The Trump Organization is trying to determine the sweep of Tuesday’s ruling that Donald Trump is liable for fraud and what it means for the future of the former president’s namesake business, his attorneys say.

At a pre-trial hearing Wednesday, Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied and were starting to work out what may need to be dissolved to comply with the judge’s surprise decision.

Officials from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office also said they needed more time to go through the order.

The fraud case “changed significantly since yesterday,” New York Judge Arthur Engoron said in court Wednesday, referring to his stunning ruling where he found Trump and his adult sons liable for fraud and canceled the Trump Organization’s business certification.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    No, you’re following a narrative, not data. If people were having problems voting to the extent you are claiming, then we’d have similar voting levels to historical levels in the states with similar rules. We don’t. It’s dropped.

    We’d also have a large decrease in voters in the states that are restrictive or gerrymandered. We don’t. It’s a measurable reduction and skews to certain populations.

    You’re claiming facts, while providing no data. Then saying mine is from my gut while the data backs it up.

    Heck, you can even stop comparing us states and start looking at the difference between countries. You can even look at the difference in elections that have a president on the ticket and the ones that don’t. Which of your reasons so you think causes that discrepancy?

    • @Viking_Hippie
      link
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If people were having problems voting to the extent you are claiming, then we’d have similar voting levels to historical levels in the states with similar rules. We don’t. It’s dropped.

      So you’re saying that the fact that, in a country with ever-increasing and evermore effective voter suppression, voter participation dropping is proof positive that it has nothing to do with it? What kind of backwards ass logic is that?

      We’d also have a large decrease in voters in the states that are restrictive or gerrymandered. We don’t.

      Absolute populations are increasing while voter participation as a percentage is decreasing.

      It’s a measurable reduction and skews to certain populations.

      Yeah, disenfranchised populations. Still doesn’t prove your apathy hypothesis

      You’re claiming facts, while providing no data.

      You want data? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/28/state-voting-rights-election-laws-police-suppression

      https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voter-suppression-barriers-college-students/

      Then saying mine is from my gut while the data backs it up.

      What data? Not only have you provided exactly as much data as I did before this comment, but you’ve also invented causal relationships for which there’s no proof at all.

      Heck, you can even stop comparing us states and start looking at the difference between countries.

      You mean other countries that work fewer hours, have a higher minimum wage, have plenty of polling places in every district and just generally makes it much easier to vote than in the US? Gee, must be because voters are less apathetic there!

      You can even look at the difference in elections that have a president on the ticket and the ones that don’t. Which of your reasons so you think causes that discrepancy?

      People are conditioned by the media to believe that presidential elections are the most important ones, so employers and educational institutions are more likely to give employees and students leeway to vote than for “midterm” elections.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        The difference between claiming data and not is that I’m agreeing that your points have merit. You’re ignoring mine.

        I have provided examples. You haven’t disproved them, you’ve disregarded the .

        Neither of yoir links show my opinion as false. They reinforce your assertion, which I agree with but they don’t quantify it.

        No I mean every country worldwide. Those with more or less holiday pay. Those with more or less voting restrictions.

        Lol, so people vote more when they think it’s important. The corraly is that they vote less when they think it is less important. Also called apathy. Which state do you think has the least gerrymandering and voter suppression?

        • @Viking_Hippie
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m agreeing that your points have merit. You’re ignoring mine.

          First I’ve heard of you agreeing. And no, I’m not ignoring your baseless claims, I’m calling them out for being baseless. It’s a significant difference.

          I have provided examples.

          You have provided arguments, not examples.

          You haven’t disproved them

          I also haven’t disproven that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

          Neither of yoir links show my opinion as false.

          You can’t prove a negative. I refer you back to the teapot.

          They reinforce your assertion, which I agree with but they don’t quantify it.

          They’re imperical proof that the things I claim actually happen. That they don’t quantify it doesn’t imply that your unproven claims must be true.

          No I mean every country worldwide. Those with more or less holiday pay. Those with more or less voting restrictions.

          All well-functioning democracies have better facilitation of voting than the US and higher voter participation. That they have both of those things in common is no coincidence.

          Lol, so people vote more when they think it’s important. The corraly is that they vote less when they think it is less important. Also called apathy.

          That’s an interpretation ignoring a ton of known data in favor of your unproven hypothesis. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

          Which state do you think has the least gerrymandering and voter suppression?

          I have no idea and that’s fine since it’s irrelevant.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Ah, so it’s a comprehension problem. Well, no point wasting my time then.

            The point of asking for the least gerrymandered state was to show the differences in a state of your choosing, without me cherrypicking data.

            The fact that they don’t quantify it is my point. Youre making assertions of fact without the data to back it up. I’m pointing to flaws in your data and offering examples that show your assertions are incorrect.