Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers.

[Reservoir Dog]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

[Animal]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

[Reservoir Dog]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

If you're worth more, you're less of a risk.

[Animal]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

If you're worth more, you're less of a risk.

yeah, that's why insurance on expensive cars is always so cheap.

[Reservoir Dog]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

If you're worth more, you're less of a risk.

yeah, that's why insurance on expensive cars is always so cheap.

Sorry, I didn't know we're talking about cars.

[saltydog]

Don't strain a hamstring with the frequency at which you jump to conclusions. It's ok to admit that you're out of your element.

You were clearly lost from the start. Nice try Forrest.

See, this is where your insisted upon ignorance doesn't help you. It's already been explained to you, but you refuse to acknowledge that, preferring to be unable to comprehend. As others said, you're out of your league, at least as long as you choose to remain ignorant.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

If you're worth more, you're less of a risk.

yeah, that's why insurance on expensive cars is always so cheap.

This is where Animal goes from being willfully ignorant, to being a deliberate troll.

Like I've said, the act hasn't changed in over a decade.

[Animal]

This is where Animal goes from being willfully ignorant, to being a deliberate troll.

Like I've said, the act hasn't changed in over a decade.

how about giving an example then?

[Reservoir Dog]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......... Two fucking retards that can never back up anything.

Pretty sure that judge just backed them up.

the judge is what started the question. because the judge, just like you, did not explain or give an example of how inflating asset values can lead to lower insurance fees.

If you're worth more, you're less of a risk.

yeah, that's why insurance on expensive cars is always so cheap.

This is where Animal goes from being willfully ignorant, to being a deliberate troll.

Like I've said, the act hasn't changed in over a decade.

He's taking his strawman schtick to whole new levels.

[saltydog]

This is where Animal goes from being willfully ignorant, to being a deliberate troll.

Like I've said, the act hasn't changed in over a decade.

how about giving an example then?

Seriously?

I was away from this forum for over a decade and it wasn't difficult to see that your act hasn't changed one bit.

It was funny years ago when you were trolling match.com with Debbie Dumpsterfire, but it's a bit pathetic and old hat right now.

[Animal]

This is where Animal goes from being willfully ignorant, to being a deliberate troll.

Like I've said, the act hasn't changed in over a decade.

how about giving an example then?

Seriously?

I was away from this forum for over a decade and it wasn't difficult to see that your act hasn't changed one bit.

It was funny years ago when you were trolling match.com with Debbie Dumpsterfire, but it's a bit pathetic and old hat right now.

i meant an example of how overstating your asset values gets you cheaper insurance rates.

i wasn't asking you to dig through your vault of my history.

[dot]

i meant an example of how overstating your asset values gets you cheaper insurance rates.

i wasn't asking you to dig through your vault of my history.

Strawman shtick detected. Bud, you already admitted he committed fraud, you just refuse to see the full scope of it.

[hawkfan8812]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

[Animal]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

so Trump was buying business loan protection insurance to insure the loans?

[FSchmertz]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

See, now I'm starting to see how insurance fraud could be a part of this.

For instance, FHA makes loans to first-time homebuyers, but on top of the mortgage amount, it insists on loan insurance because you're presumed to be a bigger than average default risk.

So if someone who has a lot of assets gets a loan (not to mention having a history of payment) they're considered less likely to default and the amount of payment for any loan insurance would presumably be considerably less?

[Reservoir Dog]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

See, now I'm starting to see how insurance fraud could be a part of this.

For instance, FHA makes loans to first-time homebuyers, but on top of the mortgage amount, it insists on loan insurance because you're presumed to be a bigger than average default risk.

So if someone who has a lot of assets gets a loan (not to mention having a history of payment) they're considered less likely to default and the amount of payment for any loan insurance would presumably be considerably less?

Yes. If you are worth more, you are less of a risk.

[saltydog]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

See, now I'm starting to see how insurance fraud could be a part of this.

For instance, FHA makes loans to first-time homebuyers, but on top of the mortgage amount, it insists on loan insurance because you're presumed to be a bigger than average default risk.

So if someone who has a lot of assets gets a loan (not to mention having a history of payment) they're considered less likely to default and the amount of payment for any loan insurance would presumably be considerably less?

