Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Trump has filed a "notice of appeal". Id have to wait for someone more qualified to clarify the details, but I believe the news is misrepresenting this as an actual appeal, I imagine because it sounds more *EXPLOSIVE*.

Essentially, if I understand correctly, it merely starts the appeal process which gives the appealer 6 month window to formerly appeal. The clock is still ticking. He has until 3/25 to pay up, post appeal bond, or they can start picking up his furniture. The appeals court will not pick up the case until he actually appeals, which requires bond. In the mms defense that exact detail is buried in the articles, its just not clear in the headline.
No, as far I understand, that does actually start the appeals process. What it does not mean is that he has submitted all documentation, requests, etc. to support and accompany his appeal - that can all come later.

For instance, an appeal apparently will not negate his need to pay the fine or a bond. He can ask the appeals court to delay him having to pay the fine until the case is heard, and has up to 25th March to request this. (If he submits a bond, this will automatically grant a stay on his need to pay the fine.)
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,096
6,377
118
Country
United Kingdom
Why is an abortion OK at say 10 weeks (according to Roe) but not allowed at 30 weeks because of right to privacy? How would it be any less private at 30 weeks than it is at 10 weeks? It never made sense.
As has been explained to you before, rights (such as privacy) can be given different weight in different situations, depending on other factors. This is not a contradiction.

Rights are rights given by the constitution. Not just things you are given access to.
Really? That's odd, because I have rights, and I live in a country without a written constitution.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,169
969
118
Country
USA
Really? That's odd, because I have rights, and I live in a country without a written constitution.
Lol, no you don't. There is nothing you have that your government could not legally take from you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,096
6,377
118
Country
United Kingdom
Lol, no you don't. There is nothing you have that your government could not legally take from you.
Quite hilarious ignorance on show here. Sorry to tell you this, but legal rights are not unique to America or countries with written constitutions. That would be completely and utterly ridiculous.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
Lol, no you don't. There is nothing you have that your government could not legally take from you.
A government can legally take rights away from someone even with a written constitution.

See US federal/state/municipal government responses to the Civil Rights protests (eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign), despite the First Amendment, for a perfect example.

When Connor realized that the Birmingham jail was full, on May 3 he changed police tactics to keep protesters out of the downtown business area. Another thousand students gathered at the church and left to walk across Kelly Ingram Park while chanting, "We're going to walk, walk, walk. Freedom ... freedom ... freedom."[75] As the demonstrators left the church, police warned them to stop and turn back, "or you'll get wet".[61] When they continued, Connor ordered the city's fire hoses, set at a level that would peel bark off a tree or separate bricks from mortar, to be turned on the children. Boys' shirts were ripped off, and girls were pushed over the tops of cars by the force of the water. When the students crouched or fell, the blasts of water rolled them down the asphalt streets and concrete sidewalks.[76] Connor allowed white spectators to push forward, shouting, "Let those people come forward, sergeant. I want 'em to see the dogs work."[28][a]
 
Last edited:

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,372
1,958
118
Country
USA
A government can legally take rights away from someone even with a written constitution.

See government responses to the Civil Rights protests (eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign), despite the First Amendment, for a perfect example.
I haven't read it all but I've heard the USSR had a very generous Constitution. Didn't work out for them. Reviewing... https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
EDIT: Scroll to Chapter X : Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,650
836
118
Country
Sweden
Lol, no you don't. There is nothing you have that your government could not legally take from you.
As opposed to a government with a written consitution such as the US, that redefined that "property" did not include "persons" and took away people's ability to own slaves.

Unless you were not making a distinction of countries with and without a constitution but saying in general that the government governs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,632
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
As has been explained to you before, rights (such as privacy) can be given different weight in different situations, depending on other factors. This is not a contradiction.



Really? That's odd, because I have rights, and I live in a country without a written constitution.
No it hasn't. I'd love to see the logic how one abortion is protected by right to privacy and another is not protected.

I meant America obviously. And you have rights based on some legal document. If you didn't, then you can't sue when you're rights are violated.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
conspiracy site indulging in stale recycled red scare hysteria calls itself reason
There's a certain brand of right libertarian that appears to believe that they have some sort of privileged access to logic and rationality that people of other political stripes do not. Ayn Rand fanboys are probably the exemplars (although Ayn Rand did not approve of the term "libertarian" for petty reasons). At best they can be apart from the typical sort of tribal party loyalties of conventional politics, but the idea that they aren't blinded by their own ideology like everyone else is laughable.

