That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
Indeed.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.
I’ve made no such assertion. What I’ve said is that they’re right to feel that their culture and beliefs are under attack by people who want to see them utterly eradicated. Because they are. The fact that the people doing the attacking believe firmly that they are in the right (or that I mostly agree with them) doesn’t change that fact.
There’s a culture war going on. You can’t expect one side of it to roll over and surrender just because you’re on the other one.
There's a ginned up culture war going on because the Republican Party has figured out it can't win elections without one. The white people most likely to buy their racist crap are not living in diverse cities. They bray about the evils of critical race theory without having the tiniest notion what it actually is. The white people voting Republican despite not agreeing with the racist crap are doing it because they're well off and don't want to pay taxes.
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
Indeed.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.
I’ve made no such assertion.
Oh, bullshit. You said:
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
Apparently not, but I still think their grievance is about the things they believe - racist, homophobic and patriarchal as they are - being under attack. It seems odd to me that anyone can attack peoples core beliefs in such a sustained way and still deny that those people are being attacked.
It seems odd to me that you think you have such a great understanding of Trump voters (which, by the way, I find highly doubtful) but you can't figure out liberals. People who think they're just standing up for what's right won't see themselves as "attacking" other people.
Apparently not, but I still think their grievance is about the things they believe - racist, homophobic and patriarchal as they are - being under attack. It seems odd to me that anyone can attack peoples core beliefs in such a sustained way and still deny that those people are being attacked.
Having lived among the group you're describing for most of my 76-and-counting years, I can't say your explanation is wrong, but I do think it's incomplete. I also think it fails to tackle certain realities about how we live here.
The extent and depth of the separation between social and racial groups in this country is perhaps more far-reaching than you realize. I grew up in Greater Boston, a geographically small, crowded environment. Despite the relative lack of local (i)Lebensraum(/i) (living space), I was well along toward middle childhood before ever even laying eyes on a person of color. It's astonishing how separate different groups' lives are / can be here.
People who think they're just standing up for what's right won't see themselves as "attacking" other people.
Just their beliefs.
Oh for fuck's sake, will you kindly get your story straight?
those people are being attacked
It's like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Indeed.
And there are two separate groups here. (In a slightly different way, the same applies in the UK).
1. Self conscious white supremacists. They may not consider themselves racist but do believe in a cultural superiority of European-Christian-Americans.
2. White people who often socially conservative are genuine believers in equality and justifiably are offended by accusations of racism. But they are also blind to structural racism (and that's normal; we all only live our own lives).
Part of the issue is that the GOP are selling group 2 on the argument that *they* are under attack by 'liberals' for being the wrong kind of poor people (I.e. White poor people). As I pointed out above, on the 3 specific examples, no one is attacking them. It is a propaganda war.
Premise: an attack on the beliefs of a person or group of people can legitimately be perceived by that person or group as an attack upon themselves.
Observation: the (racist, homophobic, etc) beliefs of the MAGA crowd are under attack.
Conclusion: the MAGA crowd can legitimately perceive themselves as under attack.
If the premise holds then the rest holds regardless of whether those doing the attacking perceive themselves as attacking people or not, because nothing in the premise says it only applies to those beliefs everyone else judges to be acceptable.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
I came across an interesting paper on this subject recently. It involved an examination of "out-group hate" as a metric for support of Donald Trump and other Republicans. They examined negative attitudes towards "Democratic-aligned social groups". The result:
Overall, 2011 animosity toward Democratic-linked groups is strongly related to later Trump approval. People who felt strong animosity toward Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and LGBT people in 2011 were significantly more likely to be fond of Trump once he appeared on the political scene (p < 0.001 for all models). We find a nearly identical pattern of results regardless of which particular measure of Trump support or year we use.
