comp_atkins' forum posts

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@sargentd said:

Had my first child recently and she's awesome. I can't help but smile everytime I look at her.

Once you hold em you can never imagine having them taken from the world.

congrats! having 2 daughters myself, I can't imagine some bible-thumping state legislator celebrating them taking away my daughters' right to decide what is best for their bodies / families.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

I don't know, it seems like a lot of fucking work to be so damn hateful and angry at everyone. Being a normal, kind, chill person feels like the easy route.

I also think people conflate strength and "toughness" with hatred and cruelty.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@Planeforger said:

Turns out Trump is still struggling to pay the (heavily reduced) $175 million bond, even after he posted the bond on Monday.

The company that underwrote the bond has so far failed to demonstrate that it is capable of paying the bond or that it is financially sound. If they can't,Trump might have to start shopping for a new moneylender or risk losing his properties.

It's fun how a former president can't find a single legitimate company in the entire country to support him financially, but I guess if you spend your life ripping people off, it eventually comes back to bite you.

trumps lawyers trying to get him to NOT lie on his bond application.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

there are some nutjobs in my town that camp out at a major intersection shouting obscenities to passing cars. like every fucking saturday they're out there if they weather is fair. sometimes it's only like 3 people, other times there's like 20. not sure wtf they're actually protesting. years ago it was "9/11 is a lie!", then it became "support the troops!", then it was "obama is a muslim!", then the maga folks moved in so now it's "**** you brandon!"

I think they're just "i'm mad at whatever am radio told me to be mad about this week!" types

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@one_plum said:

@comp_atkins: Huh, so it's a play on the Oscars name. Never made that connection after all these years.

lol. we'll forgive you for the slow uptake.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Bernie Madoff bilked millions of people out of several billion dollars and his bond was ten million dollars. Trump cheated no one, no one lost money and his bond was four hunderd and seventy-five million. There is only one explaination it was political. Also the bond amount violates the eight ammendment of the constitution, of course whe do the Democrats ever abide by the constitution.

Madoff's was charged in criminal court, not a civil suit. It's not the same thing at all. His bond wasn't money held after a judgement was rendered while the case made its way through appeal. Entirely different circumstances.

bond amount is entirely constitutional given trump's net worth.

The same law was used. It doesn't matter what court it was in except in Trump's case he should have been tried in criminal court. The problem was there was no victim so no crime. It was a political case or should I say election interference.

the same law was no used.

madoff was charged with felony securities fraud at the federal level.

trump was accused and tried in a civil suit under new york executive law.

the differences do matter.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

on my beard, year.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

If I have to tell you how the law works then I'm disappointed dude.

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Bernie Madoff bilked millions of people out of several billion dollars and his bond was ten million dollars. Trump cheated no one, no one lost money and his bond was four hunderd and seventy-five million. There is only one explaination it was political. Also the bond amount violates the eight ammendment of the constitution, of course whe do the Democrats ever abide by the constitution.

Madoff's was charged in criminal court, not a civil suit. It's not the same thing at all. His bond wasn't money held after a judgement was rendered while the case made its way through appeal. Entirely different circumstances.

bond amount is entirely constitutional given trump's net worth.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@uninspiredcup: haven't made it very far through the whittaker episodes yet. maybe watched 1 or 2, can't recall. need to try to catch back up

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

95

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

@Planeforger said:

@comp_atkins: For what it's worth, there are a few big practical differences between securing $50K for a bond and securing $450 million for a bond. The latter might actually be impossible for Trunp to do - especially when he has been found guilty of fraud, he probably doesn't own much property, he is infamous for never paying his bills, and his prospects of a successful appeal are extremely low.

You have to give him a realistic chance to appeal it, and it's bad form to say "your crimes are too big so you can't afford to appeal" - that just gives Trump more ammunition to pretend the courts are corrupt.

So hey, *maybe* that's the reason the courts modified the standard civil procedure rules this time. I can't see any actual reasons posted, so it's basically either an access to justice argument, or it's simple favouritism by the courts.

I still think it's the wrong decision. Trump was begging for mercy on paper, but he was mocking the courts online, and I think that should have tanked any chance of a good outcome for him.

On the bright side, his track record suggests he'll lose the appeal, and the judgement still stands at $450+ million, so these delays could simply mean that he can lose the next election and then have all of his properties sold off at roughly the same time.

can he post DJT stock as collateral? don't know.


iirc his argument against a fire sale to satisfy the bond was that he'd would suffer "irreparable damage" if forced to liquidate a property potentially at a steep discount. Should the amount be reduced on appeal, it's not like the property would simply be returned. Which I get as a valid argument, but again, if a "regular joe" had their investment property ( using investment property here because iirc the law is different for trying to seize a primary residence ) seized by the court and the judgement is reversed on appeal, that person is also out of luck.

I mean, there's always the possibility of not committing fraud in the first place?

but sounds like fraud is a feature, not a bug with these people....

Loading Video...