2024 U.S. Presidential election

[MartyClark]

Three miles from water and the highest elevation in the area. It would take a Biblical event to flood us and that’s would be from the waterway first. It’s not flood policies. Those haven’t gone up the same. Upstate it’s the same 50%-80% year over year increase because that’s how insurance works. It’s not inflation. Building materials have gone down. It’s lack of competition because FL has made close to a dozen insurers insolvent over the last three years. Countless people have been scrambling to find replacements insurance at the last minute these last two years when their provider sends them a lettter three weeks (if you are lucky) saying they are out. And companies now set the required limits you have to purchase not the home owner which are higher that most people want. It also makes the deductible higher for wind/hail because it’s always a percentage of the coverage. Last year was the first in seven that the insurance industry made a profit in FL. And it’s not just home owners it’s also autos. If you are telling me your insurance hasn’t seen the same you are an outlier. It’s surprising that you haven’t heard this. The FL insurance market is full of corruption and the consequences are being paid for by people on other states. Google FL insurance roofing scams or Florida auto insurance fraud and you will see.

I just returned from our family condo in Boca Raton. We, and many condo owners in South Florida, are getting hit with huge assessments as a result of the Surfside Condo collapse. We have a two bedroom condo in a five story building about 1.4 miles from the beach.We are at the highest point in town, about 24 feet above sea level. We have massive inspection and remediation costs as a result of new regulations.

It's probably all good but many of us have sticker shock over the anticipated assessment

[Bostondevil]

I know since the advent of TV, the taller candidate usually wins. Has anyone ever seen any opinion pieces/polling/what have you on the perception of coolness or likeability based on the candidate's first names?

Relative coolness of first names is, of course, based on careful scientific study of my own opinion.

Starting with the TV stuff in 1960, John versus Richard, it's a wash although JFK was a much cooler nickname. Also, Jack is cooler than Richard. Plus Jack and Jackie. Yeah, Kennedy wins the coolness battle even with the first name John.
Lyndon versus Barry? Lyndon is cooler and we also have another cool initial nickname LBJ.
Richard versus Hubert. Richard is cooler.
Richard versus George - it's a wash.
Gerald versus Jimmy. Jimmy is cooler.
Jimmy versus Ronald - a rare time when the less cool name won.
Ronald versus Walter. It's hard to be less cool than Ronald, but Walter manages it.
George versus Michael. In the '80s, Michael was cooler. We were in the valley between George Harrison and George Clooney when the coolness rating of the name George was in recession.
George versus Bill. The names are a wash but the coolness of the actual candidate that was Bill Clinton in 1992 overshadowed the first name battle.
Bill versus Bob. Bill is cooler than Bob.
George versus Al - George is cooler.
George versus John - You've got half of The Beatles' first names, it's a wash.
John versus Barak. No contest. Barak is cooler. 2016 Obama was probably cooler than 1992 Clinton although it's probably closer than it feels like now given what happened with Clinton in later years.
Barak versus Mitt. Poor Mitt. Most nicknames are kinda cool. Then there's Mitt.
Donald versus Hillary. Neither is a cool name. The names are a wash, but the Shrillary nickname gives the edge to Donald.
Donald versus Joe. Joe, the name used by Joe Cool? Yeah, no contest here. Joe is the cooler name.


Tallying it up, since 1960 the cooler name/nickname has won 12 times, the less cool name has won twice (1980 and 1988), it's been a wash twice. I'm counting 2016 as the cooler name winning only because of the uncool nickname on the losing side, so that could be reclassified as a wash. It's either 12 - 2 - 2 or 11 - 2 - 3.

Which brings us to Joe versus Donald, redux. We'll see. Joe is still the cooler name. Also there's Dark Brandon. I'd call it a meme persona more than a nickname, but it's cooler than Trump's meme persona.

[SouthernDukie]

Especially you!!!!!!



https://youtu.be/WZsX6t5djd0?si=qkylayAw3URU1X12

Hahahaha!!! Excellent! The DBR Four strikes again!

[JasonEvans]

This was a civil case, and as I understood things, no individual was harmed financially. When Leticia James ran for the office of DA, she claimed that she would find something to charge Trump with, so this civil case was clearly politically motivated, and independent minds who take a step back from the situation, can see this very political. Ultimately, there is a chance that the appellate court will overturns the judgement in this civil case, just have to see how the justice system views this civil judgement.

