An update on the Trump crime family – politicalbetting.com
"This is really a decision that will cause a lot of pain, not just because of the number, but because of the way in which the company is restricted going forward," says @AWeissmann_ on Judge Engoron's $355M ruling against Trump. pic.twitter.com/biLMoxyKjV
Comments
-
Blogging will be light this weekend as I am on a romantic break.2
-
126 run lead.
Surely that's going to be decisive unless India bat like they've all been smoking weed?0 -
Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=200 -
If the Russian advance continues at this pace in another 50 years Ukraine could be in serious trouble.Leon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=203 -
Hence my slooooooooooowlyThomasNashe said:
If the Russian advance continues at this pace in another 50 years Ukraine could be in serious trouble.Leon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=20
It is attrition. Trouble is, on the most basic level, Russia can afford to be attrited more1 -
whats the sense of the outcome of the Rochdale byelection - surely wide open and a chance for all manner of weird and whacky candidates (or is Labour quietly hoping their (now sacked) man comes through?
0 -
Try this
"From a soldier with Ukraine's 110th Brigade. He talks about problems with a lack of rotation, heavy attrition, shortage of soldiers, difficulty moving at night, chronic health issues + 40-45 average of age of soldiers, and few remaining fortifications."
https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=20
This TwiX source is often pro-Ukraine, and now he tweets this?
If you read the text, it sounds like Ukrainian morale is collapsing on the front. Not good
As we all know, wars of attrition keep attriting until suddenly they don't, and one side overwhelms the other. Allies v Germany in 1918
At the moment, if you were sad enough to wager bets on the war, you'd wager that Russia would be doing the 'overwhelming'
0 -
All these drones and guided missiles have taken that war back to a WW1 situation where the side that is moving is at a huge disadvantage.ThomasNashe said:
If the Russian advance continues at this pace in another 50 years Ukraine could be in serious trouble.Leon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=200 -
I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...2 -
Stop trying destroy this site's morale. Shappsie has dropshipped them another few dozen DJIs off the jungle site. It'll all be over by Christmas.Leon said:Try this
"From a soldier with Ukraine's 110th Brigade. He talks about problems with a lack of rotation, heavy attrition, shortage of soldiers, difficulty moving at night, chronic health issues + 40-45 average of age of soldiers, and few remaining fortifications."
https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=20
This TwiX source is often pro-Ukraine, and now he tweets this?
If you read the text, it sounds like Ukrainian morale is collapsing on the front. Not good
As we all know, wars of attrition keep attriting until suddenly they don't, and one side overwhelms the other. Allies v Germany in 1918
At the moment, if you were sad enough to wager bets on the war, you'd wager that Russia would be doing the 'overwhelming'0 -
Things are moving against Ukraine because the GOP have cut off American support, and Europe isn't able to make up the difference. We should be clear that this was a choice, and not inevitable.5
-
My grandfather was told by Montgomery that he would be home for Christmas.Dura_Ace said:
Stop trying destroy this site's morale. Shappsie has dropshipped them another few dozen DJIs off the jungle site. It'll all be over by Christmas.Leon said:Try this
"From a soldier with Ukraine's 110th Brigade. He talks about problems with a lack of rotation, heavy attrition, shortage of soldiers, difficulty moving at night, chronic health issues + 40-45 average of age of soldiers, and few remaining fortifications."
https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=20
This TwiX source is often pro-Ukraine, and now he tweets this?
If you read the text, it sounds like Ukrainian morale is collapsing on the front. Not good
As we all know, wars of attrition keep attriting until suddenly they don't, and one side overwhelms the other. Allies v Germany in 1918
At the moment, if you were sad enough to wager bets on the war, you'd wager that Russia would be doing the 'overwhelming'
And he was.
That was in 1942.
The Christmas in question was 1945.1 -
Can relate.
2 -
Enjoy.TheScreamingEagles said:Blogging will be light this weekend as I am on a romantic break.
0 -
Then they woke up this morning to an old-fashioned England batting collapse.TheScreamingEagles said:Can relate.
0 -
The Ukrainians have been killing Russians in Adviika at a ratio of up to 20:1. The town has served its purpose (it is in ruins anyway) so they will pull back to the next lines of defence where they can again disproportionately kill Russians.Leon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=20
They could have held the ruins of the town much longer if the Republican Representatives had not been shilling for Putin - and holding up supplies of weaponry. Reagan must be spinning in his grave.
7 -
Deutsche Bank.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...0 -
FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.4 -
On topic, yes, it's a big number that will hurt him.
Will it damage his campaign?
I'm not so sure. I think independents know the score with him, and his base will just think it's all part of the conspiracy.
It does make it that little bit more likely, though, that he seeks vengeance and recompense once in office.2 -
It was Deutsche Bank - all the above was and is true.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...1 -
Sorry yes, I forgot about PB MORALEDura_Ace said:
Stop trying destroy this site's morale. Shappsie has dropshipped them another few dozen DJIs off the jungle site. It'll all be over by Christmas.Leon said:Try this
"From a soldier with Ukraine's 110th Brigade. He talks about problems with a lack of rotation, heavy attrition, shortage of soldiers, difficulty moving at night, chronic health issues + 40-45 average of age of soldiers, and few remaining fortifications."
https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=20
This TwiX source is often pro-Ukraine, and now he tweets this?
If you read the text, it sounds like Ukrainian morale is collapsing on the front. Not good
As we all know, wars of attrition keep attriting until suddenly they don't, and one side overwhelms the other. Allies v Germany in 1918
At the moment, if you were sad enough to wager bets on the war, you'd wager that Russia would be doing the 'overwhelming'
Apologies everyone. Zelensky shall march down Nevsky Prospekt in April!0 -
Well thank you @Dura_Ace , although I am wondering if your support is aiding my cause or not.Dura_Ace said:FPT... @kjh is alright, some people are too partisan to appreciate him. Apart from that time he said he was going to buy a Panther Lima and I lost my shit. A line was crossed.
PS At no point was I going to buy a Panther Lima, it was a Panther J72. Does that mean you have been buying up and burning the wrong Panthers as you promised
0 -
However the polls, since SENILEGATE, have shifted - if anything - towards Biden, tho movement is smallCasino_Royale said:On topic, yes, it's a big number that will hurt him.