The caveat:
As demonstrated in Figure 2, preexisting animus toward Democratic-linked groups does not correspond to support for the Republican Party or its more established leaders. Among those with the lowest level of animus toward Democratic groups in 2011, their predicted favorability toward Trump in 2018 is around 0.3 (on the 0 to 1 scale). This level of favorability increases to over 0.5 among those who have the most animus toward Democratic groups, representing a 23-percentage-point increase. However, 2011 feelings of animosity toward Democratic groups do not predict favorability toward the Republican Party, Paul Ryan, or Mitch McConnell (no effects significant at p < 0.10). Thus, the relationship between Democratic-aligned group animosity and Trump support is not simply a product of being a Republican. Nor is it a measurement artifact of the four-point Trump favorability rating (compared with the 100-point party feeling thermometers) because this relationship does not hold with any of the other Republican leaders’ favorability ratings. Rather, Trump support is uniquely predicted by animosity toward marginalized groups in the United States, who also happen to fall outside of the Republican Party’s rank-and-file membership.
The paper itself is short enough for a quick read, but for the tl;dr version there's this Twitter thread by one of the authors. The basic take-away is that this isn't necessarily a partisan issue, that in addition to Democrats and Republicans there's a third faction of white Christian nationalists who currently favor the Republican party (though not exclusively) and who are uniquely invested in the political fortunes of Donald Trump.
One of the caveats to the caveat is that political parties are adaptable. The Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight election and despite having considerable mal-apportionment bias in their favor currently control neither House of Congress. It doesn't take a lot of insight to see that if openly embracing white supremacy can get a national candidate a four point boost the motivation to do so will be quite strong. Prior to Trump that's something the U.S. hasn't really seen on a national scale since George Wallace's unsuccessful attempts to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
I think their primary grievance is cultural - it’s that “their” country is being (has been) taken over by a load of liberals who want to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values.
One of the things that's irksome about this framing is the way that it's portrayed as a contest between Trump-supporting white Christian nationalists and "liberals". African Americans, gay Americans, immigrants, etc., aren't portrayed as people with agency in their own right who can advocate for themselves but passive objects to be fought and argued over. Of course it's harder to sell as a legitimate grievance if it's baldly stated as 'black Americans are upsetting Trump's supporters by acting as if they're full and equal citizens of the United States'.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
Black/gay/Hispanic/Muslim Americans asserting that they are also real Americans is correctly perceived as an "attack".
Premise: an attack on the beliefs of a person or group of people can legitimately be perceived by that person or group as an attack upon themselves.
Observation: the (racist, homophobic, etc) beliefs of the MAGA crowd are under attack.
Conclusion: the MAGA crowd can legitimately perceive themselves as under attack.
If the premise holds then the rest holds regardless of whether those doing the attacking perceive themselves as attacking people or not, because nothing in the premise says it only applies to those beliefs everyone else judges to be acceptable.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
The premise doesn't hold - it's ridiculous.
And you clearly saw the distinction between attacking people and their ideas here. This is a poor attempt to cover up sloppy posting and/or shoddy argumentation.
Premise: an attack on the beliefs of a person or group of people can legitimately be perceived by that person or group as an attack upon themselves.
Observation: the (racist, homophobic, etc) beliefs of the MAGA crowd are under attack.
Conclusion: the MAGA crowd can legitimately perceive themselves as under attack.
If the premise holds then the rest holds regardless of whether those doing the attacking perceive themselves as attacking people or not, because nothing in the premise says it only applies to those beliefs everyone else judges to be acceptable.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
The premise doesn't hold - it's ridiculous.
And you clearly saw the distinction between attacking people and their ideas here. This is a poor attempt to cover up sloppy posting and/or shoddy argumentation.
The question isn't whether Marvin sees it. It's whether the MAGAts see it.
Except that it would be astonishing if any of them saw ANYTHING they didn't want to see. Hoping for reasonable conversion at this point is hoping for the moon.
Except that it would be astonishing if any of them saw ANYTHING they didn't want to see. Hoping for reasonable conversion at this point is hoping for the moon.
Of course. But the issue at focus is Marvin's logic, which is sound.
There’s nothing sound about starting out with a stupid premise - which was not that Trump supporters mistakenly confuse attacks on ideas with attacks on people, but that it is legitimate to equate the two.
