At best, The Trump Organization gets pulled into little, tiny pieces that are unable to work together. There won't be anything left of value, power or influence.
Bought time we hit him in the money. Kicked him in the fork so hard he suddenly went deaf.
And if it needs saying, money is the only thing propping this man up. His influence will evaporate overnight once he's truly broke.
Don't underestimate the ability of stupid people to give him money. I suspect that he makes more from the grifting than the company. Losing the company martyrdom will be a boon for fundraising.
You're right, but the Org is also almost certainly a huge part of how he launders campaign money to pay off his ... Russian bankers.
He's over 1 billion in debt. He didn't even fundraise that much after the election and he had other expenses to cover.
Don't underestimate the ability of Saudi Arabia to give him money.
This guy made so much money when the first charge was levied that it made my eyes water. People who can't afford rent are dying to bail him out. It's so stupid.
Don’t underestimate the ability of foreign influences to fund him either.
Unfortunately, the grift will continue. Close enough to half the people of the US voted for him last time.
46% or 74M voters voted for him. Only 29% of 258M US adults voted for him. This same delusional 30% shows up all the time and they vote hard. They aren't 50% though.
close to half of the people in the US voted for him
This is legitimately enough to say “pack it in.” The american experiment has failed and failed fucking fantastically.
Edit: guys I get it, it’s not half of the country. It IS roughly half of the people who voted though, which is what fucking matters
Would be if it was a true measure but with the low voter participation and him getting less than 50% of what few people voted, he never got more than 21% of the total population to vote for him. That means that over three quarters of Americans have never voted for him and probably never will.
That he got that far with so little of the population voting for him (18% when he "won" in 2016) says a LOT about how undemocratic the system is, though..
Whatever way you do the figures, he was elected once and nearly elected a second time. He’s the most likely candidate for a third term and it’s neck and neck. People choosing not to vote is just as big a problem when one of the candidates is this terrible for the world.
He was APPOINTED once. Elected is when you get more votes than the other candidates.
People choosing not to vote
You mean politicians from both parties alienating prospective voters by representing rich people and their corporations many times more than regular people, being staunchly pro-cop and laughing at the very notion of common sense policies that most of the population wants?
While Biden is by far the lesser evil, him and the other neoliberals are still very much an evil, complicit in the rise of fascists like Trump because they never do enough to resist them or represent and help the poor people who have been fooled by Trump pretending to care about them.
And that's not even mentioning all the voter suppression the Dems make pretty speeches against but hardly ever do anything to actually stop it.
An indirect election is a type of election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
Voter suppression is certainly a problem but voter apathy is a bigger problem.
An indirect election is one thing, but the EC isn't democratic. Not even close.
And voter "apathy" (more like resignation) is mostly a problem because, with very few center-left exceptions, the major parties only cater to the rich and others with right wing policy positions.
To have nobody who represents you faithfully in Congress or the white House is de facto disenfranchisement, not apathy or laziness.
In the most recent election, as it was an election, trump nearly won. That's apathy, not resignation.
None of the candidates in the republican side can get support over trump. Again, apathy. I'm no saying they are good candidates, but a bucket of vomit would be better than a narcissist who steers the country towards civil war and fascism, only caring about his own enrichment.
There are myriad possible reasons for people not voting, including but not limited to
Voter suppression makes it extremely difficult to impossible for many, especially in the states and districts that Trump won. Voter suppression that the Dems keep promising to do something about.
The disenfranchisement through lack of faithful representation I mentioned
Having no energy left after working grueling hours on election day
Going to college in a state that only allows permanent residents to vote and being unable to return to your hometown for election day
But you just automatically assume that it's the only one that's completely unquantifiable and absolves yourself and your favourite politicians from all responsibility.
That's very convenient, don't you think?
Not at all, but while all of those reasons can and should be addressed, the vast majority of people not voting are choosing not to for other reasons. It's not inability it's lack of will. The reason one side is trying to stifle the voice of the other by gerrymandering and making registration difficult is because votes matter. Yet many people choose not to vote as they think their vote doesn't make a difference. It's apathy more than barriers.
Too tired to vote is not a real reason. There is postal voting in many states. Despite postal voting in some states, and states without the type of problems you cite, voter turnout is still low. It's a big problem.
You're complaining about disenfranchised voters while downvoring comments you don't agree with. I assume the irony is lost on you.
I don't care about Internet points. The whole system on Lemmy is to make posts more visible. You're choosing to stifle conversation.
It's not inability it's lack of will.
Oh yeah? How are you measuring the will of people to be so certain?
many people choose not to vote as they think their vote doesn't make a difference. It's apathy more than barriers.
Again, where's your proof? All the other things are objectively measurable, but you assume that it's the intangible one because that's convenient to you.
Too tired to vote is not a real reason.
It definitely is. YOU try working the equivalent of two full time jobs and take care of a family on top of that, still unable to make ends meet. See how much energy you have left for literally ANYTHING else.
