lookin

There were (at least) a couple things about this case I didn't understand until recently. First is the way the fines were set. I thought they were really high and meant to be more punitive than reflective of actual damages. As Trump says, "Nobody lost any money and there are no victims and they were all perfect deals." But looking at the way the damages were calculated, it's a pretty conservative approach and one that seems unlikely to be reversed on appeal. The way I now understand the 'fines', they're not so much fines as they are calculations of how much money Trump saved by lying about his assets and therefore his risk profile. In one case, he 'saved' over a hundred million in interest charges that the banks were entitled to had they actually known his assets were worth much less than he swore to. Those 'savings' went right into his pocket, and now the court is telling him he has to give them back. In the other case, he made another hundred million or so by getting a deal on the old Post Office, turning it into a hotel, and selling it for a profit - which, again, went right into his pocket. If he had been honest about his assets from the beginning, he wouldn't have got the Post Office deal in the first place. And now the court is telling him he has to give those profits back. In both cases, he will be left exactly as he was before these deals began. He is merely being asked to return the gains he made by misrepresenting his financial condition. If a bank robber was punished by merely having to give back the money he stole, he'd consider it his lucky day. When I look at the 'penalties' that way, they seem more than reasonable to me. Disgorgement of fraudulent 'profits' is about the most lenient remedy I can think of and I'd be surprised if an appeals court concludes that Trump was treated 'unfairly'. The second thing I realized comes from Trump's own statements that 'Everybody does what I did.' If that's true, it makes perfect sense that the government would want to make a very public example of what happens when somebody lies in order to pocket 'profits' that they have no legal right to. Again, I'd be surprised if an appeals court reversed this message and said it's fine to break the law and, if you get caught, the worst that will happen is that you've got to give the money back. Plus a little interest. The one thing that does make Trump an outlier in a case like this is that he's got a bunch of 'followers' who he thinks will be happy to reimburse him for the ill-gotten gains the courts are taking away. If he's right, every collared bank robber in the country will have a GoFundMe page.

Personally, I don't do sneakers. It takes a lot of practice to be able to mince in sneakers - they keep catching in the shag carpet. And forget flouncing! I'm pretty much limited to low-heel pumps and slingbacks for more formal occasions. But I am tempted to try one of the essences. For 99 bucks, I could get the cologne with a 'crisp opening of citrus blends into a cedar heart, underpinned by a rich base of leather and amber, crafting a commanding presence.' According to the website, the cologne is for 'the movers, the shakers, and the history makers.' But there's the problem. What if I attend the Palm Springs Weekend, or Totally Oz's Arabian Nights Extravaganza, and there's another Forum member who's also there moving and shaking and history making with Trump cologne oozing out of every pore? So I'm leaning toward a giant economy-size bottle of the Trump perfume. According to the website, it's 'Infused with a blend of light floral notes, hints of citrus zest, and a whisper of spice.' It also says 'This scent is for the woman who embraces her victories with grace and allure.' The one snag is that I don't get all that many victories to embrace, and my grace and allure are long past their sell-by date. I want to show some kind of pecuniary support though. Perhaps I should just hang back until he starts hawking a nice Trump Wrinkle Creme, or Trump Suppositories, or Trump Hair Spray with PFAS and a methane Power Burst®. Lots to think about and it couldn't hurt to start with a little pick-me-up.

Now there's a hat going back on the shelf.

Nah, just a bad batch of Spray Net®

Thank you, Nevada! I came in second to no one.

Although it's not surprising, the thing that distresses me is the willingness of so many to put millions of folks in one basket, labelled the 'other', and treat them as objects rather than human beings. We say 'Palestinians' and don't distinguish between zealots who murder Israelis indiscriminately and fathers who are searching for their children in the rubble. We say Israelis and don't distinguish between IDF forces who drop bombs on apartment buildings and protesters who are out in the streets calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. A few weeks ago, I was filled with admiration for the Israeli citizens who were protesting Netanyahu's anti-democratic actions. Many of them are still there, but their voices have been lessened and confused with other Israelis who want to see Gaza obliterated by Israeli hawks. I hope the compassionate Israelis survive this terrible time and grow even stronger. Across many parts of the world, I think we're watching authoritarian followers in action as they let their fear of the 'other' take over their lives and cause them to see other human beings as worthless. Never mind that all major religions, including the ones they follow, are based on love and compassion. About the only generalization I'll make is that people who kill civilians are murderers. I don't care where they live, what religion they follow, or what their genetic heritage is. They're murderers and I won't support them.

Some lectern! 😳 She says she's not going to use it though, as it could become a distraction. And we wouldn't want that!

Worth remembering that Hitler and a handful of his cronies went to jail after their unsuccessful Munich putsch in 1923. Hitler served eight months of his five-year sentence and, while in prison, wrote Mein Kampf. Within a decade, he was appointed Chancellor and a few months later he was der Führer. As I've posted elsewhere, it is very difficult to detach authoritarian followers from their 'leader'. They latched on to Hitler as they have latched onto Trump. Germany was nearly destroyed before Hitler's base would abandon him. I expect that any punishment Trump receives will make some folks feel better but I doubt that his base will abandon him. If you're not an authoritarian follower, it's not easy to understand what makes them tick. But, until we do, and until they have a less divisive and destructive leader, my expectation is that our society will continue to unravel. Punishing Trump, in my opinion, will not be enough.

The other day I watched a biography of Al Capone. 📺 👀 He had roughly the same respect for state and federal law as Trump has, and there was no shortage of folks trying to get him in front of a jury. What I found interesting is that Capone never once hollered 'Witch Hunt' nor did he accuse anyone of 'weaponizing' the judicial system against him. He just played a straight-up game of 'Catch-me-if-you-can.' Which they could and which they did. Early on, he did time at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, where he had a pretty sweet setup. The warden would come to his cell and listen to the radio. Eventually the Feds got hold of him on tax evasion and figured it would be good PR to send him to their new federal prison on Alcatraz. He didn't do so well there, as they soon diagnosed a long-untreated case of syphilis which had begun to rot his brain and left him confused and delusional. After a long stay in the prison's hospital wing, he got an early parole to go home and be with his family in Miami Beach. I don't know why I bring all this up in a thread about Donald Trump. I guess their lifelong devotion to skirting the law is one thing that binds them together. And the years of mayhem they left in their wake. But Capone never spent all day every day bellyaching about being treated 'unfairly', and Trump never managed to find a good haberdasher. Not so far anyway.

Personally, a change of venue doesn't worry me. There may be places where it would be more difficult to select an impartial jury but I have faith in the selection process itself. Once both parties have agreed to a jury, I trust the jury to consider the evidence. For me, what's important is to finally get Trump's actions under close examination and let the evidence speak for itself. Should he be found guilty, I expect him to follow form and attack the jury itself. But, if it's a jury he himself has called for, that will make his theatrics even less credible than usual.

Ze Theory of Relativity vas a good idea. Indicting Drumpf iss cheenius!

It won't be news to anyone here that gay folks are not all cut from the same cloth. Even in our small world here in the Politics forum, there's diversity and difference of opinion in every thread. In my opinion, 'the gays' is commonly used to create divisiveness much as 'the Jews' was used to create warring segments of German society. I know it wasn't the intent of the OP to put us into a silo but there are, in fact, people who do have the intention of creating silos within an otherwise collaborative society. And it's something to be keenly aware of. Falling into that trap means a steep descent for all of us. Trump demonstrated that dividing society into warring factions is a good fundraising tactic, a way to assemble street gangs, a path to get back in the White House and perhaps one day to bring an end to democracy in the US. He's shown a few others how to use these tactics. Although he's still the most accomplished in this country, that could easily change. As far as I can tell, 'the gays' is not yet the wedge group that will divide our society into dysfunction. There are a number of groups who have been given trial runs: 'the Muslims', 'the Chinese', 'the Blacks', 'the Mexicans', 'Antifa', 'the Leftists', 'the Deep State', 'the Woke', 'the Coastal Elite', 'the Democrats' - and whoever else will be the next group that will energize enough followers to bring in the money and swing an election. Fighting these tactics from within a silo is not, at least in my opinion, the way to go. Rather, the fight has to be in resisting silos in the first place. Pastor Niemöller had it right nearly a century ago. So, no, I don't think 'the Gays' have gone too far. To the extent we consent to inhabit a silo, we haven't gone nearly far enough. When we join with other siloed groups and pulverize those walls, even then we'll just be moseying up to the starting line.

I've been indicted And I just can't hide it I'm about to lose control And I do not like it

Party favorites - Pirozhki Putinoff - one bite is enough

You mean I got made up and brushed out for nothing?

Maria Lvova-Belova Took off in an old Chevy Nova She really hauled ass Till she ran out of gas Just across from the White Cliffs of Dover

If that's true, and you sure know a lot more of the history than I do, a ceasefire makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense just to stop the destruction of communities and whole cities. No one should have to live with bombs going off around them all day. And I sure can't say that sending weapons to Ukraine is doing anything to stop this destruction. Unless one day Putin decides to call everyone back home and let Ukraine start to rebuild. I guess that's the only hope and, as of today, it seems pretty much of a long shot. Im my opinion, I think the U. S. had a better standing in the world when it was begged to intervene rather than when it waded in uninvited and certainly when it waded in to gain more power. Power, in my opinion, is something to be avoided and handled judiciously when it can't be avoided. I guess it's possible to stop sending arms to Ukraine and ask our allies to do the same. It would also be possible to look the other way if Putin starts bombing every other country that he sees as part of Mother Russia. We could just wait to see what happens. We could even further that approach and become neutral, isolationist and uninvolved anywhere outside our borders. That was the position of the US throughout much of its history, and it could be again. We could also stop funding the military and start dismantling our nuclear arsenal. We could keep our fingers crossed that no other country would walk, float and fly in to help themselves to whatever they like. Personally, I wouldn't kill anybody over ownership of a laptop or even a house. I expect most of my fellow humans feel the same way. Here at home, I can vote and support leaders who share my values. But I can't vote Putin out, no matter how many lives he destroys. It seems my only tool, besides denial, is to support those who want to get rid of him. Not a good option, and I'm sure I'm missing some better ones.

