Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump seems to have not come to terms with what constitutes an "enemy" or an ally.
It's nothing to do with that, he just needs money.
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump seems to have not come to terms with what constitutes an "enemy" or an ally.
Is Trump losing it?
Perhaps. Certainly true that vociferous opposition to TikTox as agent of Red China, has been a BIG issue for Republicans.
Including . . . wait for it . . . Donald Trump
From CBC:
In 2020, Trump sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat but was blocked by the courts.
Trump said in an August 2020 executive order that TikTok data collection "threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage."
I am a natural Tory. I am sick of the Party. Will noone rid us of this ghastly administration. They've screwed their main support by this budget... they are scum.... Fuckem. Fuckem.
Government is about doing what is right for the country not about just pandering to “your main support”
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
But the polling evidence is there! 2019 Tory voters, who have now said ‘don’t know’ or ‘reform’ prefer Boris to any other Tory leader. It’s not just a hunch of mine.
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
But he won't come back.
He thinks he should.
And what if we enter World War 3 and need a Churchillian Statesmen and war hero leader to dig us out of a hole?
Boris and some nutters around here may think he is Churchill, although to be honest, he's more like Mr. Punch, but any return would be: "first as tragedy, then as farce". In any event, his whole political career, especially his Brexit dither, reveals him to be a follower, not a leader.
Can't wait for the review into 20mph limits in Wales.
It will be implemented from 2025...
It is already in force and was around schools before the Welsh government mandated all 30mph to be 20mph
The review is on going with changes due to be implemented by no latter than this Autumn by councils across Wales, especially North Wales where councils were far more stringent than in South Wales
I would just say speeds are climbing to near 30mph and there has been no evidence of enforcement around our area other than outside schools
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
I've read that modern cars are getting bigger, but that's ridiculous. It dwarfs the house.
I can see niches for it.
Eg a walking or climbing weekend. Traditionally one would take a car full of stuff and a tent or two tents, which have to be put up and left at the campsite.
That rooftop tent puts up in 60 seconds, takes down in 120 seconds, and is a small 8-12" deep roof box when folded down. Saves time for climbing or walking, and nothing is left behind during the day outside the vehicle.
If you have a thing like a Citroen Berlingo (rather than an LR tonka-tanker) the inside height is ~1.25m so you can sit inside (men - just, women - more comfortably) around a fold-up table, and drink tea or eat lunch or play poker.
There are things called "boot jumps" which are a unit with a foldup double bed, storage, cook-space, which form 2 pairs of seats each side with a centre table, and fit in the boot, So with one of those and a roof tent you can take 4 people, eat in the warm vehicle, and sleep 2 inside and 2 in the roof tent - the latter works because vehicles now have to roll-over resilient. They just slot in.
And all at the cost of about 4-5% of that of a caravan, and to normal driving regulations, so the moth collector in the Gordon Keeble behind does not swear at you all the way from Bristol to Devon.
You can use smaller campsite spaces, and if one or two-up benefit if they charge per person. I'm intrigued.
Car top camping is very popular in Southern Africa. Safe from animals, snakes and insects, and a bit cooler in hot weather.
Tentbox is quite well insulated and weatherproof, so pretty good to convert a regular car to a camper van. You need two people to lift it on as it's not light, and not all vehicles can take the weight with 2 people on board.
I have been tempted.
Approx 50-75kg, so requires care. Not one to drop on your foot from 1-2m. I once had a hefty single leg table in a cafe on a railway station go over and land edge on on my big toe - it .. er .. hurt.
Two is ideal. or potentially careful planning, a neighbour, or a garage roof hoist.
The biggest issue with tent box seems to be imperfect streamlining and therefore noise.
It's surprising what one can do when needed. I recall when my new range cooker turned up with one delivery man and no moving devices - it was just him and me carrying it up the drive from the chest height van floor to the garage.
I as so surprised I did not send him away. And iirc correctly it is 120kg.
Tipped Perez to win each way (again), and Magnussen to win group 3 at 2.75. The group is him and Hulkenberg, and the two Alpines. On pace, the Haas should finish ahead handily.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
But the polling evidence is there! 2019 Tory voters, who have now said ‘don’t know’ or ‘reform’ prefer Boris to any other Tory leader. It’s not just a hunch of mine.
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
But he won't come back.
He thinks he should.
And what if we enter World War 3 and need a Churchillian Statesmen and war hero leader to dig us out of a hole?
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Is it?
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
Some places are better, some worse. You wouldn't have liked Phnom Penh or Saigon 30-40 years ago, though Kashmir was nicer as was Syria. You wouldn't have gone to Algeria then, though by all accounts it's lovely again.
Over all, the world is massively improved over 40 years ago- the liberation of half of Europe from the repressive, murderous Communist tyranny is a particularly shining star. Equally the emergence of stable democracies in, for example, Ghana. China is no democracy, but livng conditions now, compared to the Cultural Revolution are night and day. So, while there are countries which have gone backwards, there has been extraordinary progress in the past generation.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Is it?
