|
skeleton warrior posted:Someone posted in what they thought was the Baldur's Gate 3 thread, and many lols were had. Pact of the blade baybeee (it’s the best one)
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
H.R. Hufflepuff posted:why is there a whole lawyer subclass about using swords
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 06:43
|
|
|
How long does he have to appeal? Isn’t there a 30 day time limit or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:34
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:maybe he meant “appeal for donations” I don't find Trump appealing at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:34
|
|
|
E: wrong thread
cr0y fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
small butter posted:It could easily double or triple by November regardless of how worthless the stock is. I guess his finances are more or less at the irrational whims of meme stock investors. If he is able to cash out at $1b, he'd be better off even after this verdict. Yeah, if irrational investors can maintain Tesla’s value at more than the entire rest of the automobile industry combined for a decade, particularly in the face of Elons absurd and whimsical management, then they can shove untold amounts of money into a failing media company and inflate it’s value to 1000x its income without blinking. Edit: it’s just so dumb. The DWAC SPAC isn’t some magical profit vehicle bringing billions of subscribers and vast revenues to Truth Social with some wild new business plan. It’s just some dumb grift to put investor money into Trumps pockets. The day after the merger Truth Social will still be operating at a loss on a few 10s of millions of income with the same subscription base it had the day before. Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Isn't Truth social basically the DWAC SPAC? Yes, that’s the reverse merger that the SEC is allowing to proceed, so they will become one. I guess one way to interpret that graph is that in after hours trading after the news of the merger people are trying to sell off DWAC to the rubes buying on the news at this dumb valuation. I guess we will see on Monday if this price range is real or if it collapses because even the fanatics don’t think it’s a good buy. Murgos fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
So, for all the talk about "guess Ol' Donny will wiggle out of this", the situation he is in has two outcomes. 1) He let's the judgment stand. He doesn't appeal it. Then he's got to spend the rest of the election campaign dodging questions on "why should America elect a man who has almost $400 million of civil fines?" And "how can you say the trial was rigged and the verdict was wrong, but not then appeal it?" Like he can do these things, but they will be very obvious. Also I guess he is going to be chased for that money constantly. Which should make people donating to his campaign jittery about putting money in. 2) he decides to appeal. Now he's got to stump up the near $400 million for a certainly doomed appeal. With all the many problems people have pointed out of raising this sort of capital, on top of his company (his main source of finances) being scrutinised by the courts. It wouldn't surprise me if he ends up uncovering or doing some more crimes, just trying to get this money together. I'd kind of like to see him appeal, lose the election and then watch as he realises be has no way to beat this case on appeal. I'm not sure if the fine can go up on appeal. I did a lot of criminal appeals where sentences could be increased on appeals, but I don't know if that can apply to civil cases like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Keep in mind that any lender/guarantor of funds to cover the nearly half-billion dollars for his appeals is going to be aware that, if he wins, it’s likely that the two appeals could toll (be put on hold) until he is out of office. Who wants to tie up half a billion for 4-5 years with zero possible return, except maybe the principal in the microscopically-unlikely event that he prevails?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:I'm not sure if the fine can go up on appeal. I don't know either, but the interest will certainly continue to accrue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
cr0y posted:E: wrong thread You coward, we are overdue for a new thread tittle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:
This is almost certainly what he'll do. My guess would be he tries to get foreign billionaires to cover the debt for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm misremembering, but having significant debts, for any other position in the government, is a bar to holding a security clearance, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Keep in mind that any lender/guarantor of funds to cover the nearly half-billion dollars for his appeals is going to be aware that, if he wins, it’s likely that the two appeals could toll (be put on hold) until he is out of office. Bold if you assuming Trump would ever willingly leave office again. If he wins, his supporters will be given titles of Nobility like William the conqueror did to England. His big supporters are counting on that, and be allowed to ravish the land and its peoples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
cr0y posted:E: wrong thread CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS!? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Correct me if I'm misremembering, but having significant debts, for any other position in the government, is a bar to holding a security clearance, right? Yes, because you'd obviously be susceptible to blackmail. This was bandied around a bunch in 2016 when Trump was undergoing his totally normal, standard, three year long audit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So, for all the talk about "guess Ol' Donny will wiggle out of this", the situation he is in has two outcomes. Regardless all the business documents have to go through the new compliance officer and then to jones for prior approval before going to third parties. So before they can even ask for a loan or try to sell an asset to raise money for the judgement, appeal or no, there will need to be a full top to bottom audit of the company to create accurate SFCs. Since some of the current loans are described as having penalty clauses that trigger if Trumps net worth falls below a