Yes. If you are worth more, you are less of a risk.

Inflated assets ---> better credit for future loans ---> increase perceived wealth ---> Rinse and repeat.

Who does it harm? Banks, lenders, etc.

Trump Corp. playbook 101.

[dot]

Guys, a cement mixer can't and won't figure it out. Best to just let it go, it's way too convoluted.

[Animal]

Guys, a cement mixer can't and won't figure it out. Best to just let it go, it's way too convoluted.

hush, fucktard. people are trying to figure out how this works.

[Animal]

Aside from the written articles talking about favorable insurance rates, here is one quote of note...

"the trial will still go forward on other allegations—such as falsifying business records, financial statements and committing insurance fraud"

The fraud and insurance aspect I believe is related to the insurance of the loans in question, not the insurance of the properties. The overvalue assumes higher collateral and equity available to cover default of the loan. There is your insurance fraud.

Side note, easy to prove in court. You said it was worth a billion when in fact it is worth 200 million

See, now I'm starting to see how insurance fraud could be a part of this.

For instance, FHA makes loans to first-time homebuyers, but on top of the mortgage amount, it insists on loan insurance because you're presumed to be a bigger than average default risk.

So if someone who has a lot of assets gets a loan (not to mention having a history of payment) they're considered less likely to default and the amount of payment for any loan insurance would presumably be considerably less?

yes. I can see that. I have never once bought or even been asked to buy loan insurance. I didn't know such a thing existed other than the mortgage insurance they force some borrowers to get who don't have a full downpayment on a house. Crop insurance I have heard of. But I have never heard of buying insurance on a note. That type of insurance is designed to protect people from getting sick and defaulting, etc. It doesn't seem like much of a fit for Trump real estate purchases, but obviously it was. So, yes, if he lied on financials in order to get a better rate on a loan insurance policy, then that would be fraud.

[dot]

Isn't it fascinating what happens when the facade is dropped?

[Animal]

Isn't it fascinating what happens when the facade is dropped?

no. its actually fascinating when people show up that actually have some knowledge on a subject and they answer questions. instead of the people that don't know shit but pretend they do and then they spend days dodging the question.

[dot]

no. its actually fascinating when people show up that actually have some knowledge on a subject and they answer questions. instead of the people that don't know shit but pretend they do and then they spend days dodging the question.

This was all laid out to you before and you ignored it. Keep pretending otherwise to save face, Idgaf.

[Reservoir Dog]

Isn't it fascinating what happens when the facade is dropped?

no. its actually fascinating when people show up that actually have some knowledge on a subject and they answer questions. instead of the people that don't know shit but pretend they do and then they spend days dodging the question.

You knew it was fraud right from the start.

You just pretended otherwise.

[saltydog]

Isn't it fascinating what happens when the facade is dropped?

no. its actually fascinating when people show up that actually have some knowledge on a subject and they answer questions. instead of the people that don't know shit but pretend they do and then they spend days dodging the question.

You knew it was fraud right from the start.

You just pretended otherwise.

We all have titles to live up to.

[Animal]

Isn't it fascinating what happens when the facade is dropped?

no. its actually fascinating when people show up that actually have some knowledge on a subject and they answer questions. instead of the people that don't know shit but pretend they do and then they spend days dodging the question.

You knew it was fraud right from the start.

You just pretended otherwise.

I stated my thoughts in the beginning. Now, I am only talking about insurance fraud, because the other fraud is pretty obvious. I said that it must be fraud because the judge ruled and every news account says it was fraud, but it didn't make sense to me because inflating asset values shouldn't result in lowered insurance. At the time I wasn't aware of insurance on the loan itself. I had no idea that multi million dollar loans had insurance on the loans, this is new information to me. I was thinking about just routine insurance like property insurance, liability insurance, health insurance, fire insurance, car insurance, etc. None of those would benefit from lying about an assets value being more. It would be just the opposite. So, it was confusing and I was simply asking someone to explain a situation where inflating assets would lead to a lower rate. Everyone was acting like they all knew but no one would answer the simple question. Finally Hawk (of all people) answered it. I googled, based on his answer, and found a link that explained what that type of insurance is. So I learned something. And, thanks to me, several others have learned something.