Premise: an attack on the beliefs of a person or group of people can legitimately be perceived by that person or group as an attack upon themselves.
Observation: the (racist, homophobic, etc) beliefs of the MAGA crowd are under attack.
Conclusion: the MAGA crowd can legitimately perceive themselves as under attack.
If the premise holds then the rest holds regardless of whether those doing the attacking perceive themselves as attacking people or not, because nothing in the premise says it only applies to those beliefs everyone else judges to be acceptable.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
But it's not legitimate. When it comes to gay marriage, gays aren't interested in attacking straight marriage. When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
I'm quite happily on board with the notion that parts of America are suffering through economic changes, but most of that isn't "attack", it's neglect. But any time someone wants to treat rights for others, or diversity, as an attack on themselves, it's pretty much bullshit. The loss of a person's privilege isn't discrimination. It's merely a piece of information that there are other people in the world who are different from you, and if someone can't cope with that then I've little sympathy.
I'd almost go along with that, but for one thing. And it's a thing I feel very strongly about, in an opposite way from what I am just going to postulate. When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
Because the MAGA mob give the foetus the rights of a born child, they see the women who want abortions as insisting that a child which would not choose to be aborted is aborted.
I don't agree with them, but it seems to me that that that is what they believe.
That's quite a detailed list of specifics, but you forgot the n----rs not knowing their place any more. That's a very "old-fashioned American Christian Value" that's getting trampled.
Indeed.
So you just want to make a lot of highly suspect points but you don't want to "argue" about them? Rather just let them pass and assume they're universally accepted? Gotcha.
I’d have thought the notion that these are things the MAGA crowd believes is widely accepted rather than highly suspect.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.
I'd almost go along with that, but for one thing. And it's a thing I feel very strongly about, in an opposite way from what I am just going to postulate. When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
Because the MAGA mob give the foetus the rights of a born child, they see the women who want abortions as insisting that a child which would not choose to be aborted is aborted.
I don't agree with them, but it seems to me that that that is what they believe.
It's what they claim to believe, but when it comes down the brass tacks they mostly don't. If they genuinely thought that abortion was murder, that genocide was being committed in their own country on a daily basis, would they not be taking action a little more drastic than voting for Republicans? No, the anti-choice rhetoric is a convenient way to wrap voting for Trump and his fellow travellers in a cloak of righteousness.
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
Yes, ok, absolutely.
But can you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
(C)an you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
(My italics). But there's a distinction between feeling like something's happening and something actually happening. One is subjective, the other objective.
There is, I suppose, a certain irony that one of the accusations thrown from the political right at political correctness/woke/whatever is that it's about how people subjectively feel rather than what has objectively happened - that one shouldn't complain but should 'man up'. So for Trump supporters (who I think we can identify as being on the right) to claim (as MTM seems to suggest) that they feel under attack seems to be accepting an important woke principle: alternatively they need to man up and accept that things have changed.
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
Yes, ok, absolutely.
But can you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
I don’t think they’re justified in trying to violently overturn an election because somebody said something that hurt their feelings, do you? If not, what are you arguing for here, Marvin? That nobody should attack their ideas because they’ll take it as an existential threat and we should just muzzle ourselves as a pragmatic policy?
I'd almost go along with that, but for one thing. And it's a thing I feel very strongly about, in an opposite way from what I am just going to postulate. When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
Because the MAGA mob give the foetus the rights of a born child, they see the women who want abortions as insisting that a child which would not choose to be aborted is aborted.
I don't agree with them, but it seems to me that that that is what they believe.
True, despite the fact that it's a believe that bears no resemblance to Hebrew thought. or centuries of Western law based on that thought, or even church teaching for a very long time... nowadays they seem to believe that quite stridently, hysterically even.
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
Yes, ok, absolutely.
But can you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
I don’t think they’re justified in trying to violently overturn an election because somebody said something that hurt their feelings, do you?
No, of course not.
If not, what are you arguing for here, Marvin? That nobody should attack their ideas because they’ll take it as an existential threat and we should just muzzle ourselves as a pragmatic policy?