Will it damage his campaign?
I'm not so sure. I think independents know the score with him, and his base will just think it's all part of the conspiracy.
It does make it that little bit more likely, though, that he seeks vengeance and recompense once in office.
Perhaps none of this - Biden's senility, Trump's venality - makes any actual difference. The voters have decided, and they have decided it is going to be extremely close
0 -
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.5 -
A lot of things in the financial system work on the assumption that the basic factual claims your counterparty makes are reasonably reliable, because if they try to defraud you they can be prosecuted and fined $370 million.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...1 -
I'm not taking any break whatsoever, not least of all because it annoys you.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
a) You are a nasty and deeply personal poster. You know I've had issues with depression. You bringing up some of the examples of that at my worst moments are very low - even for you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
b) I can't remember anything you've posted of value. All I can recall is you creeping out of the woodwork occasionally to launch snide and personal attacks. That should tell you something.
c) Don't you dare try and besmirch my reputation with esteemed posters, who I admire and respect; my point was you were trying to encourage a pile-on - you are a cyber-bully.
d) Almost all of those "likes" are from the herd. Yes, there were one or two names that surprised me on that list and I will take it up with them.
e) I also posted wishing OGH my good wishes - although I don't think it's appropriate to bring him into this, in any way - and also to give @AndyJS my best wishes following his robbery, and @BlancheLivermore - I applaud and encourage any pb'er - but I don't launch nasty personal assaults unless they are deserved.
If you launch nasty and personal attacks at me expect that you can expect that back ten-fold, in ways that damage your morale and mental health in turn just as you damage mine.
I'm not standing for it in silence. You deeply unpleasant man.0 -
Four bidders for London’s Elizabeth Line operator contract
...
TRANSPORT for London (TfL) has confirmed a shortlist of four bidders to become the next operator of the Elizabeth Line from May 2025.
The shortlisted bidders are:- Arriva UK Trains
- First Keolis Elizabeth Line, a joint venture between FirstGroup and Keolis
- GTS Rail Operations
- MTR Corporation UK, the line’s existing operator
Which is your favourite? Or put another way, should that nice Mr Khan send the Elizabeth Line Line subsidy cheques to Germany, France, Japan or China respectively?0 - Arriva UK Trains
-
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...1 -
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.0 -
You really, really really do need a break and need to seek some help.Casino_Royale said:
I'm not taking any break whatsoever, not least of all because it annoys you.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
a) You are a nasty and deeply personal poster. You know I've had issues with depression. You bringing up some of the examples of that at my worst moments are very low - even for you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
b) I can't remember anything you've posted of value. All I can recall is you creeping out of the woodwork occasionally to launch snide and personal attacks. That should tell you something.
c) Don't you dare try and besmirch my reputation with esteemed posters, who I admire and respect; my point was you were trying to encourage a pile-on - you are a cyber-bully.
d) Almost all of those "likes" are from the herd. Yes, there were one or two names that surprised me on that list and I will take it up with them.
e) I also posted wishing OGH my good wishes - although I don't think it's appropriate to bring him into this, in any way - and also to give @AndyJS my best wishes following his robbery, and @BlancheLivermore - I applaud and encourage any pb'er - but I don't launch nasty personal assaults unless they are deserved.
If you launch nasty and personal attacks at me expect that you can expect that back ten-fold, in ways that damage your morale and mental health in turn just as you damage mine.
I'm not standing for it in silence. You deeply unpleasant man.0 -
We'll see. There's a long way to go yet.Leon said:
However the polls, since SENILEGATE, have shifted - if anything - towards Biden, tho movement is smallCasino_Royale said:On topic, yes, it's a big number that will hurt him.
Will it damage his campaign?
I'm not so sure. I think independents know the score with him, and his base will just think it's all part of the conspiracy.
It does make it that little bit more likely, though, that he seeks vengeance and recompense once in office.
Perhaps none of this - Biden's senility, Trump's venality - makes any actual difference. The voters have decided, and they have decided it is going to be extremely close0 -
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.0 -
Everyone on this site have obvious biases. Almost all are openly aligned to left or right wing view. Some aim for nuance and shade. And a few even pull that off,
Either way it doesn’t matter, every approach is valid. The unique, good thing about this website is that whatever your perspective we can all cohabit.8 -
No, I'm not going to be driven off the site by a total inadequate like you.kjh said:
You really, really really do need a break and need to seek some help.Casino_Royale said:
I'm not taking any break whatsoever, not least of all because it annoys you.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
a) You are a nasty and deeply personal poster. You know I've had issues with depression. You bringing up some of the examples of that at my worst moments are very low - even for you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
b) I can't remember anything you've posted of value. All I can recall is you creeping out of the woodwork occasionally to launch snide and personal attacks. That should tell you something.
c) Don't you dare try and besmirch my reputation with esteemed posters, who I admire and respect; my point was you were trying to encourage a pile-on - you are a cyber-bully.
d) Almost all of those "likes" are from the herd. Yes, there were one or two names that surprised me on that list and I will take it up with them.
e) I also posted wishing OGH my good wishes - although I don't think it's appropriate to bring him into this, in any way - and also to give @AndyJS my best wishes following his robbery, and @BlancheLivermore - I applaud and encourage any pb'er - but I don't launch nasty personal assaults unless they are deserved.
If you launch nasty and personal attacks at me expect that you can expect that back ten-fold, in ways that damage your morale and mental health in turn just as you damage mine.
I'm not standing for it in silence. You deeply unpleasant man.
The one who needs help is you: your clearly a deeply unpleasant individual, and that only just lurks beneath the surface, and it's something you're in denial about; you need to come to terms with it and seek treatment.0 -
I think (he writes pedantically) that Arriva isn’t German any more, or won’t be for much longer. It’s in the process of being sold by Deutsche Bahn to a US-based infrastructure fund.DecrepiterJohnL said:Four bidders for London’s Elizabeth Line operator contract
...
TRANSPORT for London (TfL) has confirmed a shortlist of four bidders to become the next operator of the Elizabeth Line from May 2025.
The shortlisted bidders are:- Arriva UK Trains
- First Keolis Elizabeth Line, a joint venture between FirstGroup and Keolis
- GTS Rail Operations
- MTR Corporation UK, the line’s existing operator
Which is your favourite? Or put another way, should that nice Mr Khan send the Elizabeth Line Line subsidy cheques to Germany, France, Japan or China respectively?