I don't want us to get too far into the weeds but it is worth addressing the above statement which I hear quite often from some folks regarding the civil fraud case.

I am no financial expert, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that...

• If you are an investor in one of the banking institutions that gave Trump better terms than he should have gotten then you were harmed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars**
• If you are an employee of those banks then you were harmed because your employer was in a poorer financial condition
• If you are an executive at one of those lenders who's compensation/bonus was tied to the company's financial results then you were harmed because your company earned less than they should have off of those loans
• If you are a rival developer to Donald Trump you were harmed because he had more money to use on projects, perhaps allowing him to outbid you
• If you are someone who sought a loan from one of these lenders but were denied then you may have been wronged because they did not have as much money to lend due to ill-advised loans to Trump

I strongly suspect there are others who were harmed as huge financial transactions like these have ripple effects all across the economic spectrum. But "individual harm" can never be a reason for us to ignore fraud or other crimes. We don't allow folks to lie and misrepresent financial data because it threatens our entire financial system. Individual harm is only a tiny part of why we seek top prevent fraud. In the cases of these loans, Trump has been able to make payments so far but imagine if he was forced to declare bankruptcy on some of these loans and the fraudulent information he gave forced a lender to take billions in losses (really not hard to imagine). The harm then would be massive and it is the obligation of our legal system to stop this and discourage other companies from following suit.

**- Engorn's penalty was directly tied to the amount that Trump underpaid on loans and other business transactions. That is why it was that large. For the most part, he merely forced Trump to pay what he should have paid in the first place.

[Kdogg]

I don't want us to get too far into the weeds but it is worth addressing the above statement which I hear quite often from some folks regarding the civil fraud case.

I am no financial expert, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that...

• If you are an investor in one of the banking institutions that gave Trump better terms than he should have gotten then you were harmed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars**
• If you are an employee of those banks then you were harmed because your employer was in a poorer financial condition
• If you are an executive at one of those lenders who's compensation/bonus was tied to the company's financial results then you were harmed because your company earned less than they should have off of those loans
• If you are a rival developer to Donald Trump you were harmed because he had more money to use on projects, perhaps allowing him to outbid you
• If you are someone who sought a loan from one of these lenders but were denied then you may have been wronged because they did not have as much money to lend due to ill-advised loans to Trump

I strongly suspect there are others who were harmed as huge financial transactions like these have ripple effects all across the economic spectrum. But "individual harm" can never be a reason for us to ignore fraud or other crimes. We don't allow folks to lie and misrepresent financial data because it threatens our entire financial system. Individual harm is only a tiny part of why we seek top prevent fraud. In the cases of these loans, Trump has been able to make payments so far but imagine if he was forced to declare bankruptcy on some of these loans and the fraudulent information he gave forced a lender to take billions in losses (really not hard to imagine). The harm then would be massive and it is the obligation of our legal system to stop this and discourage other companies from following suit.

**- Engorn's penalty was directly tied to the amount that Trump underpaid on loans and other business transactions. That is why it was that large. For the most part, he merely forced Trump to pay what he should have paid in the first place.

Good summary. I’ll add anyone that owned shares in the banks. That’s not just individuals but institutions with there funds. Since banks make a good chunk of the S&P we are talking about millions of people that lost income because of this. Most people don’t realize that they were cheated.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I don't want us to get too far into the weeds but it is worth addressing the above statement which I hear quite often from some folks regarding the civil fraud case.

I am no financial expert, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that...

• If you are an investor in one of the banking institutions that gave Trump better terms than he should have gotten then you were harmed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars**
• If you are an employee of those banks then you were harmed because your employer was in a poorer financial condition
• If you are an executive at one of those lenders who's compensation/bonus was tied to the company's financial results then you were harmed because your company earned less than they should have off of those loans
• If you are a rival developer to Donald Trump you were harmed because he had more money to use on projects, perhaps allowing him to outbid you
• If you are someone who sought a loan from one of these lenders but were denied then you may have been wronged because they did not have as much money to lend due to ill-advised loans to Trump

I strongly suspect there are others who were harmed as huge financial transactions like these have ripple effects all across the economic spectrum. But "individual harm" can never be a reason for us to ignore fraud or other crimes. We don't allow folks to lie and misrepresent financial data because it threatens our entire financial system. Individual harm is only a tiny part of why we seek top prevent fraud. In the cases of these loans, Trump has been able to make payments so far but imagine if he was forced to declare bankruptcy on some of these loans and the fraudulent information he gave forced a lender to take billions in losses (really not hard to imagine). The harm then would be massive and it is the obligation of our legal system to stop this and discourage other companies from following suit.

