Donald Trump found liable for fraud

[bmw]

Didn’t read the details, don’t know the exact language. Just the kind of crack analysis we’ve come to expect from your likes.

This is quite rich, coming from somebody who never provides anything even remotely resembling a thoughtful analysis of anything politics. All you provide here is half-assed, smart ass quips, 100% of the time directed against anybody who is not a Democrat. In fact, in your 1626 posts here, I don't think you've ever once, even mildly, criticized anything a Democrat has ever done. Even TC Talks does so at least once in a blue moon. You, on the other hand, are the true definition of a political hack.

[Rate This]

Didn’t read the details, don’t know the exact language. Just the kind of crack analysis we’ve come to expect from your likes.

This is quite rich, coming from somebody who never provides anything even remotely resembling a thoughtful analysis of anything politics. All you provide here is half-assed, smart ass quips, 100% of the time directed against anybody who is not a Democrat. In fact, in your 1626 posts here, I don't think you've ever once, even mildly, criticized anything a Democrat has ever done. Even TC Talks does so at least once in a blue moon. You, on the other hand, are the true definition of a political hack.

You literally put statistics in everything man… sometimes quips have more value in a sentence than can be mustered in a dissertation paper…

[bmw]

I use stats where needed to illustrate a point. The fact that I'm still to this day routinely mocked (this thread being an example) for specific ones I posted now well over a year ago is amusing to say the least.

As an aside, that is an odd gripe coming from someone who copies and pastes poll numbers on a daily basis.

[teetoppz28]

It was a summary judgment, and the judge ignored the submissions by the defense in making his decision. It will probably be overturned on appeal.

I didn't read all the details, but it seems the documents in question included statements containing a “worthless clause”, not unlike the disclaimers used by all companies when talking about their stock prices or future company plans.

Something like ""These statements are not guarantees of future performance and undue reliance should not be placed on them. Such forward-looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual performance and financial results in future periods to differ materially from any projections of future performance or result expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

I don't know what the actual language was on the documents that were submitted to the financial institutions.

The tRumpanzee tl;dr: "The judge is wrong and is to blame. tRump is always innocent. It's a WiTcH hUnT!!"

[TC Talks]

I use stats where needed to illustrate a point. The fact that I'm still to this day routinely mocked (this thread being an example) for specific ones I posted now well over a year ago is amusing to say the least.

As an aside, that is an odd gripe coming from someone who copies and pastes poll numbers on a daily basis.

More graphs and less complaints

[Rate This]

I use stats where needed to illustrate a point. The fact that I'm still to this day routinely mocked (this thread being an example) for specific ones I posted now well over a year ago is amusing to say the least.

As an aside, that is an odd gripe coming from someone who copies and pastes poll numbers on a daily basis.

Not a gripe… just saying. I don’t whip out my abacas for discussions. Just posting statistics in a thread about… statistics.