threshold then this is going to get very interesting very fast. Edit: I guess he needs to appeal and ask for a stay very, very quickly to prevent that part of the judgement from going into effect? I’m not sure the appeals court would grant a stay on that part of the judgement since complying with GAAP and reporting laws isn’t a burden? Murgos fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Correct me if I'm misremembering, but having significant debts, for any other position in the government, is a bar to holding a security clearance, right? Kinda--my understanding is it's a factor, but it's not like there's a set debt amount that bars you if you go over. It's more a consideration of debt in relation to income/ability to pay, in the context of credit history. Most people have some significant debt (student loans, a mortgage, etc.). Generally, it's not disqualifying unless it's considered excessive compared to your ability to pay it, or you have a past history of defaulting on debt, particularly when it's not for good reasons (e.g. defaulting on your mortgage because you lost your job might not be disqualifying, but defaulting because you had a gambling problem probably would be). Basically, it's pretty context-heavy, or at least that's my understanding as mostly a layperson. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
This is correct. When granting a clearance the government is concerned with your reliability, so anything that calls that into question can be disqualifying. Having a ton of debt you don't have a straightforward means of paying shows 1) questionable judgment since you got into that mess and 2) susceptibility to bribery as a means of paying it and 3) susceptibility to blackmail if you've taken steps to disguise it or hide it. However it's not immediately disqualifying, just a red flag that you need to address. For example, someone who racked up a ton of credit card debt in college but owned up to it, started a payment plan, and has stuck with it for a few years without other adverse information would probably be fine. Lying about it at any point (like Trump has dozens of times already) is pretty much instantly disqualifying though, because if you're willing to lie about that then how can they trust you with national security?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Correct me if I'm misremembering, but having significant debts, for any other position in the government, is a bar to holding a security clearance, right? Being the President is gonna be an exception to any other regulation around security clearance. The president doesn't need to pass a background check or fill out any forms or meet any other requirement, and is essentially automatically cleared for any level. I think this would also apply to the VP, since they need to be able to step in for any potential emergency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So, for all the talk about "guess Ol' Donny will wiggle out of this", the situation he is in has two outcomes. There's basically two ways I'm aware of that might allow him to "wriggle out" of this one, for some value of "wriggle out." The first is some overseas lender just dump trucks money onto him. This might violate campaign finance or other laws, but Ol' Donny doesn't have to worry about that; what's one more federal crime at this point? Either he's president in twelve months or he's in jail either way. The second is this Truth Social merger meme stock thing that apparently got clearance just this past week. quote:The funding partner for Trump Media & Technology Group said it has received regulatory approval from securities regulators that will allow it to proceed with a long-delayed merger. The combination could provide former President Donald Trump with a stake worth almost $4 billion. I don't know how liquid that money would be and how quickly he could make use of it, though; he may not be able to use it to make the various filing deadlines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Being the President is gonna be an exception to any other regulation around security clearance. The president doesn't need to pass a background check or fill out any forms or meet any other requirement, and is essentially automatically cleared for any level. For what it's worth before Trump just about every President was in a prior position that resulted in having a security clearance (former military, former senator/representative, etc.). So it seems more this was just not something considered at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
fake edit:quote:Digital World has just announced via a new filing that the much-anticipated meeting of its shareholders will now occur at 10:00 a.m. on the 22nd of March, 2024 https://wccftech.com/its-official-trump-media-focused-entity-is-finally-going-public-as-digital-world-prepares-for-a-shareholder-vote/ So I could be wrong but that seems to imply that whatever profit happens from this may not occur until after the deadline for him to file his appeal bonds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Hasn't it been stated before that the judgement is nonappealable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Hasn't it been stated before that the judgement is nonappealable? Anything is appealable but both recent judgements against Trump require large "appeal bonds" -- in effect, you you have to pay down enough money into the Court's bank to cover the judgment in order to appeal it. If you win you get your money back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Anything is appealable but both recent judgements against Trump require large "appeal bonds" -- in effect, you you have to pay down enough money into the Court's bank to cover the judgment in order to appeal it. If you win you get your money back. Someone was talking about that the Appeals Court already ruled that the verdict wouldn't be appealable in this case, but I didn't pay much attention to it. Something about how part of the case had already basically been declared 'proven'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Anything is appealable but both recent judgements against Trump require large "appeal bonds" -- in effect, you you have to pay down enough money into the Court's bank to cover the judgment in order to appeal it. If you win you get your money back. I saw on r/law someone clarifying that the bond is only required if you are seeking a stay. So, theoretically he could appeal without the bond while the judgement process proceeds. In this case that might be a distinction without a difference though since carrying out the judgement, even if he can delay paying the fine, is likely worse for Trump since an accurate accounting of his finances probably shows he’s deeply in debt and that he’s using donations to prop up a Ponzi scheme business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Someone was talking about that the Appeals Court already ruled that the verdict wouldn't be appealable in this case, but I didn't pay much attention to it. Something about how part of the case had already basically been declared 'proven'. May have been referring to the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The procedural history there is a bit tangled but basically it's too late for him to dispute that she was telling the truth. Actually what's the appeal filing deadline on that one, the judgement was last month
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I saw on r/law someone clarifying that the bond is only required if you are seeking a stay. So, theoretically he could appeal without the bond while the judgement process proceeds. A lawyer on Bluesky was explaining that getting any large sum of foreign money into the US, without violating the legal restrictions, within a month is nearly impossible. And you can't get $500B into the US by violating the restrictions without one or more banks noticing. Has anybody seen his TruthSocial reaction? I want a shot of schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:May have been referring to the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The procedural history there is a bit tangled but basically it's too late for him to dispute that she was telling the truth. Ah, that makes a lot of sense, thanks. The deadline is one month from the judgement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
So he only has one month to get the ~$400million for the appeal process? There’s no way he could liquidate truth social that fast. If a month goes by and he hasn’t appealed then..that’s that? That’s how this works?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:So he only has one month to get the ~$400million for the appeal process? There’s no way he could liquidate truth social that fast. If a month goes by and he hasn’t appealed then..that’s that? That’s how this works? It is generally a good idea to avoid, if possible, incurring $400 million dollar legal judgments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
The Saudis might stump up half a billion and probably have it onshore in banks already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The Saudis might stump up half a billion and probably have it onshore in banks already. I have to imagine that a presidential candidate that’s clearly beholden to a Muslim king is a bit much even for the faithful? But, then again maybe not? They aren’t rational. Trumps probably on the phone with Elon right now begging for $500 million and making wildly illegal promises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:So he only has one month to get the ~$400million for the appeal process? There’s no way he could liquidate truth social that fast. If a month goes by and he hasn’t appealed then..that’s that? That’s how this works? So by my understanding of Irish Law (which is a common law jurisdiction so might have a lot of similarities to some States of US law) you can ask a court to accept an appeal outside of the statutory deadline. But you run into two problems. The first is you have to make an argument why you should be allowed appeal (as opposed to the previous automatic right of appeal if it had been filed within the time limit.) And two, any general stay on enforcement goes away if filed outside the time limit. Like he could file outside the time limit, but the Government is allowed liquidate his assets and ban him from businesses while he waits on his appeal. Of course that's just in my country. In America for all I know your just jot allowed file appeals outside if the time limit. And they can just shoot you dead if you try. Hieronymous Alloy posted:It is generally a good idea to avoid, if possible, incurring $400 million dollar legal judgments. Look, how could Trump have possibly known months ago that he'd be looking at a $350 million plus bill he couldn't just run away from? Months ago he was too busy saying the Judges staff was a manipulative fem-bot, Deep Dtate agent man-controlling him to put any type of contingency into place. The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I have to imagine that a presidential candidate that’s clearly beholden to a Muslim king is a bit much even for the faithful? But, then again maybe not? They aren’t rational. He's said that he doesn't need to be forgiven by God for anything. That is literally the most unchristian thing you can say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If he doesn't ask for a stay, the judge in charge of liquidating the assets can get to work and he and the family are immediately banned from owning or directing companies in New York State. . Engoron rescinded the order requiring the cancellation of his businesses en mass and has left it to the discretion of the monitor and the compliance director. So, at the earliest it’s going to be a few months before they have sorted out the tangled web of Trumps assets and debts and start shuttering zombie companies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I have to imagine that a presidential candidate that’s clearly beholden to a Muslim king is a bit much even for the faithful? But, then again maybe not? They aren’t rational. "The Saudis paid my court fines because they respect me as a distinguished businessman. Once I get elected I'll force them to lower gas prices." There you go, all the MAGA cultists are on board.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
I’m sure you can make a good attack ad out of “Kingdom of Saudi America”
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Convincing his base doesn’t really matter as they’ll never care, or just straight won’t even believe it happened. He has to convince people outside of his base and they’re not likely to believe anything Trump says if he’s accepting $400 million from the Saudis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 20:56
|
|