**- Engorn's penalty was directly tied to the amount that Trump underpaid on loans and other business transactions. That is why it was that large. For the most part, he merely forced Trump to pay what he should have paid in the first place.

I am the last person to defend Trump but I think your final paragraph holds a lot more water than your bullets. If the banks (primarily DB) were harmed, it is largely for them to sue, not the government. I am fairly sure that they have come out and publicly said that they are largely OK with everything that happened. If the bank's shareholders and/or employees think the bank is rolling over and allowing bad behavior, there are theoretically ways to challenge that. But generally speaking, if a customer pulls a fast one on a bank or other business because the bank dropped the ball in doing its due diligence or its loan docs were weak, that largely falls on the bank.

The issue is more of the systemic ones you very accurately mentioned. Which is a big issue that is kind of complicated so that is why some people just gloss over it - we live in the era of the sound bite so if it can't be explained quickly, and particularly can't be explained in a way that jives with people's pre-conceived notions about someone/something, they won't get it. That is not a shot at people's intelligence. It is just the way of the world.

That being said, the notion that this was fully politically motivated by James is ridiculous. Trump is the boy who cried wolf - everyone who says no to him is out to get him - perhaps that has happened on occasion, but more often than not it is not the case. His great joy in life is living on the edge and seeing how much he can get away with, then battling authority if challenged. As someone who actually votes in NY, I can say that there was a sense that she would not just roll over for Trump like so many others do. But going after him for crimes that others would also be prosecuted for as well as having the backbone to stand up to his childish behavior is very different than specifically targeting him.

I find it hypocritical that people, complain that NY is too soft on crime (I actually feel that way too, believe it or not, though not to the extreme that Murdoch Nation makes others who live far away feel about it), then when someone is elected who is actually trying to go after alleged criminals, that is also problematic. One could reasonably argue with the magnitude of the sentence, but the overall facts add up.

[Matches]

If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving, we don’t let them go just because they haven’t hit anyone yet. Drug dealers don’t get a pass because their customers are satisfied.

Crimes become crimes for a reason.

[JasonEvans]

Worth noting that if one of these lenders went under at least partly because they were defrauded by Donald Trump then there would almost certainly be a bailout by the Feds to keep the economy humming along as it should. In a case like that, each and everyone one of us (and especially our children who will be forced to pay off the debt) would have been harmed by the financial fraud committed here. We don't allow Donald Trump (or anyone else) to play Russian Roulette with our financial system merely because he hasn't yet hit a fully loaded chamber (at least not lately, he most assuredly did in the 90s when he was declaring bankruptcy left and right).

[OldPhiKap]

I find the State’s theory of damages — the amount lenders could have charged if they had known facts that their own due diligence may have found but didn’t — to be crazy speculative. BUT Alina Hanna and her crack team never named a countervailing expert until trying to jam one in way too late. So even if the evidence was weak (and again, I think it was), Trump failed to put up appropriate rebuttal evidence and instead put all of his defense eggs into the single basket of attacking the damages as speculative. He easily could have, and should have IMO, found an expert to opine that disclosure of the info would not change any lending practices because Trump was a marquee account, the size of the investment could accommodate wide swings in interest/pricing, whatever.

Before folks criticize the judge, they should look at the extremely questionable job done by his counsel. It was a bold strategy, Cotton, but it did not work. (and to be fair, I am not sure it would have worked anyway when Trump decided to attack the decider of fact over and over again in the press and on social media — another bold move. Judges work hard to be impartial, but they’re human).

[budwom]

We already bailed out Deutsche Bank once and it cost taxpayers a zillion bucks. Their sloppy practices affect all of us

[JasonEvans]

I can't believe the coincidence but Jon Stewart on the Daily Show apparently addressed this whole issue of "victimless crime" just a couple days ago.