Simply that if you're going to attack their beliefs then you have to expect them to feel victimised as a result, rather than blithely asserting that their victimhood narrative is false.
Anyway, coming back to the indictments of Trump Org and Weisselberg, having listened to some detailed, expert analysis, I want to make a few points:
1. There is serious crime here. The charges include Grand Larsony and Tax Fraud adding up (so far) to a million dollars and conspiracy
2. The prosecutors have a very strong case; they have detailed documentation - including it seems the Andy Dufresne School of book-keeping approach
3. Trump has not denied the charges and in-effect (though probably not to a criminal standard of proof) confirmed that they are true. The party line from the Trumps has been: who hasn't cheated of their taxes and therefore this is political
4. Whilst, under NY law the multiple felonies do not necessarily mean prison for Weisselberg on conviction, (the judge has discretion for non-violent offenders), he is probably looking at significant jail time.
5. Assuming, the prosecutors do have significant documentation (which they do; the sums alleged are specified to six significant figures), Weisselberg's only defence against Fraud is that he was authorised to claim from the Trump Org lots of things. Thus Weisselberg cannot effectively defend himself without implicating one or more person with the surname "Trump."
There is a lot more to come. I suspect with the documentation that they clearly have, Trump himself is in very hot water (I.e. justice is catching up with him). This is especially true if Weisselberg cooperates. These crimes are in the group where the prosecutors need to show intent (beyond reasonable doubt). As with UK tax law, making a mistake usually results in the taxman sending you a bill plus interest; it is deliberately sending inaccurate returns that makes it criminal. Weisselberg's cooperation would make that (IMV) very easy. And I think the above makes it very clear that he has a lot of motivation to cooperate now...
And I think there's a helluva lot more to come.
And watch Georgia for election interference charges against Trump and Rudi...
AFZ
For detailed analysis; this is a good place to start: (about 30mins worth)
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
Yes, ok, absolutely.
But can you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
That's a second-order response to the behaviour they're already exhibiting. The first-order response consists of asking why they don't let me live my life according to my beliefs rather than theirs. The so-called 'attack' that generates that behaviour is nothing more than people trying to go about their lives in a different way.
So what else are we supposed to do? Not react at all? I guess that might work when it comes to toddlers who have little power to impact others, but we're talking about people who go so far as engaging in terrorism to get their way. And you're effectively blaming the victims, suggesting that it's a problem to actually say this is not okay.
It's nothing more than a variation on suggesting that the things a tolerant society has to tolerate include intolerance, lest the intolerant people feel threatened. Years and years ago on the old version Ship I posted an explanation of why this is logically impossible nonsense, and I'm sure it was far better than anything I'll manage right now after 11pm, so let's just assume I've said it again brilliantly okay? The one thing that a society that values diversity really cannot accept is people who try to force everyone else to behave in a certain way.
Simply that if you're going to attack their beliefs then you have to expect them to feel victimised as a result, rather than blithely asserting that their victimhood narrative is false.
This doesn't seem like the either/or situation you pretend it is. Someone can "feel victimized" for reasons that are false. That's kind of the whole point.
I don’t think they’re justified in trying to violently overturn an election because somebody said something that hurt their feelings, do you?
No, of course not.
Hey, aren't you "victimizing" Trump's more enthusiastic supporters by saying that they're not allowed to violently overthrow the American government and lynch Mike Pence? And aren't they "right to perceive themselves as under attack" by you?
As someone who has written for decades about corporate crime, I was reading the Trump O/Weisselberg indictment going, "Yah, ok..hmm..yah..ok..Wait..HOLY SHIT!" The Trump Org is in deep, deep trouble. And not because of the criminal charges. Because of its bank loan covenants in fact, if even the smallest bit of this case is true, I think the Trump Org could be dead. It's complicated, but it primarily pertains to the 12th count of the indictment.
