604
submitted 9 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

A court-ordered financial auditor has caught Donald Trump quietly moving $40 million from the Trump Organization into a personal bank account—seemingly so the former president could pay his whopping $29 million tax bill.

Trump isn’t supposed to be moving any money around without alerting Barbara S. Jones, a former federal judge in New York tasked with babysitting the Trump Organization for its relentlessly shady business practices. But on Wednesday, she notified a New York state court about some major bank transfers that were never brought to her attention by the Trumps.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Some people down vote because they want comments that actually add to the discussion to be at the top, and comments that ask the same rhetorical questions ad nauseum to be at the bottom, so they don't have to scroll as far to find meaningful discussion. At least that's why I downvoted you

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

How is that question rhetorical?

A question isn't rhetorical because you or others like you haven't been able to answer it. It's the most important question in American politics right now.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Wikipedia: A rhetorical question is a question asked for a purpose other than to obtain information. In many cases it may be intended to start a discourse, or as a means of displaying or emphasizing the speaker's or author's opinion on a topic

The question wasn't asked to obtain information. It was asked to emphasize the point of the post, and there was already another comment from an hour earlier asking the exact same question (scroll up in this thread.)

Or do people really not know why Donald Trump is getting special treatment at this point? It's the most obvious answer in America politics right now. It's been clear that America has 2 criminal justice systems for centuries now, and Trump is clearly in the one where you don't go to real jail, ever.

The complaint that he deserves to be in jail is valid. I'm saying I prefer a thread where we talk about the topic of the article (what he did) and not a thread where every other comment is some variation of "this is ridiculous!" "Why isn't he in jail!" "Call me when he's actually in jail and I'll listen!!!"

It just gets old so I downvote the comments that I don't want to see in every single thread, so other people that actually add to the conversation can get seen. But here I am wasting words on that exact thread, so I guess I learned to not take the bait and reply to a downvote whiner next time at all.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

You're confusing the information not being readily available with people not actual wanting it.

You can prefer whatever you like in terms of discourse by scrolling past the parts you don't like. It doesn't mean you get to mislabel people's questions to denigrate them. It's intellectually dishonest.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Man I'm allowed to downvote shit I don't want to see at the top of every post. Like that's why they put that functionality on this site, I am allowed to use it to vote on what's the most relevant comment. You're not the ruler of Lemmy.

It was a redundant, pointless, low effort comment that repeated the one at the top of the thread so I downvoted it and I did scroll past it and move on without saying anything. Then the dude whined and labeled everyone downvoting him as a coward, presumably because he assumed they supported Trump (remember how you feel about people being mislabeled and denigrated?) so I corrected him about my reasoning. What the fuck is wrong with that?

The irony of you not scrolling past my comment and instead chastising me is palpable.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

JFC, I didn't say not to downvote or to have literally any other honest opinion about it.

Take your straw manning elsewhere, you can't debate reasonably so we're done here.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

Yet, it didn’t seem to work.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It triggered you enough to edit your post to whine about 'cowards'. You're the one that asked for an explanation from your downvoters, I was just standing up and explaining myself to be counted by you like you demanded.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Not triggered, or whining. Simply stating a point of fact. Your downvote was useless to its purpose because I made a decent enough point that most people found it useful or interesting.

We both took a risk posting comments- and one of us came out on top.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

So you do care about up votes then, or you wouldn't be using it to claim you "came out on top". You called me a coward for downvoting you so I responded and called you out for being thin skinned, and you've done nothing but prove me right since. But if that feels like a win to you then that is just super cool man.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
604 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3099 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS