I always kind of blew off the whole idea of TDS, but it is real.

It's a general closed mindedness that's instilled from the media to the weak minded.

Every TV show, most movies and legacy media makes fun of Republicans. Every single one has some mention of Republicans being evil and democrats being good.

It's an indoctrination reinforced by universities

---

The bond may not meet legal requirements.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/n-y...r-BB1l9dcW

---

The bond may not meet legal requirements. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/n-y...r-BB1l9dcW

Bot..

---

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I always kind of blew off the whole idea of TDS, but it is real.

The derangement is thinking he served well and thinking he would serve well next time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I always kind of blew off the whole idea of TDS, but it is real.

The derangement is thinking he served well and thinking he would serve well next time.

lololol

Dude you're so bad at what you do.. I mean, you at least have to try to be convincing that you believe your own tripe lol

---

You're consumed by your hatred of Trump to the extent that you're unable to look at the facts objectively.  You call him a criminal, but what criminal offense has he been convicted of?  

The commonly held definition of "loan shark" is an illegal lender, charging an exorbitant rate.  Hankey's auto-finance company is legally established and operating.  It charges rates that are average for the industry, among dozens of competing firms, Lending Tree, Capital One, AmeriCredit, etc.   Are these companies also loan sharks?

The "enforcers" at these companies don't actually break legs, which is probably why they're just called collectors.  Yes, their first contact is typically a phone call when payment is delinquent.  Why is a collection call from them any different than a similar call from Bank of America or Wells Fargo?  

Was the 5% figure a number you just pulled out of the air?  In today's market commercial rates start at about 7.5%, even with an 800 FICO.  FYI Wall Street Journal prime is currently 8.5%, yet you think these people should be at 5%?  Here's a couple fun facts, 30%+ of sub-prime auto loans ultimately end up in repossession and 70% are driving without insurance.  What do you think a fair interest rate is? 

BTW, that 20% is an annual rate.  If the finance company is a single day late making it's FICA withholding payment, the IRS assesses a 10% penalty.  10% for one day...............now that's what I would say qualifies as "loan shark"!

Trump had to get the money/bond from somebody, who would you have preferred?  Would you feel better if Musk or Bezos had just written a check?

I already explained all of this. 

You can hash out the semantics of business and lending ethics all you like. I don't need to do that to understand that making money off of others' misfortune is shady. 

The guy is called a loan shark by his peers in the finance world because his business model is indeed the modern day equivalent. It is legal. It is also unethical and slimy as [BLEEP]. 

Third time I've had to hash this out in this thread. 

I'll leave you guys to your echo chamber for a while. No one wants to hear a dissenting view around here. 

It's no shock that this bothers no one, though.
25 rape allegations, 80 some odd felony charges, 12 failed businesses, hush money to porn stars, and flatly stating he wants to turn the presidency into a monarchy hasn't dissuaded his cult. 
Why would owing a loan shark hundreds of millions of dollars change your mind?

And you question MY objectivity. LOL

You explained nothing and dodged every question.  Are you that afraid of the truth?  We're happy to hear a dissenting view if you can forgo the rant and present facts.

How is Hankey a "loan shark" to his peers, when they're all doing exactly the same thing, with comparable rates?

I hate to burst the ideological bubble you're sheltering in, but everybody out there in the real world is making money off the misfortunes of others.  If your car breaks down at midnight, you're going to pay more for a tow than you would at noon.  If you can't pay the water bill, the city shuts off your service and adds a reconnection fee.  Is that shady business?  

Lots of allegations, but nothing proven in a criminal court (sounds like he could be a Clinton).  Call him a scumbag if you want and I won't disagree.  

You're hung up on money to a "porn star", would you feel better if she was an ugly unknown?

As I said earlier, he had to get the bond from someone, and indebtedness is a legitimate concern.  Who's your preference, auto, oil, IT, big banks, green energy?

PS  Where can a person with good credit get some of that 5% money you said should be available for subprime purchasers?  All the banks I know are paying more than that to borrow themselves.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I already explained all of this. 

You can hash out the semantics of business and lending ethics all you like. I don't need to do that to understand that making money off of others' misfortune is shady. 

The guy is called a loan shark by his peers in the finance world because his business model is indeed the modern day equivalent. It is legal. It is also unethical and slimy as [BLEEP]. 

Third time I've had to hash this out in this thread. 

I'll leave you guys to your echo chamber for a while. No one wants to hear a dissenting view around here. 