Not trying to be a 'Miss Manners' here but OZ's views on the Politics Forum are clear and simple: Do NOT get nasty. Debate the topic not the poster! We're lucky as a group to have this Forum, and I'm lucky to see some of my favorite posters here. Having posted here for a while, I can confirm that OZ doesn't waste time on warnings and requests. When the hammer comes down, it's quick and direct. I'd sure hate to lose even one of my favorite posters who are just settling in. I believe we're all smart enough not to foul our nest. 🤞

Personally, it's way too early for me to be handicapping Joe Biden. A lot can happen in a year. I can say that I have no issue with Biden's age, as I believe functional age is more relevant than chronological age and there are many younger politicians acting a lot goofier than Biden. I also believe that a President is not a dictator and those around her/him are just as important as the President. I can also say that I think Kamala Harris is more of a handicap than a help. Biden's best shot would be to choose a Vice-President who would make a popular President. Not that I think it would happen but Michelle Obama could probably put them both in the White House. One thing I've been watching with a bit of surprise is Biden's tracking in the Rasmussen Presidential Poll. He just hit a positive number for the first time since his six-month 'honeymoon' in 2021. I don't know why and some folks will say the Rasmussen poll is awful and tilted toward Republicans, but I follow it since it's a daily poll and I focus on the day-to-day changes rather than the absolute numbers. Finally, if you told me that Biden will be elected because of Republican misfires rather than his own achievements, I wouldn't disagree with you.

I think that 'moderator approval' message shows up under two conditions: You are not a member of the site You are a member, but you aren't signed in If you're a member and you're signed in, you don't see that 'moderator approval' message and your post appears just as soon as you hit 'Submit Reply'.

Apparently, Rupert Murdoch was unusually forthcoming in his depositions for the Dominion lawsuit. He admitted he knew that his 'commentators' were peddling false information about the 2020 election. He also said he could have kept Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell and their damaging views on Dominion off the network, but that he did not. It also turns out that Paul Ryan, who sits on Fox's board of directors, implored Murdoch to "move on " and "stop spouting election lies". This adds to Murdoch's problems, as it opens the door to shareholder lawsuits. Some also wonder if Murdoch's admissions will drive viewers away from the network. Maybe so, but I wonder if their viewers actually look to Fox for factual information or for 'alternative facts' to support incorrect beliefs they already hold. Somethin' tells me Murdoch's problems are about to get bigger and hopefully make the cost of spreading lies so expensive that few, if any, can afford it.

Not the A-list, that's for sure. They may have to run on the cheap. We’ll be forever tainted In corners we have painted We dug a hole And sold our soul Our Campaign Chair just fainted ♫♬ ♫♬ ♫♬

Say what you will, that is one flourishing ice cream cone! 😳

In the grand scheme, you're probably right. Still, no manager likes to make a billion-dollar mistake. In March, 2020, their stock lost a third of its value - $4 billion in market value. Perhaps that's what Tucker Carlson was bitching about in that article. It's mostly recovered now. If they do end up paying a billion on this one case, Fox should, at the very least, tighten the chain on their 'anchors' before they pull the company underwater again.

I'm no lawyer, but none other than Laurence Tribe thinks Dominion Voting Systems' request for a $1.6 billion summary judgment against Fox News is likely to succeed. For others who are not legal eagles, a summary judgment is one in which the facts are so compelling that a judge finds no need for a trial and decides the case on the information that has been presented in the brief. In this case, Tribe thinks that Dominion has provided enough evidence that Fox News deliberately spread lies that Dominion's voting machines were faulty and denied Donald Trump the 2020 election. “I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. “Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.” One such piece of proof was a tweet put out a day after the election by Fox reporter Jaqui Heinrich who “correctly factchecked [a Trump] tweet, pointing out that top election infrastructure officials said that there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” After the tweet, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity went ballistic. They asked to get Heinrich fired because the truth was hurting their ability to broadcast misinformation and that was interfering with their ratings, and with Fox News' stock price. She took down her tweet the following day. But all the tweets and compromising emails still exist and are included in Dominion's brief. Fox News lawyers say the falsehoods knowingly spread by their anchors are protected by the First Amendment. But others disagree. “You may have a first amendment right to report on what the president said but you have no right to validate a statement that you know to be false,” said Steven Shapiro, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and counsel or co-counsel on more than 200 supreme court briefs. It's possible this landmark case could be decided quickly. And it's not the only lawsuit Dominion has filed. Billion-dollar cases against Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell are still active. Personally, it would please me greatly if Dominion prevailed in all its cases and actually received multi-billion-dollar judgments. For too many years, we've been inundated with known lies masquerading as truth and there have been few if any consequences. Here's hoping that's about to change. 🤞