It is still, of course, an absolute embarrassment of an operator, as anyone with the misfortune to travel on CrossCountry or the late unlamented Arriva Trains Wales can testify.2 - Arriva UK Trains
-
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
2 -
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone1 -
No, I am. And that's backed with money and my record.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
Find me the example of me being unobjective if you're so convinced they exist.0 -
Douche Bank.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Deutsche Bank.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
We were in Barcelona and my wife wondered why I started laughing. A guy had lost his card in a Douche Bank cash machine. It was the idea that anything to do with Douche might actually work…
Did a few contracts there - investment bank side. Disorganised chaos. Due to a bizarre management structure, some people have multiple bosses they report to. Which means people will often not obey instructions from a boss if they don’t feel like it… never seen so much childish insubordination. Lots of private fiefdoms.
I have name for all of them.2 -
There was a Lima involved at some point in that whole episode of insanity.kjh said:
Well thank you @Dura_Ace , although I am wondering if your support is aiding my cause or not.Dura_Ace said:FPT... @kjh is alright, some people are too partisan to appreciate him. Apart from that time he said he was going to buy a Panther Lima and I lost my shit. A line was crossed.
PS At no point was I going to buy a Panther Lima, it was a Panther J72. Does that mean you have been buying up and burning the wrong Panthers as you promised
0 -
@kjh you can, of course, choose to give me an unreserved and unconditional apology, and promise not to launch personal attacks in future.
Then, perhaps we can all talk in a more civilised manner going forwards - and you can show us all your ability to add objective, insightful posts from an orange-book perspective that add to the richness of the discussion on here.0 -
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.0 -
No it doesn't. Just look at what Trump has done, and did not dispute doing, as I outlined on the last thread, and you'll see what the issue was and why he's been fined.Leon said:
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone
The criticism is that the crime was 'victimless' since everybody got their money. But it included tax evasion. Good luck arguing that is victimless if HMRC should ever pursue you for it.0 -
Trousers nailed to the masthead, crossed with boiling the frogydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
He started off with a fairly small loan, kept rolling over. Bigger and biggger. No one cared in the boom times. Some idiots got a percentage as a commission, so it was all good. And in banking a big loan book is awesome. Quality be damned, I guess.
By the time someone woke up (ha) it was a problem so big, that the only option was to declare it a genius strategy and continue rolling over.0 -
I feel a need to intervene here. If you don't accept that @Casino_Royale is objective, I am going to find out where you live and come into your house at 3am and slap you in the face with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, repeatedly, until you develop mild bruising, and then I will catch a night bus to Newent where you won't be able to find me because I have lots of heavy Newent connections that you don't want to mess withJonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.4 -
A Brilliant plan, with one fatal flaw.Leon said:
I feel a need to intervene here. If you don't accept that @Casino_Royale is objective, I am going to find out where you live and come into your house at 3am and slap you in the face with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, repeatedly, until you develop mild bruising, and then I will catch a night bus to Newent where you won't be able to find me because I have lots of heavy Newent connections that you don't want to mess withJonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
There are no longer night buses to Newent.5 -
The thing is that $700m is a fair value for the Mar-a-Lago property, at least the right order of magnitude. Much smaller properties in the same area have sold for nine figures and the business is profitable. The judge saying it was worth almost nothing seemed totally unreasonable when looking at other properties around it.ydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.0 -
You're not a lawyer, you're a stupid teacher who doesn't even teach any more. Fie on you, Mr Chipsydoethur said:
No it doesn't. Just look at what Trump has done, and did not dispute doing, as I outlined on the last thread, and you'll see what the issue was and why he's been fined.Leon said:
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone
The criticism is that the crime was 'victimless' since everybody got their money. But it included tax evasion. Good luck arguing that is victimless if HMRC should ever pursue you for it.0 -
Understood. What a privilege. Some people (mostly in the HoC) will pay good money for your moccasin services.Leon said:
I feel a need to intervene here. If you don't accept that @Casino_Royale is objective, I am going to find out where you live and come into your house at 3am and slap you in the face with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, repeatedly, until you develop mild bruising, and then I will catch a night bus to Newent where you won't be able to find me because I have lots of heavy Newent connections that you don't want to mess withJonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.0 -
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=lucy+in+the+sky#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:afda8995,vid:LgR6UNeQxXE,st:0kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.0 -
So what? I can still hire a seven year old MINIBUS, and do the journey in under 70 minutesydoethur said:
A Brilliant plan, with one fatal flaw.Leon said:
I feel a need to intervene here. If you don't accept that @Casino_Royale is objective, I am going to find out where you live and come into your house at 3am and slap you in the face with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, repeatedly, until you develop mild bruising, and then I will catch a night bus to Newent where you won't be able to find me because I have lots of heavy Newent connections that you don't want to mess withJonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
There are no longer night buses to Newent.
Hahahahaha0 -
Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I am objective, it's a fact.Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I think some people's definition of being "unobjective" is simply having anything good to say at any time about the current PM or administration, or the underlying party itself. They simply see that anyone sane must agree that the whole lot is fundamentally damned and awful, and if not, you are deluded.
Do you see any irony in that, per chance?0 -
This is wrong, and I'm getting sick of trying to explain it.Sandpit said:
The thing is that $700m is a fair value for the Mar-a-Lago property, at least the right order of magnitude. Much smaller properties in the same area have sold for nine figures and the business is profitable. The judge saying it was worth almost nothing seemed totally unreasonable when looking at other properties around it.ydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
The judge didn't say that. He said it had been valued at four times the next most expensive property.
And even if you are right, there remain two serious problems:
1) Falsely claiming it was a social club to benefit from a tax exemption;
2) Valuing it at $18 million for tax purposes.
It is not just about fraudulent valuations. It's about using different valuations for different purposes to obtain a financial advantage.
Which is a crime.
Which is why he's had such a colossal fine imposed..4 -
What’s your objective take on VAT on school fees?Casino_Royale said:Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I am objective, it's a fact.Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I think some people's definition of being "unobjective" is simply having anything good to say at any time about the current PM or administration, or the underlying party itself. They simply see that anyone sane must agree that the whole lot is fundamentally damned and awful, and if not, you are deluded.
