• ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        91
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        8 months ago

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

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

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

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        8 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 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”

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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.

    • LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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~~

      • One_Honest_Dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 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.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 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.

    • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 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.

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

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