There is postal voting in many states.
But not all. Most of the ones with the most restrictions on it were amongst the states Trump won. Yet another case of measurable voter.
voter turnout is still low.
Because of the many measurable reasons I've mentioned and to a much smaller extent the theoretical one you want to blame it all on for convenience.
It's a big problem.
Yep. One that can be tackled by addressing the many tangible reasons rather than just yelling at people for unproven assumptions.
You're complaining about disenfranchised voters while downvoring comments you don't agree with. I assume the irony is lost on you.
Yeah, I'm downvoting misinformation and assumptions based on nothing concrete. That's not disenfranchisement or censorship or whatever else you imagine it to be. Nothing ironic about that.
You're choosing to stifle conversation.
No, I'm choosing to express my opposition to misinformation using the tools available to me. If I was to downvote someone claiming Trump won in 2020, would you complain about that too? What about someone claiming that vaccines give you covid?
Not all utterances are of equal value. Your downplaying of proven problems in favor of your gut feeling based on party strategist propaganda is misinformation and thus of little value if not downright harmful.
No, you're following a narrative, not data. 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.
We'd also have a large decrease in voters in the states that are restrictive or gerrymandered. We don't. It's a measurable reduction and skews to certain populations.
You're claiming facts, while providing no data. Then saying mine is from my gut while the data backs it up.
Heck, you can even stop comparing us states and start looking at the difference between countries. 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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
except its not true and you should fact check things you read on the internet before condemning an entire country
Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied
gestures towards all of it and then makes a completely different, significantly ruder gesture at them
BURN MOTHER FUCKER
The future eh? Good thing I can see that. My future vision says that eventually T***p will die and his idiot sack spawn will waste whatever is left after the government finishes chewing on his economic corpse. Ivanka will no longer have to think about her horny weirdo dad, Eric will mourn for the hug he never got, Don Junior will switch from cocaine to meth, Tiffany still won't matter, and Barron will probably get arrested for something weird and gross in his 30s. Oh and Melania will make a fortune on book sales and public speaking while thanking God it's finally over.
While Trump Tower is eshine as the Trump homeless community center our whatever. We will make all his hotels homeless and low cost housing and we dedicate them all to him.
Yeah. For a trump based business, I would imagine it’s next to impossible to turn a profit legitimately.
That's what happens when the leader is a nepo baby who's also an idiot who thinks himself infallible 🤷
How about the future is - NO FUTURE. Shutter the place.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise stressed during Wednesday’s hearing that the judge’s ruling injected fresh uncertainty for his team about the fast-approaching trial and raised a host of questions for them, including over how far-reaching the decision is for the company.
“It’s the reason why I’m saying we would ask the court for a little more time with the monitor,” he said, referring to a retired federal judge who had been appointed several years ago to oversee the company’s financial statements.
Engoron said in his ruling that a receiver will be put in place to “manage the dissolution” of the corporate entities, a move that is rare outside of cases where a judge finds there to be a notable amount of business fraud, according to Simon Miller, a New York-based attorney with broad expertise on receiverships.
Engoron said in his ruling that the issues that will be determined at trial include how much Trump will be held liable for in the lawsuit and the amount of disgorgement, or ill-gotten funds, the company will need to pay to the attorney general’s office.
Kise said in a separate statement that the judge’s decision is “outrageous” and argued that it “seeks to nationalize one of the most successful corporate empires in the United States and seize control of private property.”
The original article contains 1,128 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So who's looking into the not at suspicious 1bil deal ivankas idiot got.
You're a billion short, there.
The business still functions and makes money. Trump gets paid , but isn't allowed to run it. If parts get sold they will be sold for market prices. I woudn't be surprised if Trump gets paid for the sale of his assets and fund raises to buy them back under a business from another state. He could make out really well from this.
wrong. everything you said.
The government is revoking the business license, not stripping Trump of assets. Trump still owns the business, but the court is now in charge of winding them down. All of the money is still going to Trump and family while this happens. The businesses will get sold off and Trump will get the money for that as well.
People thinking like you will believe that the government is stealing Trumps properties, which it is not. He will be able to fund raise off of this.
When the pieces are sold off, other companies can buy the assets as long as they are in good standing. Trump has businesses in other states not covered by this ruling, which is specific to New York state.
The ruling is specific to NYS.
However, from what I understand, the Trump Organization itself is incorporated in NYS. So they'll be selling off everything it owns, in every state.
That includes Mar a Lago.
The proceeds of the sale go first to pay any debts and obligations - to stiffed contractors, to government fines, and to pay off the remainder of bank loans. The owners (i.e. Trump) gets the rest of the cash from the sales. There's literally no way Trump ends up poor from this, but he might find it difficult to repurchase things like Trump tower.
Gosh, and those steaks were tasty. Good thing I still have a bunch in the freezer.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News