Do you see any irony in that, per chance?0 -
I don’t think it is a left or right thing. Everyone is the hero of their own tale, after all. Huge numbers of people instinctively believe they have set the world to rights. In their heads.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
I rather think that it’s the number of people who say of a problem - “I’m not sure. What does the data say?” - which is the tiny, tiny number.
The other day, someone suggested making policy based on evidenced. And was roundly condemned by a few here. As soulless, without a compass etc…
1 -
I don't teach? I'm getting all this money for doing nothing? That's rather nice.Leon said:
You're not a lawyer, you're a stupid teacher who doesn't even teach any more. Fie on you, Mr Chipsydoethur said:
No it doesn't. Just look at what Trump has done, and did not dispute doing, as I outlined on the last thread, and you'll see what the issue was and why he's been fined.Leon said:
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone
The criticism is that the crime was 'victimless' since everybody got their money. But it included tax evasion. Good luck arguing that is victimless if HMRC should ever pursue you for it.
As for the rest - Says a flint dildo knapper who no longer knaps flint dildos but writes bad travel articles for a seedy magazine...1 -
Anyway, my kids are up and I'm taking them out for the day. Enjoy all.
I await the apology of @kjh when I log-on later with interest.0 -
My word so there was. How on earth did you find that post so quickly? I never really considered the Lima though as soon as I saw the Kallista and then I moved onto the J72. I'm really a tyre kicker though.Dura_Ace said:
There was a Lima involved at some point in that whole episode of insanity.kjh said:
Well thank you @Dura_Ace , although I am wondering if your support is aiding my cause or not.Dura_Ace said:FPT... @kjh is alright, some people are too partisan to appreciate him. Apart from that time he said he was going to buy a Panther Lima and I lost my shit. A line was crossed.
PS At no point was I going to buy a Panther Lima, it was a Panther J72. Does that mean you have been buying up and burning the wrong Panthers as you promised
Sorry to have confused you with the constant name changes in your desire to destroy them all to prevent me from buying one.0 -
Nohit is out - but too late...
Also, not just Bairstow, Root's had a pretty poor series with the bat.0 -
Have a lovely day.Casino_Royale said:Anyway, my kids are up and I'm taking them out for the day. Enjoy all.
I await the apology of @kjh when I log-on later with interest.1 -
He's still run rings around you intellectually, though, hasn't he?Leon said:
You're not a lawyer, you're a stupid teacher who doesn't even teach any more. Fie on you, Mr Chipsydoethur said:
No it doesn't. Just look at what Trump has done, and did not dispute doing, as I outlined on the last thread, and you'll see what the issue was and why he's been fined.Leon said:
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone
The criticism is that the crime was 'victimless' since everybody got their money. But it included tax evasion. Good luck arguing that is victimless if HMRC should ever pursue you for it.
Not a tremendously high bar, but still.2 -
Logs on, finds there are more squabbles than a kindergarten after the wrong kind of synthetic fizzy drink, and logs off again in the search for porridge.3
-
And valuing the same thing as massively valuable and relatively worthless at the same time is exactly the kind of thing a Trump level “genius” would think is smart business.ydoethur said:
This is wrong, and I'm getting sick of trying to explain it.Sandpit said:
The thing is that $700m is a fair value for the Mar-a-Lago property, at least the right order of magnitude. Much smaller properties in the same area have sold for nine figures and the business is profitable. The judge saying it was worth almost nothing seemed totally unreasonable when looking at other properties around it.ydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
The judge didn't say that. He said it had been valued at four times the next most expensive property.
And even if you are right, there remain two serious problems:
1) Falsely claiming it was a social club to benefit from a tax exemption;
2) Valuing it at $18 million for tax purposes.
It is not just about fraudulent valuations. It's about using different valuations for different purposes to obtain a financial advantage.
Which is a crime.
Which is why he's had such a colossal fine imposed..
The thinking of a third rate car dealership owner.0 -
Foreign dentists to be allowed to work in UK without qualification checks
Ministers plan to scrap exam required to allow dentists from countries outside of Europe to work here, in a bid to solve dentistry crisis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/16/foreign-dentists-allowed-work-uk-without-qualifications/ (£££)
What could possibly go wrong? (Besides the incoming dentists also not taking on NHS patients.)2 -
Quickly, that they will lead to redundancies at smaller schools and closure of a few and raise very little money, if anything at all, for the exchequer - and that the capital costs of expansion of state schools to compensate haven't been taken into account.Jonathan said:
What’s your objective take on VAT on school fees?Casino_Royale said:Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I am objective, it's a fact.Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I think some people's definition of being "unobjective" is simply having anything good to say at any time about the current PM or administration, or the underlying party itself. They simply see that anyone sane must agree that the whole lot is fundamentally damned and awful, and if not, you are deluded.
Do you see any irony in that, per chance?
Want another objective view? I've said on here for a long time that the state education sector is underfunded and I would cut back on funding of pensions to pay for it.
How do you think such views go down with the Tory base atm?2 -
OK I think the site needs a change of subject
I have just discovered the most amazing perceptual illusion. I can't believe I haven't seen it before, perhaps I have but forgot about it in my dotage. Perhaps we all discussed it last week. Anyway here it is
Watch this video, but before you watch it, read the line
GREEN NEEDLE
Then watch it again, but this time read the words
BRAIN STORM
https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1749901393828495824?s=20
WTAF is going on? The guy who made this is adamant it is exactly the same sound. And he is queried below by skeptics, but seems to persuade them. A genuine illusion?1 -
Er, it is a social club, is it not?ydoethur said:
This is wrong, and I'm getting sick of trying to explain it.Sandpit said:
The thing is that $700m is a fair value for the Mar-a-Lago property, at least the right order of magnitude. Much smaller properties in the same area have sold for nine figures and the business is profitable. The judge saying it was worth almost nothing seemed totally unreasonable when looking at other properties around it.ydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
The judge didn't say that. He said it had been valued at four times the next most expensive property.
And even if you are right, there remain two serious problems:
1) Falsely claiming it was a social club to benefit from a tax exemption;
2) Valuing it at $18 million for tax purposes.
It is not just about fraudulent valuations. It's about using different valuations for different purposes to obtain a financial advantage.