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
Some places are better, some worse. You wouldn't have liked Phnom Penh or Saigon 30-40 years ago, though Kashmir was nicer as was Syria. You wouldn't have gone to Algeria then, though by all accounts it's lovely again.
Over all, the world is massively improved over 40 years ago- the liberation of half of Europe from the repressive, murderous Communist tyranny is a particularly shining star. Equally the emergence of stable democracies in, for example, Ghana. China is no democracy, but livng conditions now, compared to the Cultural Revolution are night and day. So, while there are countries which have gone backwards, there has been extraordinary progress in the past generation.
I think the number of Democracies has gone down over the past ten years, or at least the quality. Autocrats have discovered how to "hack" democracy and in many cases elections are nominal, held solely to stay within international law instead of an actual way to change a government.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
So much in Colombia today is regulated by murder or the threat of murder. Often even if "everybody" knows that X murdered Y, the police won't do anything unless a relative of Y makes a report. The official murder rate is high (although lower than in Brazil or Jamaica), but the real murder rate is MUCH higher. Everybody knows several people who were murdered, including some who were murdered by known assailants who never got arrested let alone charged or convicted. Don't get into any bar fights or argy-bargy on the roads. And it was worse still under Pablo Escobar. Typical conversation among 20-somethings socialising at that time: where's Juan? Oh, someone killed him.
As for the civil war, the death rate in that was similar to the rate during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, per population. This isn't an attempt to downplay the horrors of either of those conflicts. Just that neither of them was on the same scale as the civil wars in say Russia or Spain. Most of the murders for the past 50 years or so in Colombia have been unrelated to it.
While the period since 1960 has been on a lower though significant rate, violence and murder have been endemic in Columbias recent history.
I did deliberately reference 1948 in my comment as that was when the period known as "la Violenca" erupted. It is estimated to have killed 200 000 or so civilians, perhaps 2% of the population of the country. Not perhaps as bad as the civil war in Eastern Congo, but reasonably included in the list of worst civil wars of modern times.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
I would have thought, given the financial headwinds he faces, the fact he has been fined for falsifying property values, his ongoing legal issues and his well-established habit of not paying what he owes over forty years, any sane financial organisation would be demanding a large premium and extra collateral to lend to him.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
I would have thought, given the financial headwinds he faces, the fact he has been fined for falsifying property values, his ongoing legal issues and his well-established habit of not paying what he owes over forty years, any sane financial organisation would be demanding a large premium and extra collateral to lend to him.
Of course, but a large premium in this context is maybe $5m upfront as long as the collateral is realistic. He does not need to find $600m cash in a couple of weeks if he can get a similar deal for the other case, more like $10-30m cash and £600m collateral which is a lot easier.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
I would have thought, given the financial headwinds he faces, the fact he has been fined for falsifying property values, his ongoing legal issues and his well-established habit of not paying what he owes over forty years, any sane financial organisation would be demanding a large premium and extra collateral to lend to him.
Of course, but a large premium in this context is maybe $5m upfront as long as the collateral is realistic. He does not need to find $600m cash in a couple of weeks if he can get a similar deal for the other case, more like $10-30m cash and £600m collateral which is a lot easier.
State of New York must be praying he does. After all, they want their money.
I suppose it will depend on how many unmortgaged properties he has available.
Hi there. I read a post by someone on social media and I wondered if anyone has any insight in to the situation. In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years. Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account. The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped. But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade. I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest? I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back. @eek ?
Hi there. I read a post by someone on social media and I wondered if anyone has any insight in to the situation. In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years. Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account. The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped. But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade. I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest? I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back. @eek ?
Phoenix companies are a thing. Usually involving VAT dodging. HMRC can go after the individual if there is evidence of actual tax fraud. Otherwise it’s for companies house to determine if the individual is fit to be a director of a company, if there’s evidence of deliberate mismanagement and failure of fiduciary duties. So it requires vigilance from the powers that be.
Hi there. I read a post by someone on social media and I wondered if anyone has any insight in to the situation. In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years. Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account. The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped. But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade. I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest? I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back. @eek ?
Surely the recievers would regard the Directors loan account as an asset, and require it to be paid back. If that caused the director to go personally bankrupt then they would not be eligible for a directorship in a new company.
I am a natural Tory. I am sick of the Party. Will noone rid us of this ghastly administration. They've screwed their main support by this budget... they are scum.... Fuckem. Fuckem.
Government is about doing what is right for the country not about just pandering to “your main support”
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
I don't think that's what he's done. It's a supersedeas bond.
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
Given that Trump has been proud - and publicly boasted about it - for several decades of never paying what he owes, I don't see him getting a good rate .
Hi there. I read a post by someone on social media and I wondered if anyone has any insight in to the situation. In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years. Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account. The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped. But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade. I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest? I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back. @eek ?
Surely the recievers would regard the Directors loan account as an asset, and require it to be paid back. If that caused the director to go personally bankrupt then they would not be eligible for a directorship in a new company.
That would make sense and explain why the outstanding directors loan account is not declared in the statement of affairs upon liquidation. So it sounds from the responses like the situation for the person involved would be personal liability for the outstanding directors loan plus the threat of a criminal tax fraud investigation. Not a situation you would want to rush in to, even though the reality is likely to be that they will get through it.
Hi there. I read a post by someone on social media and I wondered if anyone has any insight in to the situation. In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years. Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account. The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped. But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade. I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest? I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back. @eek ?
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump wanted TikTok banned until last week. He tried to ban it himself with an executive order but lost in court (it needs legislation). What changed last week was apparently that he was paid off by a TikTok shareholder called Jeff Yass.
I think that'll be the end of it for now, unless Musk or Zuckerberg makes Trump a better offer? If Trump is opposed to a ban then the House GOP won't pass one, so it doesn't matter what Joe Biden would or wouldn't sign.
It matters politically. Note the odd Republican woman who did the SOTU response spent some time saying how dangerous and evil it was, and that it was all Biden's fault.
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump seems to have not come to terms with what constitutes an "enemy" or an ally.
An oddity that I'm not sure what to do with - advice welcome. I've used the AOL browser for many years (I know it's quite rare now, but a zillion people use the address). Yesterday, I sent a reminder to myself. It didn't arrive, but it's listed in my "Sent email" as having been sent to an entirely unfamiliar address (an apparently legit university charity that I've never heard of, collegetownpta@hotmail.co.uk - trying to address that site triggers a warning that the site does not use authentication and may be an attempt to trick me). Opening the message in "Sent email", it *appears* to have only gone to my own address - not to collegetownpta - but it didn't actually arrive at my address.
Repeating it, it arrived in my own address normally and shows up normally in the "Sent email" list.
Some sort of spoofing seems to be going on, but what? Perhaps some, but not all, of my emails are being diverted to a hacker address, in the hope that I'll reveal something about a bank account etc. What would it be sensible to do, preferably not involving changing my email address? AOL doesn't appear to have any mechanism for reporting the issue.
Comments
Note that Rishi's mother-in-law is being appointed by . . . wait for it . . . Modi.
Including . . . wait for it . . . Donald Trump
From CBC:
In 2020, Trump sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat but was blocked by the courts.
Trump said in an August 2020 executive order that TikTok data collection "threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-tiktok-us-ban-pushback-1.7138066
I think how it works is that he has the money for the duration of the Appeal, not cover for the liability.
He has paid for them to supply the bond during the delay (10% fee, perhaps)?, secured I assume on property or similar, and if he loses he still has to pay it.
So it's not an insurance product, as such - aiui.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2kuD-f_U-s
(Quite partisan, but lawyers who understand the system.)
Two is ideal. or potentially careful planning, a neighbour, or a garage roof hoist.
The biggest issue with tent box seems to be imperfect streamlining and therefore noise.
It's surprising what one can do when needed. I recall when my new range cooker turned up with one delivery man and no moving devices - it was just him and me carrying it up the drive from the chest height van floor to the garage.
I as so surprised I did not send him away. And iirc correctly it is 120kg.
F1: time to peruse the markets and see if there's value...
Betting PostF1: pre-race:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/03/saudi-arabia-pre-race-2024.html
Tipped Perez to win each way (again), and Magnussen to win group 3 at 2.75. The group is him and Hulkenberg, and the two Alpines. On pace, the Haas should finish ahead handily.
"Trump’s court filing didn’t provide details on how he financed the $91.6 million bond. Nor did Chubb, which said, “as a matter of policy, we do not comment on client-specific information.” The standard premium for appeal bonds is 2%, according to people familiar with the business. At that rate, Trump’s bond would have cost him $1.8 million, unless he negotiated a better rate."
I did deliberately reference 1948 in my comment as that was when the period known as "la Violenca" erupted. It is estimated to have killed 200 000 or so civilians, perhaps 2% of the population of the country. Not perhaps as bad as the civil war in Eastern Congo, but reasonably included in the list of worst civil wars of modern times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia
I suppose it will depend on how many unmortgaged properties he has available.
In summary they are a sole trader consultant. Ran a company for 10 years.
Reading the accounts in the last two years it has run up debt of 50 k to HMRC (VAT and corp tax) and a 5 figure directors loan account.
The company has no assets and is now going in to insolvency presumably so the debt to HMRC gets wiped.
But they person concerned has started another company, effectively carrying out exactly the same trade.
I wondered what the consequences are of doing this. Can HMRC make you personally liable for the debt plus interest?
I imagine that there must be some way for the government to get the tax owed back.
@eek ?
NEW THREAD
Note the odd Republican woman who did the SOTU response spent some time saying how dangerous and evil it was, and that it was all Biden's fault.
That line evaporated quickly.
https://twitter.com/RobertDownen_/status/1766299904995967468
It's just that his friends aren't America's friends.
Repeating it, it arrived in my own address normally and shows up normally in the "Sent email" list.
Some sort of spoofing seems to be going on, but what? Perhaps some, but not all, of my emails are being diverted to a hacker address, in the hope that I'll reveal something about a bank account etc. What would it be sensible to do, preferably not involving changing my email address? AOL doesn't appear to have any mechanism for reporting the issue.
The idea that the Tories would somehow be on the way to winning with him is for the birds.