372

The Trump Organization is trying to determine the sweep of Tuesday’s ruling that Donald Trump is liable for fraud and what it means for the future of the former president’s namesake business, his attorneys say.

At a pre-trial hearing Wednesday, Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied and were starting to work out what may need to be dissolved to comply with the judge’s surprise decision.

Officials from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office also said they needed more time to go through the order.

The fraud case “changed significantly since yesterday,” New York Judge Arthur Engoron said in court Wednesday, referring to his stunning ruling where he found Trump and his adult sons liable for fraud and canceled the Trump Organization’s business certification.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If people were having problems voting to the extent you are claiming, then we'd have similar voting levels to historical levels in the states with similar rules. We don't. It's dropped.

So you're saying that the fact that, in a country with ever-increasing and evermore effective voter suppression, voter participation dropping is proof positive that it has nothing to do with it? What kind of backwards ass logic is that?

We'd also have a large decrease in voters in the states that are restrictive or gerrymandered. We don't.

Absolute populations are increasing while voter participation as a percentage is decreasing.

It's a measurable reduction and skews to certain populations.

Yeah, disenfranchised populations. Still doesn't prove your apathy hypothesis

You're claiming facts, while providing no data.

You want data? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/28/state-voting-rights-election-laws-police-suppression

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voter-suppression-barriers-college-students/

Then saying mine is from my gut while the data backs it up.

What data? Not only have you provided exactly as much data as I did before this comment, but you've also invented causal relationships for which there's no proof at all.

Heck, you can even stop comparing us states and start looking at the difference between countries.

You mean other countries that work fewer hours, have a higher minimum wage, have plenty of polling places in every district and just generally makes it much easier to vote than in the US? Gee, must be because voters are less apathetic there!

You can even look at the difference in elections that have a president on the ticket and the ones that don't. Which of your reasons so you think causes that discrepancy?

People are conditioned by the media to believe that presidential elections are the most important ones, so employers and educational institutions are more likely to give employees and students leeway to vote than for "midterm" elections.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

The difference between claiming data and not is that I'm agreeing that your points have merit. You're ignoring mine.

I have provided examples. You haven't disproved them, you've disregarded the .

Neither of yoir links show my opinion as false. They reinforce your assertion, which I agree with but they don't quantify it.

No I mean every country worldwide. Those with more or less holiday pay. Those with more or less voting restrictions.

Lol, so people vote more when they think it's important. The corraly is that they vote less when they think it is less important. Also called apathy. Which state do you think has the least gerrymandering and voter suppression?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm agreeing that your points have merit. You're ignoring mine.

First I've heard of you agreeing. And no, I'm not ignoring your baseless claims, I'm calling them out for being baseless. It's a significant difference.

I have provided examples.

You have provided arguments, not examples.

You haven't disproved them

I also haven't disproven that that between the Earth and Mars there is a teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

Neither of yoir links show my opinion as false.

You can't prove a negative. I refer you back to the teapot.

They reinforce your assertion, which I agree with but they don't quantify it.

They're imperical proof that the things I claim actually happen. That they don't quantify it doesn't imply that your unproven claims must be true.

No I mean every country worldwide. Those with more or less holiday pay. Those with more or less voting restrictions.

All well-functioning democracies have better facilitation of voting than the US and higher voter participation. That they have both of those things in common is no coincidence.

Lol, so people vote more when they think it's important. The corraly is that they vote less when they think it is less important. Also called apathy.

That's an interpretation ignoring a ton of known data in favor of your unproven hypothesis. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Which state do you think has the least gerrymandering and voter suppression?

I have no idea and that's fine since it's irrelevant.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Ah, so it's a comprehension problem. Well, no point wasting my time then.

The point of asking for the least gerrymandered state was to show the differences in a state of your choosing, without me cherrypicking data.

The fact that they don't quantify it is my point. Youre making assertions of fact without the data to back it up. I'm pointing to flaws in your data and offering examples that show your assertions are incorrect.

this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
372 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS