This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I briefly read through the ruling so I might have missed it, but how are you certain the over-valuation of these properties didn't affect the terms or availability of any loan/insurance/financial agreement?
The bank absolutely does care about your debt-to-asset ratio for a multitude of reasons, but more importantly they care if you're a liar.
A $10 million loan to someone with $1-2b in assets is likely a low risk for default. A $10 million loan to someone who lies on their financial statements is a reputational and financial risk.
He wasn’t directly borrowing against these properties. The debt was on other properties that were underwritten. High other assets only come into play if something goes wrong on those properties. So it could matter but if the loan was debatable I would assume the banks would underwrite the quality of his personal guarantee more than just rubber stamping what he submitted.
Right - and his personal guarantee is based on the valuation of his assets, which he overstated.
Find me one case with precedence here where a little exaggeration on this specific form with zero victims was pursued.
It's going to be pretty hard to find cases where there's no egregious harm because they would normally go undetected. And once there is harm, your company is probably insolvent and not worth pursuing by OAG.
If you're pointing out that this only got investigated because it's Trump, I agree. Unfortunately for him, the investigation uncovered a crime.
Actually this is in civil court not criminal which heavily indicates how weak of a case it is. Beside it being very rare for a civil case that isn’t origionating from a victim.
That's not true. The NY attorney general doesn't have the authority to indite Trump on criminal charges.
Similar to the SEC (whose cases are also civil), they refer their investigations to a separate authority who might be interested in pursuing any criminal charges in addition to the civil case.
I believe the OAG has referred this case to the Manhattan DA, though as they're already prosecuting Trump for a separate case, I'm not sure if they'll decide to file criminal charges.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link