It's no shock that this bothers no one, though.
25 rape allegations, 80 some odd felony charges, 12 failed businesses, hush money to porn stars, and flatly stating he wants to turn the presidency into a monarchy hasn't dissuaded his cult. 
Why would owing a loan shark hundreds of millions of dollars change your mind?

And you question MY objectivity. LOL

You explained nothing and dodged every question.  Are you that afraid of the truth?  We're happy to hear a dissenting view if you can forgo the rant and present facts.

How is Hankey a "loan shark" to his peers, when they're all doing exactly the same thing, with comparable rates?

I hate to burst the ideological bubble you're sheltering in, but everybody out there in the real world is making money off the misfortunes of others.  If your car breaks down at midnight, you're going to pay more for a tow than you would at noon.  If you can't pay the water bill, the city shuts off your service and adds a reconnection fee.  Is that shady business?  

Lots of allegations, but nothing proven in a criminal court (sounds like he could be a Clinton).  Call him a scumbag if you want and I won't disagree.  

You're hung up on money to a "porn star", would you feel better if she was an ugly unknown?

As I said earlier, he had to get the bond from someone, and indebtedness is a legitimate concern.  Who's your preference, auto, oil, IT, big banks, green energy?

PS  Where can a person with good credit get some of that 5% money you said should be available for subprime purchasers?  All the banks I know are paying more than that to borrow themselves.

Donald Trump sold himself as a wealthy successful man.
Turns out he is a subprime risk though.  Does that surprise you?

As for your other questions, yes, there is a qualitative difference between a subprime lender and other lenders.  Many states have "usury laws" that prevent subprime lenders from even doing business. Usury is an old word that is found multiple times in the King James Bible. There is also a qualitative difference between porn stars and women who have not been promiscuous and have not traded sex for money.  You can read stories about that in the same place, if you didn't already know.

Conservatives used to know these things instinctually.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You explained nothing and dodged every question.  Are you that afraid of the truth?  We're happy to hear a dissenting view if you can forgo the rant and present facts.

How is Hankey a "loan shark" to his peers, when they're all doing exactly the same thing, with comparable rates?

I hate to burst the ideological bubble you're sheltering in, but everybody out there in the real world is making money off the misfortunes of others.  If your car breaks down at midnight, you're going to pay more for a tow than you would at noon.  If you can't pay the water bill, the city shuts off your service and adds a reconnection fee.  Is that shady business?  

Lots of allegations, but nothing proven in a criminal court (sounds like he could be a Clinton).  Call him a scumbag if you want and I won't disagree.  

You're hung up on money to a "porn star", would you feel better if she was an ugly unknown?

As I said earlier, he had to get the bond from someone, and indebtedness is a legitimate concern.  Who's your preference, auto, oil, IT, big banks, green energy?

PS  Where can a person with good credit get some of that 5% money you said should be available for subprime purchasers?  All the banks I know are paying more than that to borrow themselves.

Donald Trump sold himself as a wealthy successful man.
Turns out he is a subprime risk though.  Does that surprise you?

As for your other questions, yes, there is a qualitative difference between a subprime lender and other lenders.  Many states have "usury laws" that prevent subprime lenders from even doing business. Usury is an old word that is found multiple times in the King James Bible. There is also a qualitative difference between porn stars and women who have not been promiscuous and have not traded sex for money.  You can read stories about that in the same place, if you didn't already know.

Conservatives used to know these things instinctually.

LOL.  Every time I forget how naive you are, you pop into a thread to remind me.

How do you know Hankey's firm was Trump's only option, rather than the most economical?  

Hey, what a coincidence, those are the same usury laws I learned about in economics and business law classes.  Sorry to tell you that you're once again incorrect.  They don't "...prevent subprime lenders from even doing business."  Usury laws specifically limit the rate of interest a lender can charge, whereas "subprime" is a general reference to borrowers of below average credit score.  Subprime lenders are free to loan at any rate not more than state limits to any borrower.  The repo rate in subprime however, is 30% and nobody loans to subprime customers at the same rate as borrowers with good credit, because it's simply not profitable.

Sounds like you didn't get much of an education in college..............not all of us found promiscuous coeds to be undesirable.   

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

You don't welcome dissenting views. Once again, you want to hold others to a standard by which you don't abide. 

You came in here swinging your dick around, making conjecture, and talking down to people who pointed out your logical fallacies. Now you're acting like some innocent little girl who wandered into a biker bar by mistake. Of course we're going to question your objectivity. This place may be mostly conservative, but it's hardly an echo chamber.

LOL

You're so easily offended. 

I posted an article and twitter thread link that outlines a candidate's imposing amount of a debt to someone the industry views as a loan shark - and you and others decided it was a nothing burger. 

If that's "swinging my dick around" you have some truly odd perceptions. 

Also - holy hell, man - it is a political discussion board on the internet. There isn't some precious protocol of pleasantry implied or required here. I have zero issues expressing myself plainly here, and don't give a flying [BLEEP] how you perceive it. Relax.

How am I offended? You don't move my needle, bro. Aside from your glaring hypocrisy and constant LOLing, I find you a marginal poster as it pertains to politics. You're a run-of-the-mill, left-wing guy who gets tainted news and feels supported because your opinion is in print. 

I didn't say what I said because you post alternative positions. I said it because of how you respond to any criticism, which should be obvious from the context of my post. You act like a petulant child the minute you get corrected. You can respond however you want, but don't try to gaslight us into thinking you're an upstanding poster and we're just over reactionary. 

Relax, he says. If I were any more relaxed, I'd be asleep.

---

Donald Trump sold himself as a wealthy successful man.
Turns out he is a subprime risk though.  Does that surprise you?

As for your other questions, yes, there is a qualitative difference between a subprime lender and other lenders.  Many states have "usury laws" that prevent subprime lenders from even doing business. Usury is an old word that is found multiple times in the King James Bible. There is also a qualitative difference between porn stars and women who have not been promiscuous and have not traded sex for money.  You can read stories about that in the same place, if you didn't already know.

Conservatives used to know these things instinctually.

LOL.  Every time I forget how naive you are, you pop into a thread to remind me.

How do you know Hankey's firm was Trump's only option, rather than the most economical?  

Hey, what a coincidence, those are the same usury laws I learned about in economics and business law classes.  Sorry to tell you that you're once again incorrect.  They don't "...prevent subprime lenders from even doing business."  Usury laws specifically limit the rate of interest a lender can charge, whereas "subprime" is a general reference to borrowers of below average credit score.  Subprime lenders are free to loan at any rate not more than state limits to any borrower.  The repo rate in subprime however, is 30% and nobody loans to subprime customers at the same rate as borrowers with good credit, because it's simply not profitable.

Sounds like you didn't get much of an education in college..............not all of us found promiscuous coeds to be undesirable.   

If the risk assessment says the interest rate should be 10%, but the state maximum rate is 6%, the loan is not originated and the subprime lender is not able to do that business.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You guys are not required to respond to every insult with another insult.  No one is going to think less of you if you just let it go.  And if you are hurt by someone typing something about you on the internet, then you are a child.  

Anyway, back to the subject.  Trump may not have the bond after all.  

N.Y. AG skeptical of Donald Trump's bond posting that one legal expert calls 'financial chicanery' (msn.com)

James' office filed a notice of exception on Thursday after Trump's attorneys resubmitted a corrected bond. The notice challenges whether underwriter Knight Specialty Insurance is legitimately qualified to assure the bond in the civil fraud judgment against Trump.

The filing notes that Knight Specialty Insurance is not a licensed insurer in the state of New York, not meeting a key requirement to post a bond in the state.

The financial statement, which was missing in the original bond filing, must also demonstrate that the insurer has at least 10 times the bond amount in surplus capital. In this case, that threshold is $1.75 billion.

Knight Specialty Insurance's statement shows $138 million in surplus capital. That is less than the $175 million bond, let alone far less than the amount required by New York law.

---

Well, at least the bond was reasonable.

---

LOL.  Every time I forget how naive you are, you pop into a thread to remind me.

How do you know Hankey's firm was Trump's only option, rather than the most economical?  

Hey, what a coincidence, those are the same usury laws I learned about in economics and business law classes.  Sorry to tell you that you're once again incorrect.  They don't "...prevent subprime lenders from even doing business."  Usury laws specifically limit the rate of interest a lender can charge, whereas "subprime" is a general reference to borrowers of below average credit score.  Subprime lenders are free to loan at any rate not more than state limits to any borrower.  The repo rate in subprime however, is 30% and nobody loans to subprime customers at the same rate as borrowers with good credit, because it's simply not profitable.

Sounds like you didn't get much of an education in college..............not all of us found promiscuous coeds to be undesirable.   

If the risk assessment says the interest rate should be 10%, but the state maximum rate is 6%, the loan is not originated and the subprime ANY lender (CHASE, WELLS FARGO, subprime, etc.) is not able DECLINES to do that business.

LOL.  Have you ever once in your life admitted when you were wrong?  I'm betting on "No".

P.S.  I edited your post to help you better understand how the finance business actually operates.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

You guys are not required to respond to every insult with another insult.  No one is going to think less of you if you just let it go.  And if you are hurt by someone typing something about you on the internet, then you are a child.  

Anyway, back to the subject.  Trump may not have the bond after all.  

N.Y. AG skeptical of Donald Trump's bond posting that one legal expert calls 'financial chicanery' (msn.com)

James' office filed a notice of exception on Thursday after Trump's attorneys resubmitted a corrected bond. The notice challenges whether underwriter Knight Specialty Insurance is legitimately qualified to assure the bond in the civil fraud judgment against Trump.

The filing notes that Knight Specialty Insurance is not a licensed insurer in the state of New York, not meeting a key requirement to post a bond in the state.

The financial statement, which was missing in the original bond filing, must also demonstrate that the insurer has at least 10 times the bond amount in surplus capital. In this case, that threshold is $1.75 billion.

Knight Specialty Insurance's statement shows $138 million in surplus capital. That is less than the $175 million bond, let alone far less than the amount required by New York law.

Since the mods edited my thread title, perhaps they should re-edit it to add the word "Maybe."

---

You guys are not required to respond to every insult with another insult.  No one is going to think less of you if you just let it go.  And if you are hurt by someone typing something about you on the internet, then you are a child.  

Anyway, back to the subject.  Trump may not have the bond after all.  

N.Y. AG skeptical of Donald Trump's bond posting that one legal expert calls 'financial chicanery' (msn.com)

James' office filed a notice of exception on Thursday after Trump's attorneys resubmitted a corrected bond. The notice challenges whether underwriter Knight Specialty Insurance is legitimately qualified to assure the bond in the civil fraud judgment against Trump.

The filing notes that Knight Specialty Insurance is not a licensed insurer in the state of New York, not meeting a key requirement to post a bond in the state.

The financial statement, which was missing in the original bond filing, must also demonstrate that the insurer has at least 10 times the bond amount in surplus capital. In this case, that threshold is $1.75 billion.

Knight Specialty Insurance's statement shows $138 million in surplus capital. That is less than the $175 million bond, let alone far less than the amount required by New York law.

Since the mods edited my thread title, perhaps they should re-edit it to add the word "Maybe."

If this is whaf bothers you on a beautiful Saturday AM, you may want to rethink some things in your life.

---

If the risk assessment says the interest rate should be 10%, but the state maximum rate is 6%, the loan is not originated and the subprime ANY lender (CHASE, WELLS FARGO, subprime, etc.) is not able DECLINES to do that business.

LOL.  Have you ever once in your life admitted when you were wrong?  I'm betting on "No".

P.S.  I edited your post to help you better understand how the finance business actually operates.

Nothing I said was wrong.  We are both right.  I am making a point that you're ignoring, though.  Many people consider high interest rates to be immoral and state laws reflect that. This Hankey guy is known as a "subprime lender" and that's not the most precise definition but it definitely means most of his lending activity is at high interest rates

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't know why you guys are arguing over loan shark to begin with. It was an ad hominem attack. It wasn't illegal. Someone has to be able to foot the cash for this outrageous bond, and there's no proof it will put Trump in his pocket. It's just conjecture. The guy is worth billions. His businesses are on the up and up, even if it's not the ideal way to earn money, and bail should never have been set that high to begin with. It's not reasonable bail if you can't even get an entire company to back it.

---

This made me immediately think of Marty, lol

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status...0SogQ&s=19

---

I don't know why you guys are arguing over loan shark to begin with. It was an ad hominem attack. It wasn't illegal. Someone has to be able to foot the cash for this outrageous bond, and there's no proof it will put Trump in his pocket. It's just conjecture. The guy is worth billions. His businesses are on the up and up, even if it's not the ideal way to earn money, and bail should never have been set that high to begin with. It's not reasonable bail if you can't even get an entire company to back it.

It is normal to require either payment of the judgment, or a bond in the entire amount of the judgment, if the defendant is going to appeal.  The purpose of an appeal bond is to make sure the money doesn't disappear somehow during the appeal process.  I thought it was unreasonable to require the entire amount as a bond in this case because Trump's assets are mostly real estate, and Trump's real estate isn't going to disappear.  Plus, requiring him to liquidate real estate holdings at a moment's notice is liable to do a great deal of irreparable financial damage that could not be undone even if he won the case on appeal.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me.  That's why I said the reduced bond amount is "much more reasonable."  By which I did not mean "reasonable," but rather, "less unreasonable."   

One thing I would point out is that Trump keeps saying he was required to post the bond in order to appeal.  He is not required to do that.  

The current problem with the bond is that the company putting up the bond may not be able to meet the legal and financial requirements to do it.

---