Fast forward to about the 5:45 mark to get to the meat of the conversation.

[dudog84]

if a customer pulls a fast one on a bank or other business because the bank dropped the ball in doing its due diligence or its loan docs were weak, that largely falls on the bank.

Until we bail them out. How quickly we forget 2008.

This notion of "victimless crime" is some of the biggest nonsense I've ever seen written here. It's a crime, so there is a victim. And in this case there are millions of victims, the taxpayers of New York. Because this is a case where it truly is a zero sum game. If the guilty doesn't pay his share of taxes, it certainly comes from somewhere, it's not like the government decides to spend that amount less. There is a lot more than damage to the banks.

Also nonsense: comparing it to Bernie Madoff. Those people were victims because they thought they were going to get something for "nothing" (an investment that was too good to be true). They chose to participate (not making light of Madoff's crime, only ridiculing the comparison). The taxpayers of New York did not choose to cover the guilty person's tax responsibility.

Edit: I see other people have covered this as well.

[OldPhiKap]

Exactly. The test for lawfulness is not whether you hurt someone. The test is whether you complied with the law.

Whether the amount of the fine imposed is commensurate with the wrongdoing, by contrast, is often measured against the harm. That is why there is a fair chance of a reduction in the fine from the trial court’s ruling (although as I stated above his lawyers may not have made a good record for such a reduction). But that is wholly separate from the issue of culpability.

[SouthernDukie]

Exactly. The test for lawfulness is not whether you hurt someone. The test is whether you complied with the law.

So in other words you are "shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied" at victimless crime defenses?

[Furniture]

I can't believe the coincidence but Jon Stewart on the Daily Show apparently addressed this whole issue of "victimless crime" just a couple days ago.

Fast forward to about the 5:45 mark to get to the meat of the conversation.

I did not fast forward but I did learn something by not doing that. I never knew there was such a thing as a front arse.

[cato]

Unfortunately, the cost of everything is up, the cost of wood, shingles, windows, doors, nails, concrete, and the cost of insurance to fix and re-build after a disaster. Most mortgages require flood if you live in a federal flood zone, and they also require wind/hail and regular insurance, so unless you've paid off your place, you have no option. Do you live at the beach and need wind/hail/flood? Or are you referring to your rates of homeowner insurance is surging?

These are not the primary drivers of the property insurance issues in places like Florida and California or you would see the same issues everywhere. It is the cat loss risk (wind/fire) which is exacerbated by climate change. I know too much about this being responsible for placement of insurance on a portfolio of properties that include substantial allocations in FL and CA (and TX and CO).

[sciencegeek]

Seems like she can bring a boat load of money to the campaign, and is a philanthropist who is hip and may appeal to younger voters. Coming from California, as a lawyer and who has funded the likes of George Gascon, her other contributions will be of great interest to independents who may support her. The media will likely have fun with allegations that she had an affair with Elon Musk. How that RFK Jr. has named his running mate, as a third party candidate, it moves the process along for getting on the ballot in certain states that require the third party candidate to name their running mate. My perception is that she is left of center, which makes this choice is interesting. Looking forward to seeing the polls after the announcement of the VP pick.

[Kdogg]

Seems like she can bring a boat load of money to the campaign, and is a philanthropist who is hip and may appeal to younger voters. Coming from California, as a lawyer and who has funded the likes of George Gascon, her other contributions will be of great interest to independents who may support her. The media will likely have fun with allegations that she had an affair with Elon Musk. How that RFK Jr. has named his running mate, as a third party candidate, it moves the process along for getting on the ballot in certain states that require the third party candidate to name their running mate. My perception is that she is left of center, which makes this choice is interesting. Looking forward to seeing the polls after the announcement of the VP pick.

She was on Rick Rubin’s podcast this week which was recorded before the announcement. Let’s just say she has some non conventional thoughts on vaccines and autism and medicine. That seems to be the common denominator.

[dudog84]

I'm kinda surprised he didn't pick Jenny McCarthy.

[SouthernDukie]

I'm kinda surprised he didn't pick Jenny McCarthy.

She’s over the hill. He needed someone younger.