Trump's Troubles

Again, anyone and everyone is allowed to give their opinion on what they think their house is worth. You can do that 100 times and each time the bank is going to check before they agree to terms. This is why no one would ever get reported because they keep claiming something is worth more than it ends up being worth.

I take every year a third-party class that always includes law and ethics regarding to lending. Not once have I ever seen or been told it's fraud or against the law for someone to tell me what their opinion is on the value of their property.

 

And the class also teaches you to simultaneously lie to lenders that property valuations are multiples of real value at the same time as you lie to tax authorities that they are fractions of real value?

Laughable. But I get it - the spray-tanned makeup wearing guy is so amazing for 'Murica that it's OK if he crimes.

 

Earlier I was simply suggesting that there is no reason to get personal over a disagreement on legal or political issues. I believe these disagreements should instead be addressed via argument.

It seems you may be introducing a different thought here, suggesting that criminal and unAmerican ideas should not be tolerated. When we say that these ideas should not be tolerated, do we mean that they should be refuted? If so, then we are in strong agreement. I think this kind of debate is essential to a functioning democracy.

However, if we mean that these ideas should be censored and the people pushing them should be silenced, I must strongly disagree. In fact, I think it’s among the most American of our ideals to allow such speech, regardless of how abhorrent the speech seems to us. After all, who decides what ideas are unAmerican? You? Me? The president? The majority? We have to realize that once we empower any entity to determine the bounds of permissible speech, it may deem our own ideas to be unAmerican and impermissible.

 

I think I almost always agree to you. We probably agree now.

Yes, let them speak. Let them avow their love for a criminal, minimize his crimes, and degrade the values we mostly all aspire to.


And then they need to understand how society as a whole views their ideas. With derision. It's no different than the socialization that animals do.

It's the exact opposite of : "Oh, I see how you tolerate crime, and lie about an attack on our country, and approve of elected leaders lying to our populace. And that's OK, it's just a different viewpoint."

Nope - it's not OK. 8 years too late, it's not OK. It's wrong. We need to say so.

 

By your logic, valuation fraud, which is about 1/3 of all real estate bank fraud cases, doesn't exist, because you can just declare any property is worth anything you want. Obviously, this is absurd, just pointing it out.

 

So if you DWI and it's not reported, it's not a crime? If you buy and use heroin but are not apprehended is it not a crime?

 

Let me put it differently. If a guy calls you to refinance, and then misrepresents his income on the application, that is fraud. If he misrepresents his assets, that is fraud. If he misrepresents his liabilities on that application, that is fraud. And it is fraud regardless of whether the guy pays back the loan.

 

I do think we mostly agree, jo. As far as assessing the accuracy of ideas, I am a fallibilist, so I deny absolute authority but also refuse to embrace total relativism. Even if we agree that no ideas are above criticism, we must accept some ideas over others in the moment. The question is of course how to go about this. Fortunately, we have such a process enshrined in our constitution. If the US legal system decides that Trump won election X or is guilty of crime Y, we must accept these outcomes. Going against the result of a legal election or trial must be considered wrong. Full stop.

Still, those that believe that we could improve our elections or legal procedures must be given the right to express these criticisms. And further, taking a position on such process matters should not automatically invite stains upon their characters. Many of us come by our unpopular ideas honestly. E.g. Thomas Jefferson hypothesized that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, but he also noted that the culture did not afford much opportunity for the genius of blacks to flourish. He followed this up by noting that “Whatever be their [blacks] degree of talent it is no measure of their rights.” Perhaps Jefferson was a bad person that actually wanted to prove white supremacy, but it seems to me that he was only making an honest appraisal of the world he saw, an act which should never be condemned as evil.

 

Are you familiar with the case? The SFCs? The blatant misrepresentations of CAP rates and false attribution to an appraiser? The hiding of appraisals from the SFC prepares? Misrepresenting assets despite having contradictory expert information in standardized and certified financial statements is exactly what he did. That is straight up fraud.

 

Originally, fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, "liable to err") is the philosophical principle that propositions can be accepted even though they cannot be conclusively proven or justified,[1][2] or that neither knowledge nor belief is certain.[3] The term was coined in the late nineteenth century by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, as a response to foundationalism. Theorists, following Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, may also refer to fallibilism as the notion that knowledge might turn out to be false.[4] Furthermore, fallibilism is said to imply corrigibilism, the principle that propositions are open to revision.[5] Fallibilism is often juxtaposed with infallibilism.

 

At some point in time, the body of evidence must speak; Trump is clearly a liar, a criminal and an abuser of the system. To him no credit is due, nor to his cult who knows better by now.

To hear someone shill for him at this point, and minimize his crimes, doesn't require a response. But the only suitable one can be derision. Even if it's 8 years too late.

 

That’s the one. Not a fan?

 

I would just say that there is the general and the specific. The general claim that Trump has engaged in a lot of questionable behavior is likely on solid ground. This doesn’t necessarily prove the specific claim that Trump committed fraud. surfn seems to believe that loan fraud cannot be committed if the borrower repays the loan. This is a very specific claim, the truth of which would appear to be quite independent of anything to do with Donald Trump.

 

Surfn has the right to free speech. And the right to shill for an un-American criminal. And the right to be wrong.

At some point, though, a _____ing legal ruling has to be accepted, particularly by someone like Trump who abuses the system in every way possible, while leeching its privileges in every way possible. Just like an election has to be accepted.

These shills would just have us delay every reasonable case for perpetuity (milk the system). Then if they DO lose a ruling (or election), they just bash the system. (or riot)

It's not acceptable. It is required for us, as citizens, to label it as such, and deliver such shilling only scornful derision*. Just like the media should have started doing in 2015 with all the lies. 8 years too late to better than never.



* not that I'm saying we should all have to ruin Thanksgiving. But if someone, say, on a political message board needs to know about supporting a criminal? It's not just difference of opinion.

 

Of big words I am forced to lookup. No.

 

You’re not getting that they know it’s BS. They don’t care. They are nihilistic nimrods. Of course there’s another word for their verbal diharea. Begins with T ends with L.
In any event mockery at the least is warranted.