Which is a crime.
Which is why he's had such a colossal fine imposed..
It’s also at least four times the size of the next property, look at a map and you can see it’s huge.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gnUujVuRtjHqYJnZA?g_st=ic
I don’t know where the $18m came from, but if it were a crime he’d have been prosecuted though, rather than a civil case.0 -
Not HoL?Jonathan said:
Understood. What a privilege. Some people (mostly in the HoC) will pay good money for your moccasin services.Leon said:
I feel a need to intervene here. If you don't accept that @Casino_Royale is objective, I am going to find out where you live and come into your house at 3am and slap you in the face with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, repeatedly, until you develop mild bruising, and then I will catch a night bus to Newent where you won't be able to find me because I have lots of heavy Newent connections that you don't want to mess withJonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.0 -
It is a bit suss how DJT suddenly gets hit with a blizzard of cases from 2020 onward.
The most likely situation is that a) DJT has done loads of heinous prosecutable shit AND b) some of the cases are politically motivated.3 -
Dutch press are reporting that Christian Horner could be for the chop at Red Bull. Another one who can’t keep his pants on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-13092275/Christian-Horner-sexual-misconduct-female-Red-Bull-reveals-sexual-messages-Geri-Halliwell-hush-money.html0 -
A decent attempt today, but you might reflect that you do have bias here and have expressed it more than directly on a few occasions.Casino_Royale said:
Quickly, that they will lead to redundancies at smaller schools and closure of a few and raise very little money, if anything at all, for the exchequer - and that the capital costs of expansion of state schools to compensate haven't been taken into account.Jonathan said:
What’s your objective take on VAT on school fees?Casino_Royale said:Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I am objective, it's a fact.Jonathan said:
Perhaps we can all agree that Casino self identifies as “objective” and respect his choice. It’s obviously really important to him, even if we can’t quite always see it yet.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
I think some people's definition of being "unobjective" is simply having anything good to say at any time about the current PM or administration, or the underlying party itself. They simply see that anyone sane must agree that the whole lot is fundamentally damned and awful, and if not, you are deluded.
Do you see any irony in that, per chance?
What another objective view? I've said on here for a long time that the state education sector is underfunded and I would cut back on funding of pensions to pay for it.
How do you think such views go down with the Tory base atm?
It’s an important, visceral issue for you. And I respect that all the more.
0 -
You do realise I have not made a personal attack on you don't you? Not at all. You have created and done all of this to yourself. You accused me of being a leftwinger. All I did was point out this was wrong and listed out people with whom I share views or suggested you contact someone like @hyufd who is well aware of my views and who could put you right. The rest is in your imagination.Casino_Royale said:@kjh you can, of course, choose to give me an unreserved and unconditional apology, and promise not to launch personal attacks in future.
Then, perhaps we can all talk in a more civilised manner going forwards - and you can show us all your ability to add objective, insightful posts from an orange-book perspective that add to the richness of the discussion on here.
You have imagined all of this and are getting very very very angry. So please get help for your own well being.
I am not going to respond anymore because it isn't doing you any good.0 -
Er, it's not a debate I've been conducting with great seriousness, hence my threat to go round to Jonathan's house and "slap him repeatedly with a soft grey vinyl moccasin, causing mild contusion, before fleeing on a night bus to Newent" - I kinda thought that was a clue - but if you want to be a dull humourless fuckwit who thinks it proves anything, do go ahead and knock yourself outSirNorfolkPassmore said:
He's still run rings around you intellectually, though, hasn't he?Leon said:
You're not a lawyer, you're a stupid teacher who doesn't even teach any more. Fie on you, Mr Chipsydoethur said:
No it doesn't. Just look at what Trump has done, and did not dispute doing, as I outlined on the last thread, and you'll see what the issue was and why he's been fined.Leon said:
IANAL but @DavidL is, and he is no friend of Trump (actively loathes him, I believe) and this is his verdict on the NY case from the prior threadydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
"It’s possible that NY State were conned out of some taxes in which case they should sue. The current proceedings do seem to me to be partisan, politically motivated and ill judged. I can’t see this nonsense surviving appeal."
That summarises my feelings, the case reeks. There are better ways to squash Trump than really dodgy court cases which bring the whole NY legal system into disrepute. One of them is: beat him in an election. He's a terrible candidate. He's easily beatable, so beat him and see him gone
The criticism is that the crime was 'victimless' since everybody got their money. But it included tax evasion. Good luck arguing that is victimless if HMRC should ever pursue you for it.
Not a tremendously high bar, but still.0 -
Very interesting, still works if you mix up the words so BRAIN NEEDLE and GREEN STORM can be heard, well at least by me anyway.Leon said:OK I think the site needs a change of subject
I have just discovered the most amazing perceptual illusion. I can't believe I haven't seen it before, perhaps I have but forgot about it in my dotage. Perhaps we all discussed it last week. Anyway here it is
Watch this video, but before you watch it, read the line
GREEN NEEDLE
Then watch it again, but this time read the words
BRAIN STORM
https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1749901393828495824?s=20
WTAF is going on? The guy who made this is adamant it is exactly the same sound. And he is queried below by skeptics, but seems to persuade them. A genuine illusion?1 -
It is absolutely fascinating, isn't it?theenglishborn said:
Very interesting, still works if you mix up the words so BRAIN NEEDLE and GREEN STORM can be heard, well at least by me anyway.Leon said:OK I think the site needs a change of subject
I have just discovered the most amazing perceptual illusion. I can't believe I haven't seen it before, perhaps I have but forgot about it in my dotage. Perhaps we all discussed it last week. Anyway here it is
Watch this video, but before you watch it, read the line
GREEN NEEDLE
Then watch it again, but this time read the words
BRAIN STORM
https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1749901393828495824?s=20
WTAF is going on? The guy who made this is adamant it is exactly the same sound. And he is queried below by skeptics, but seems to persuade them. A genuine illusion?
There are multiple different scientific explanations below, and no consensus as to what is going on0 -
Last night I walked past the Russian Embassy, a few doors down from where I live in Tallinn. A silent crowd had gathered, holding candles. The mourning of Andrei Navalny was profoundly sad and moving.
The murder of Navalny has shaken people, both Estonian and Russian, in a way I have not seen since Putin´s speech on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine, which made it clear that the invasion was inevitable.