Of course, they can also have tribal party loyalties: Objectivism was and for the most part still is a cult.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Lol, no you don't. There is nothing you have that your government could not legally take from you.
That is true of any political system. It's just the process is different.

I would certainly accept that changing the US Constitution is significantly harder than changing the way the UK encodes rights. On the other hand, it doesn't even need a Constitutional change: it just requires the courts to agree to interpret the Constitution in a way the government wants. Plus we can also consider inventive ways of using emergency powers, which has often been a means of bypassing normal routes.

Ultimately, what ensures that the people have rights is the ability and will of the population to make the government grant them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,096
6,377
118
Country
United Kingdom
No it hasn't. I'd love to see the logic how one abortion is protected by right to privacy and another is not protected.
Presumably because a lot of people believe that the more developed a fetus is, the more likely a termination is to be considered immoral. That is weighed against the right to privacy-- and so the balance changes depending on the stage of pregnancy.

I meant America obviously. And you have rights based on some legal document. If you didn't, then you can't sue when you're rights are violated.
OK, but America obviously has legal documents (and legal precedents) which aren't in the constitution.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,373
3,499
118
There's a certain brand of right libertarian that appears to believe that they have some sort of privileged access to logic and rationality that people of other political stripes do not. Ayn Rand fanboys are probably the exemplars (although Ayn Rand did not approve of the term "libertarian" for petty reasons). At best they can be apart from the typical sort of tribal party loyalties of conventional politics, but the idea that they aren't blinded by their own ideology like everyone else is laughable.

Of course, they can also have tribal party loyalties: Objectivism was and for the most part still is a cult.
A noticeable habit among conspiracy/conspirituality pushers too, though with stronger preferences for words like "truth", "reality", "light", "awake" etc etc. Observed recent years have them overlapping and combining with increasing regularity, feeding each others' desperate needs for new validating fictions. No sarcasm was added to post in that regard. Resembles a bit an overcompensating indicator, cause people who actually know what they're talking about when hoping to inform the public tend to not garishly front-load their rhetoric and even their whole brand with what they want you to think of them first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ag3ma and BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,632
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
conspiracy site indulging in stale recycled red scare hysteria calls itself reason

checks out
He had me at not stating any facts or sources. 10/10
Shocking that nobody disputes any actual claims made by the editorial. Did the banks not do their own independent assessments of Trump's assets? I'm pretty sure this isn't a lie.

Presumably because a lot of people believe that the more developed a fetus is, the more likely a termination is to be considered immoral. That is weighed against the right to privacy-- and so the balance changes depending on the stage of pregnancy.



OK, but America obviously has legal documents (and legal precedents) which aren't in the constitution.
How does immorality have anything to do with privacy? How can you actually argue that just using laws?

And? Roe was about whether abortion was a constitution right.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,096
6,377
118
Country
United Kingdom
How does immorality have anything to do with privacy? How can you actually argue that just using laws?
Morality has a lot to do with law; it is one of the primary considerations in a legal system. The only connection it requires is that both are involved in the issue of abortion.

And? Roe was about whether abortion was a constitution right.
OK, but you chose to make the argument that 'rights' just refers to thinks given by the constitution. That's obviously not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,952
2,084
118
Country
United States
Shocking that nobody disputes any actual claims made by the editorial. Did the banks not do their own independent assessments of Trump's assets? I'm pretty sure this isn't a lie.


How does immorality have anything to do with privacy? How can you actually argue that just using laws?

And? Roe was about whether abortion was a constitution right.
There's nothing to dispute, he didn't even bother to quote the banking representatives, we have no evidence from the author that anything he said is true. This is honestly pretty clumsy even for an opinion piece. When you make statements like this, especially those inflammatory, you want to present data and references for your logic.

This is the equivalent of posting an opinion piece like "koby bryant actually sucked at basketball" and not listing any statistics or examples. It's pointless to even debate this kinda nonsense. You'll never get any serious engagement with this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan