• @SinningStromgald
    link
    1774 months ago

    I was sure you editorialized the title but you didn’t.

    • @someguy3
      link
      84 months ago

      This ain’t a real news site, the author is all caps laughing and screaming a bunch a stuff.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        89
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        This ain’t a real news site

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sfgate/

        Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
        Factual Reporting: HIGH
        Country: USA
        MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
        Media Type:
        Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
        MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

        Re: LEFT-CENTER bias: These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.

        Overall, we rate the SFGate Left-Center Biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

        You don’t have to like the tone of the editorial but SFGate is a reputable source.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        404 months ago

        This is the main newspaper in San Francisco California. As people have mentioned, it’s an opinion piece.

      • @kautau
        link
        84 months ago

        But then censors the word shit. This is like a high school intern got access to their CMS

      • @neatchee
        link
        -304 months ago

        Yeah, not news at all. OP doesn’t need to editorialize when the columnist has already done such a good job of editorializing themselves lol

          • @neatchee
            link
            -30
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            AP and Reuters are the only real news agencies left (with PBS getting close but still editorializing too often).

            Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves

            EDIT: look at all the tankies and extremists downvoting the truth. Opinions aren’t news. Editorials aren’t news. I like watching Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart as much as the next progressive, but they’re entertainment, not news, and it’s a major failure if you can’t recognize that

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              24
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              While I agree with most of what you’re saying, do you realize that the linked media is literally an editorial? Published in the editorial section?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              14
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves

              If by “they” you mean Fox News exclusively, then yes, that’s correct. Fox News has made that argument in court.

              • @ripcord
                link
                -24 months ago

                I thought it was specifically Tucker, even, and not Fox in general.

              • @neatchee
                link
                -3
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                … But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.

                Seriously, go watch CNN from a year before that case, and then from a year after it. They and everyone else took the ball and ran with it, never looking back.

                And of course they did, they’re corporations. They’re in the business of making money, not improving the world. Why would they hamstring themselves by playing by a different set of rules than the competition?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  … But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.

                  Lol no. That’s not how the real world works. Fox News didn’t establish a precedent by “taking a whammy” on behalf of the rest of the mainstream media so they could all lie freely and thereby ending all potential litigation against media outlets. They just successfully defended themselves. The reason Fox News is the only outlet to mount such a defense in court is because they’re the only outlet that’s consistently, and verifiably, lied under the auspices of “entertainment” and been sued as a direct result.

                  Do you understand that “the media” is not a monolith? What Fox News does is not automatically true across the board.

            • @Cryophilia
              link
              14 months ago

              The Intercept is still doing great, real investigative journalism.

        • @ripcord
          link
          14 months ago

          When did OP editorialize…?

          • @neatchee
            link
            -14 months ago

            You misunderstood (as did everyone else it seems). I meant to say the OP had no need to editorialize because it was already editorialized; it was in response to the previous comment which said they assumed it WAS editorialized. I was saying “op didn’t editorialize, because they didn’t need to, because it was already editorialized”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    56
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Donald J. Trump offered a New York appeals court on Wednesday a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case, saying that he might need to sell some of his properties unless he gets relief.”

    He’s a real estate investor. Having most of his money in real estate is not the same as actually being broke. That’s like a rich college student complaining they’re “broke” when they’re out of cash in their wallet, but they still have a $1,000,000 trust fund they conveniently forgot to tell you about.

    Trump can still walk into any bank, take out a loan against his properties, and have all that cash on hand again. The courts need to force him to actually sell his assets. If he refuses, put liens on his properties until he loses them all. Then maybe he’ll know what broke is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      704 months ago

      American banks stopped loaning to Trump years ago because he didn’t paid his loans on time and without a fight. This is why he has to go to Russia and to the Deutsche bank for money.

      • @Daft_ish
        link
        18
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        He might be able to get a loan from his wealthy friends these days, though. He controls the GOP and made himself too big to fail. If he flops another election though he might see things start to come unglued.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          364 months ago

          Last I read he was already emptying the GOP coffers, and down ticket candidates are pissed about it.

          • originalucifer
            link
            fedilink
            254 months ago

            this made me so happy to read. the idea that he could suck the conservatives dry right before maybe, dying … just put a big ol smile on my face.

          • @Daft_ish
            link
            134 months ago

            They should be. Except none of them have the balls to come out and say it.

    • @LordOfTheChia
      link
      14
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Your quote above is the tl;dr of the article.

      Trump only offered 100m on the 450 million due on the NY fraud case, the court rejected the offer (yesterday Feb 28), ergo Trump is broke.

      - Article Author

      No new information past that.

      It will be interesting to see what NY does next.

      March 25th is the next date of interest:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/nyregion/trump-bond-civil-fraud.html

      The attorney general, Letitia James, is expected to provide Mr. Trump a 30-day grace period, which will expire on March 25, at which point she could move swiftly to seize Mr. Trump’s bank accounts and perhaps take control of his New York properties.

    • @neatchee
      link
      12
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      EDIT: Looks like this judgement was lifted yesterday. TIL

      ~~No, he can’t walk into any bank, because he is literally barred from taking any loans from banks in New York. That was part of a previous judgement. And since many of the biggest American financial institutions operate out of NYC, he’s pretty fucked in that regard.

      He would have to rely on wealthy friends (who are extremely wary of his situation) or foreign banks that will offer him incredibly predatory conditions since they know he has no choice but to accept~~

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        74 months ago

        The man’s CFO is in jail for fraud. I believe the NY AG referred evidence of Bank Fraud to the Justice Department. That’s a federal crime.

      • @One_Honest_Dude
        link
        English
        74 months ago

        When the appeals court told him he had to post full bond they put a stay on the judgements that barred him from getting loans in NY and the one that prevents him from running a business. So until his appeal process is complete he can still get loans from banks in NY. And everyone with an interest in these crooked feelings, likely including NY banks, wants this overturned and will be willing to help him through that process.

        • @neatchee
          link
          44 months ago

          Citation please? I seem to recall that he was trying to get a stay on that judgement but was denied

        • @Dkarma
          link
          14 months ago

          Not relevant. The banks won’t loan to someone under 91 indictments who also owes 400+m

    • TruthAintEasy
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      Pretty sure many banks wont do buisiness with Trump regardless of collateral. When the guy is known for inflating his illiquid assets collateral becomes risky too. Trump is a bad bet

  • @elliot_crane
    link
    244 months ago

    One of the ex-presidents of a very big country stood up and asked me, he said to me, “Well sir, if I don’t pay and I’m charged by the court - will you protect me?”. I said “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?” He said “Yes let’s say that happened.” No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage the attorney general to do whatever the hell she wants. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.

    • @Sanctus
      link
      English
      54 months ago

      Stop stop I’m gonna cooooom. Please fucken no one give this man a loan.

  • @cosmicrookie
    link
    214 months ago

    I wouldn’t mind being as broken as trump. I’d bet you anything that no matter how broke he is, he’ll have cars, a big home to live in, great food everyday, travel the world and not wory about paying rent or for heating.

    Rich people broke is not regular broke. The term is subjective

  • @dhork
    link
    English
    144 months ago

    Oh hey, this is written by one of the old Deadspin guys, from back when it was worth reading

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    74 months ago

    It’s just another attempt to delay paying what he owes. He has/can get the money, he just feels like he shouldn’t have to.

  • blazera
    link
    fedilink
    44 months ago

    look at this pauper with only a hundred million in liquid assets