The point is that even the USSR kept dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov alive, even when they imprisoned them. It was an acceptance that the West would do something if such people were to be murdered.
Putin murders his opponents with impunity because he believes that it does not matter what the West says or does. The fact is that the West has lost all ability to deter Putin. We could not deter the invasion, we could not deter him from outright murder.
The collapse of deterrence means that we will not be able to deter the coming attack directly against NATO targets, whether that attack is another against the undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic or the North Sea, or a direct military incursion against Finland, Estonia or any other NATO state.
The weakness of the Americans response and the unhinged comments from Trump have given Putin hope that the West is decadent and that he can seize unlimited territory without the West offering meaningful resistance.
The failure to bolster Ukraine until it could be too late guarantees the expansion of the war. Estonia, Denmark, Poland, even Germany and the UK are not the only voices that now expect that Russia will expand the war with a direct attack on NATO member states within a maximum of 3-5 years.
So what does the murder of Navalny mean?
A Russian speaking friend of mine who had stood in the crowd said it very clearly; It means war. It means Russia will not be deterred from attacking the West.
I think the West will win, but having seen Coventry for the first time a couple of months ago, I think what cost with the war involve? It would be a shame to lose Paris or London, Rome or Istanbul as Coventry was lost.
It is inevitable that Putin will ultimately use nuclear weapons, and though we may have some defence, it will not be complete. Moscow will burn, but millions elsewhere will be also be dead.
Future generations will ask, as they ask of the 1930s, "could we not have stopped this sooner?"3 -
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.0 -
I don't think that's an argument worth having, with someone who struggles with the premise?Casino_Royale said:
No, I am. And that's backed with money and my record.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
Find me the example of me being unobjective if you're so convinced they exist.
Objectivity rests on evidence and provable facts and is usually heavy on qualifications and uncertainty, since objectively there are relatively few things that can be known for certain. Particularly in politics.
Subjectivity rests upon assertion and opinion and prejudice, in the literal sense of having pre judged the outcome in the absence of firm facts. All of us are subjective to a greater or lesser extent; it's human nature. None of us is Spock.
One form of subjectivity is attaching yourself to a particular political party and arguing their corner regardless of the facts - HY would have been a good example in times past, although events are driving even him toward being more questioning of late. That's the form of subjectiviy that you seem to be railing against.
But there are other ways to be subjective, and when it comes to argument based on solely on evidence rather than personal opinion, bias or prejudice, I'd say you're well in the pack, as am I, and certainly not way out in front as you seem to think.1 -
What's the betting that the Americans still end up voting Trump into office regardless? His chances are clearly excellent. A product more of extreme idiocy combined with the division of the country into two mutually loathing camps than of the evident senility of Biden. What a bloody mess.1
-
Digging through the past and present of your opponent is standard in politics.Dura_Ace said:It is a bit suss how DJT suddenly gets hit with a blizzard of cases from 2020 onward.
The most likely situation is that a) DJT has done loads of heinous prosecutable shit AND b) some of the cases are politically motivated.
Consider the enthusiasm for Starmers judgements as DPP. Or the enthusiasm to try and link various scandals to the politicians in power - PPE, Grenfell, Post Office etc.
What is unusual, is finding so much crime at the end of the search.
Trump is the classic 70s/80s style property “Billionaire” - an empire of debt built by making dodgy deals all the way. Then you have his side hobby of sexual… misbehaviour, complete with payoffs.
Then he went for semi-demi-fascist politics. Complete with the worst remake of The March On Rome, ever.
And he seems to have been especially stupid in creating an obvious trail of his behaviour.1 -
Did you read the ruling? (Or just skip to the relevant parts, it's pretty long.) American judges are such great writers, the original judgement is nearly always better written than the reporting.Sandpit said:
The thing is that $700m is a fair value for the Mar-a-Lago property, at least the right order of magnitude. Much smaller properties in the same area have sold for nine figures and the business is profitable. The judge saying it was worth almost nothing seemed totally unreasonable when looking at other properties around it.ydoethur said:
If it had been a few million dollars e.g. 25 against 18, I would agree. And the judge himself noted that you do get different valuations so if it had been small variations the case would never have come to court.bondegezou said:
Maybe they just didn’t have the bigger picture. When the evidence is all laid out, the fraud is obvious, but one valuation at a time, to different banks, maybe no-one could put the picture together.ydoethur said:I think with Trump, building on my reply to Leon about what he did on the previous thread, the question is not whether what he did was illegal, but why on Earth the banks didn't rumble him? Re-evaluating properties at three times their size and four times their worth should have set alarm bells clanging.
Some possible theories;
1) They knew, but didn't care because they didn't think it mattered;
2) They knew, but didn't care because they wanted the business anyway;
3) They knew, but didn't care because they were all bezzy mates with Trump;
4) They didn't know, because they were stupid.
None of them exactly inspire confidence in the banks he was working with...
But not $700 million. That was so far out it should have been an immediate red flag.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbajldovq/Trump-order-20240216.pdf
What Trump did with Mar-a-lago was to sign away the right for it to be used as anything except a social club, so that he could pay lower property taxes on it. After that when they tried to tax him on the basis that it was worth $25 million, he filed an appeal on the grounds that $25 million was too high (although he later withdrew it). Then he reported it to the bank as if he hadn't done that, which resulted in a vastly higher valuation.
This is one of the harder thing for us to interpret because the stuff about what you can use it for is a bit obscure, but a lot of the other cases where he's pulling the same moves in ways that are much more blatant, for example lying about how big a penthouse was or how many floors a building had.0 -
Well who's Mister Gloomypants today?Cicero said:Last night I walked past the Russian Embassy, a few doors down from where I live in Tallinn. A silent crowd had gathered, holding candles. The mourning of Andrei Navalny was profoundly sad and moving.
The murder of Navalny has shaken people, both Estonian and Russian, in a way I have not seen since Putin´s speech on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine, which made it clear that the invasion was inevitable.
The point is that even the USSR kept dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov alive, even when they imprisoned them. It was an acceptance that the West would do something if such people were to be murdered.
Putin murders his opponents with impunity because he believes that it does not matter what the West says or does. The fact is that the West has lost all ability to deter Putin. We could not deter the invasion, we could not deter him from outright murder.
