- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
You must log in or register to comment.
I was sure you editorialized the title but you didn’t.
This ain’t a real news site, the author is all caps laughing and screaming a bunch a stuff.
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 CREDIBILITYRe: 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.
This is the main newspaper in San Francisco California. As people have mentioned, it’s an opinion piece.
But then censors the word shit. This is like a high school intern got access to their CMS
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
One might even refer to the media as an editorial.
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
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?
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.
I thought it was specifically Tucker, even, and not Fox in general.
… 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?
… 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.
The Intercept is still doing great, real investigative journalism.
When did OP editorialize…?
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”
“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.
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.
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.
Last I read he was already emptying the GOP coffers, and down ticket candidates are pissed about it.
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.
Love the screen name
They should be. Except none of them have the balls to come out and say it.
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.
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~~
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.
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.
Citation please? I seem to recall that he was trying to get a stay on that judgement but was denied
Yeah it just came out yesterday.
https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/28/politics/donald-trump-appeals-court-new-york/index.html
Associate Justice Anil Singh, however, lifted a ban on Trump’s ability to obtain loans from New York regulated financial institutions, which could allow him to access the equity in his assets to back the full bond amount.
Thank you very much! Updating my reply
No problem! It’s so hard to keep up with everything. Someone please wake me up when real consequences hit. 🙏
It really is :/ Shit gets crazier every day
Not relevant. The banks won’t loan to someone under 91 indictments who also owes 400+m
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
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.
Stop stop I’m gonna cooooom. Please fucken no one give this man a loan.
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
Oh hey, this is written by one of the old Deadspin guys, from back when it was worth reading
That was hilarious.
Hahahahahaha this sparks joy :D
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.
look at this pauper with only a hundred million in liquid assets
Those look like the state of New Yorks assets now
Still not yet.
Tbh I think they wont see a penny untill he dies and they go after the estate or something
