^[2]

Edited March 19 by DireWolfSpirit

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Well your the lawyer or something not me I build ships for a living, but the following makes me doubt SCOTUS will save Trump on this-

The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), is a United States federal statute that restricts a federal court's authority to issue an injunction against ongoing state court proceedings, subject to three enumerated exceptions. It states:

"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."^[1]

The Act was originally enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1793. The current Act was enacted in 1948. As interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Act is a bastion of federalism and embodies the need to avoid "needless friction" between state and federal courts.^[2]

I'm not talking about that specifically; I'm talking about the state seizing large amounts of property.

Plus this SCOTUS has shown zero fucks given about prior decisions. 

Also, also, per above, the candidate being a POTUS or potential one puts in some real interesting side decisions that are possible. 

Edited March 18 by Kalbear

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Ish? When you get that level of involvement I suspect SCOTUS will get involved, and shockingly they may have a much different viewpoint on private property rights for individuals vs the government. 

Idk about that. 

Quote

This is  again both true and false; they have a lot of levers at their disposal but they also have significant barriers - the least of which is not having a ton of resources to devote to a long legal battle. The government settles all the time - look at what happened with the Sacklers as a good example.

The long legal battle isn't going to happen though unless Trump gets an appeal which is iffy. There really isn't much to convince a higher court so it would have to be purely partisan. The ruling and outcome are sound. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, LongRider said:

You mean Trump going from the penthouse to the big house?  Works for me.   (lock him up!)

Look, fair is fair. Recreate one of the last scenes from Point Break. Pense jumps out of the plane with the parachute. Trump then has to jump out without one a track him down. Whatever happens is justice. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Idk about that. 

They've demonstrated repeatedly a favoritism towards corporations, the rich, and individual property owners over government reach. 

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

The long legal battle isn't going to happen though unless Trump gets an appeal which is iffy. There really isn't much to convince a higher court so it would have to be purely partisan. The ruling and outcome are sound. 

Oh no, this court making a purely partisan ruling that overrules a prior sound ruling, that would NEVER happen with this SCOTUS