The collapse of deterrence means that we will not be able to deter the coming attack directly against NATO targets, whether that attack is another against the undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic or the North Sea, or a direct military incursion against Finland, Estonia or any other NATO state.
The weakness of the Americans response and the unhinged comments from Trump have given Putin hope that the West is decadent and that he can seize unlimited territory without the West offering meaningful resistance.
The failure to bolster Ukraine until it could be too late guarantees the expansion of the war. Estonia, Denmark, Poland, even Germany and the UK are not the only voices that now expect that Russia will expand the war with a direct attack on NATO member states within a maximum of 3-5 years.
So what does the murder of Navalny mean?
A Russian speaking friend of mine who had stood in the crowd said it very clearly; It means war. It means Russia will not be deterred from attacking the West.
I think the West will win, but having seen Coventry for the first time a couple of months ago, I think what cost with the war involve? It would be a shame to lose Paris or London, Rome or Istanbul as Coventry was lost.
It is inevitable that Putin will ultimately use nuclear weapons, and though we may have some defence, it will not be complete. Moscow will burn, but millions elsewhere will be also be dead.
Future generations will ask, as they ask of the 1930s, "could we not have stopped this sooner?"
Look on the bright side, they might level Coventry AGAIN, then we can start over0 -
Agree, apart from the porridge. As a Guardian reader it was, of course muesli!Carnyx said:Logs on, finds there are more squabbles than a kindergarten after the wrong kind of synthetic fizzy drink, and logs off again in the search for porridge.
3 -
How disappointing that you don't have the good grace to apologise for your personal attacks, and for bringing my mental health into it. The attempts at gaslighting also reflect poorly on you.kjh said:
You do realise I have not made a personal attack on you don't you? Not at all. You have created and done all of this to yourself. You accused me of being a leftwinger. All I did was point out this was wrong and listed out people with whom I share views or suggested you contact someone like @hyufd who is well aware of my views and who could put you right. The rest is in your imagination.Casino_Royale said:@kjh you can, of course, choose to give me an unreserved and unconditional apology, and promise not to launch personal attacks in future.
Then, perhaps we can all talk in a more civilised manner going forwards - and you can show us all your ability to add objective, insightful posts from an orange-book perspective that add to the richness of the discussion on here.
You have imagined all of this and are getting very very very angry. So please get help for your own well being.
I am not going to respond anymore because it isn't doing you any good.
You are a weak man of weak character. Others on here will note your lack of integrity with interest and judge you accordingly.
As for you and myself I suggest we never engage with each other on this site again.
Good day.0 -
Thanks to trump and his buddiesLeon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=200 -
I can only suspect that the lawyers are behaving exactly as instructed by their client. He can afford a superstar legal team, put prefers to pick people who will go to the court with a bad attitude. No idea why.Dura_Ace said:
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.0 -
So, you don't have any examples then. Got it.IanB2 said:
I don't think that's an argument worth having, with someone who struggles with the premise?Casino_Royale said:
No, I am. And that's backed with money and my record.IanB2 said:
You must surely see the flaw in your statement "I'm one of the most objective people on here"?Casino_Royale said:
Err, no. I happen to be known as a regular "Conservative" poster on here who can be quite forthright in challenging others thinking.IanB2 said:
I think Casino has fallen into a common habit of many right wing folk in thinking that their views aren't 'partisan' or 'political', but merely objective common sense. Whereas of course one person's common sense is another person's prejudice.kjh said:FPT @Casino_Royale
I really think you need another break from the site for a few days. It really isn't doing you any good is it? You are now just talking drivel. Let's do a little breakdown:
a) Accusation of being immature. This coming from someone who has twice challenged PBs to fist fights
b) You can't remember anything I have posted and then wrote reams on what I posted in the past
c) You say I tagged all 'my mates', the people you accuse of being Labour supporters namely: @hyufd, @BartholomewRoberts, @DavidL, @Richard_Tyndall, @Sean_F, @Selebian, @Nigelb (I've done it again). I'm sure they will all appreciate being called socialists.
d) 10 likes to my post and only 1 from that list and the likes included yet another well known lefty @Big_G_NorthWales. Do you think maybe you have got me wrong in calling me a Labour supporter and that maybe people do think you are partisan. Just maybe? Just a little bit?
e) You accuse me of making personal posts (even though you can't remember any of my posts) and I agree I do. Yesterday I made a post wishing OGH my good wishes and also a post on some polite children I met when walking at a NT site and before that wishing @MarqueeMark good luck in his presentation. So yes I do post really personal stuff.
You need a break Casino. You really do. This site is getting to you.
It's the flip side of the left wing habit of thinking that only their own politics has any intrinsic virtue.
That's enough for many people. If you have a happy echo chamber of groupthink and someone upsets the applecart it's very easy to confuse that with being "partisan". It's simple social dynamics, and it can happen in things like, for example, WhatsApp too. And Twitter is much worse. My posts are filled with views that are at odds with traditional Conservative thinking, and new ways of thinking, but people pretend not to notice and just prefer simple labels.
Just as you prefer to flag any post that you disagree with.
Find me the example of me being unobjective if you're so convinced they exist.
Objectivity rests on evidence and provable facts and is usually heavy on qualifications and uncertainty, since objectively there are relatively few things that can be known for certain. Particularly in politics.
Subjectivity rests upon assertion and opinion and prejudice, in the literal sense of having pre judged the outcome in the absence of firm facts. All of us are subjective to a greater or lesser extent; it's human nature. None of us is Spock.
One form of subjectivity is attaching yourself to a particular political party and arguing their corner regardless of the facts - HY would have been a good example in times past, although events are driving even him toward being more questioning of late. That's the form of subjectiviy that you seem to be railing against.
But there are other ways to be subjective, and when it comes to argument based on solely on evidence rather than personal opinion, bias or prejudice, I'd say you're well in the pack, as am I, and certainly not way out in front as you seem to think.
Good day, Ian. I hope you enjoy walking your dog.0 -
Hasn't he Art Of The Deal'd enough lawyers in the past that nobody good is prepared to work for him?Dura_Ace said:
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.1 -
Alexei Navalny0
-
Partly thanks to that, but also thanks to other democracies that Ukraine relies on caring much less about who wins than Russia does.malcolmg said:
Thanks to trump and his buddiesLeon said:Ukraine is slooooooowly losing the war
"BREAKING: Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Avdiivka, Donetsk oblast, Commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces say"
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1758646704423715166?s=200 -
I think you answered your own question - Trump has run through the vaguely good lawyers.Dura_Ace said:
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.
A combination of not paying, aggression against his lawyers for not winning unwinnable cases and that good lawyers have some kind of respect for rules of conduct.
The ones prepared to take him on now are the bottom of the barrel.3 -
Partly because those bills often don't get paid at allDura_Ace said:
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.0 -
I see what you mean.Carnyx said:Logs on, finds there are more squabbles than a kindergarten after the wrong kind of synthetic fizzy drink, and logs off again in the search for porridge.
I think it's worth everyone remembering that there are humans behind these avatars. Some of whom emerge from the pile-on a bit sticky from the Tizer that has been thrown at them, but otherwise energised and ready to spend the day knapping flints or suchlike. Others, though, having just fished out the midget gems that have been forcibly stuffed in their every orifice during the coordinated final assault on the messy mat, then take the stress and rancour out on real-life innocents such as recently awoken young kids.0 -
Presumably a good lawyer would look at his case and say "you haven't got a chance"Dura_Ace said:
This is something I really don't understand. Trump isn't even paying his own legal bills but he still seems to employ the worst fucking lawyers in the US. Why doesn't he get somebody good?Sandpit said:
The behaviour of his lawyers doesn’t help him though, with a bombastic and aloof attitude to the court that no judge likes.0 -
On Newsnight last night one of the guests suggested it wasn’t in Putin’s interests to kill Navalny as this would embolden the pro Ukraine camp especially in the USA where there is more pressure on the House to pass aid proposals .
0 -
If they nuke Slough & Bedford, does that mean that Putin will be liable for the enormous capital gains on property there?Leon said:
Well who's Mister Gloomypants today?Cicero said:Last night I walked past the Russian Embassy, a few doors down from where I live in Tallinn. A silent crowd had gathered, holding candles. The mourning of Andrei Navalny was profoundly sad and moving.
The murder of Navalny has shaken people, both Estonian and Russian, in a way I have not seen since Putin´s speech on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine, which made it clear that the invasion was inevitable.
The point is that even the USSR kept dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov alive, even when they imprisoned them. It was an acceptance that the West would do something if such people were to be murdered.
Putin murders his opponents with impunity because he believes that it does not matter what the West says or does. The fact is that the West has lost all ability to deter Putin. We could not deter the invasion, we could not deter him from outright murder.
The collapse of deterrence means that we will not be able to deter the coming attack directly against NATO targets, whether that attack is another against the undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic or the North Sea, or a direct military incursion against Finland, Estonia or any other NATO state.
The weakness of the Americans response and the unhinged comments from Trump have given Putin hope that the West is decadent and that he can seize unlimited territory without the West offering meaningful resistance.
The failure to bolster Ukraine until it could be too late guarantees the expansion of the war. Estonia, Denmark, Poland, even Germany and the UK are not the only voices that now expect that Russia will expand the war with a direct attack on NATO member states within a maximum of 3-5 years.
So what does the murder of Navalny mean?
A Russian speaking friend of mine who had stood in the crowd said it very clearly; It means war. It means Russia will not be deterred from attacking the West.
I think the West will win, but having seen Coventry for the first time a couple of months ago, I think what cost with the war involve? It would be a shame to lose Paris or London, Rome or Istanbul as Coventry was lost.
It is inevitable that Putin will ultimately use nuclear weapons, and though we may have some defence, it will not be complete. Moscow will burn, but millions elsewhere will be also be dead.
Future generations will ask, as they ask of the 1930s, "could we not have stopped this sooner?"
Look on the bright side, they might level Coventry AGAIN, then we can start over0 -
"Come friendly bombs …"Malmesbury said:
If they nuke Slough & Bedford, does that mean that Putin will be liable for the enormous capital gains on property there?Leon said:
Well who's Mister Gloomypants today?Cicero said:Last night I walked past the Russian Embassy, a few doors down from where I live in Tallinn. A silent crowd had gathered, holding candles. The mourning of Andrei Navalny was profoundly sad and moving.
The murder of Navalny has shaken people, both Estonian and Russian, in a way I have not seen since Putin´s speech on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine, which made it clear that the invasion was inevitable.
The point is that even the USSR kept dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov alive, even when they imprisoned them. It was an acceptance that the West would do something if such people were to be murdered.
Putin murders his opponents with impunity because he believes that it does not matter what the West says or does. The fact is that the West has lost all ability to deter Putin. We could not deter the invasion, we could not deter him from outright murder.
The collapse of deterrence means that we will not be able to deter the coming attack directly against NATO targets, whether that attack is another against the undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic or the North Sea, or a direct military incursion against Finland, Estonia or any other NATO state.
The weakness of the Americans response and the unhinged comments from Trump have given Putin hope that the West is decadent and that he can seize unlimited territory without the West offering meaningful resistance.
The failure to bolster Ukraine until it could be too late guarantees the expansion of the war. Estonia, Denmark, Poland, even Germany and the UK are not the only voices that now expect that Russia will expand the war with a direct attack on NATO member states within a maximum of 3-5 years.
So what does the murder of Navalny mean?
A Russian speaking friend of mine who had stood in the crowd said it very clearly; It means war. It means Russia will not be deterred from attacking the West.
I think the West will win, but having seen Coventry for the first time a couple of months ago, I think what cost with the war involve? It would be a shame to lose Paris or London, Rome or Istanbul as Coventry was lost.
It is inevitable that Putin will ultimately use nuclear weapons, and though we may have some defence, it will not be complete. Moscow will burn, but millions elsewhere will be also be dead.
Future generations will ask, as they ask of the 1930s, "could we not have stopped this sooner?"
Look on the bright side, they might level Coventry AGAIN, then we can start over
0 -
Excellent choice.OldKingCole said:
Agree, apart from the porridge. As a Guardian reader it was, of course muesli!Carnyx said:Logs on, finds there are more squabbles than a kindergarten after the wrong kind of synthetic fizzy drink, and logs off again in the search for porridge.
1