<lengthy exposition on the financial position of the Trump organization>
...all bank loans with a business come with "lending covenants." These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include "you'll behave" in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the "books and records" portion. It is included in every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't. Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:
TWELFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendants the Trump Corporation, d/b/a the Trump Organization, Trump Payroll Corp., d/b/a the Trump Organization, and Allen Weisselberg of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, committed as follows:
Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse...BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don't like what they see...BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced there may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?
Bolding added by me, except in the indictment excerpt where it's in the original document. If you want further details read the thread. It's not terribly long.
Hey, aren't you "victimizing" Trump's more enthusiastic supporters by saying that they're not allowed to violently overthrow the American government and lynch Mike Pence? And aren't they "right to perceive themselves as under attack" by you?
You're damn right I'm attacking them for it. If they don't perceive it as such then either they're not paying attention or I'm not doing it right.
As someone who has written for decades about corporate crime, I was reading the Trump O/Weisselberg indictment going, "Yah, ok..hmm..yah..ok..Wait..HOLY SHIT!" The Trump Org is in deep, deep trouble. And not because of the criminal charges. Because of its bank loan covenants in fact, if even the smallest bit of this case is true, I think the Trump Org could be dead. It's complicated, but it primarily pertains to the 12th count of the indictment.
<lengthy exposition on the financial position of the Trump organization>
...all bank loans with a business come with "lending covenants." These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include "you'll behave" in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the "books and records" portion. It is included in every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't. Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:
TWELFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendants the Trump Corporation, d/b/a the Trump Organization, Trump Payroll Corp., d/b/a the Trump Organization, and Allen Weisselberg of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, committed as follows:
Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse...BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don't like what they see...BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced there may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?
Bolding added by me, except in the indictment excerpt where it's in the original document. If you want further details read the thread. It's not terribly long.
The quote majors on
The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't.
I think that whoever's behind the twitter thread may perhaps being a little starry-eyed about how banks (and any other corporation) approach contracts. The words of the contract might not allow you to 'lie *just a little bit* on your books and records' - but it doesn't follow that this term will be rigidly imposed.
So Mr Trump's organisation may not be in quite as much risk as the quote suggests.
As someone who has written for decades about corporate crime, I was reading the Trump O/Weisselberg indictment going, "Yah, ok..hmm..yah..ok..Wait..HOLY SHIT!" The Trump Org is in deep, deep trouble. And not because of the criminal charges. Because of its bank loan covenants in fact, if even the smallest bit of this case is true, I think the Trump Org could be dead. It's complicated, but it primarily pertains to the 12th count of the indictment.
<lengthy exposition on the financial position of the Trump organization>
...all bank loans with a business come with "lending covenants." These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include "you'll behave" in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the "books and records" portion. It is included in every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't. Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:
TWELFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendants the Trump Corporation, d/b/a the Trump Organization, Trump Payroll Corp., d/b/a the Trump Organization, and Allen Weisselberg of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, committed as follows:
Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse...BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don't like what they see...BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced there may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?
Bolding added by me, except in the indictment excerpt where it's in the original document. If you want further details read the thread. It's not terribly long.
The quote majors on
The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't.
I think that whoever's behind the twitter thread may perhaps being a little starry-eyed about how banks (and any other corporation) approach contracts. The words of the contract might not allow you to 'lie *just a little bit* on your books and records' - but it doesn't follow that this term will be rigidly imposed.
So Mr Trump's organisation may not be in quite as much risk as the quote suggests.
I suspect there is a tipping point. Up to a certain point the banks would rather the loans stay on their balance sheets looking like assets, but if it looks like the TO is going down the banks will grab any lever they can to extract something before the whole house of cards comes crashing down. It might only take one bank to start pushing on a domino (to egregiously mix metaphors) to start the ball rolling. I wouldn't bet against Deutsche Bank taking the opportunity to extricate themselves from exposure to Trump as soon as they can.
As someone who has written for decades about corporate crime, I was reading the Trump O/Weisselberg indictment going, "Yah, ok..hmm..yah..ok..Wait..HOLY SHIT!" The Trump Org is in deep, deep trouble. And not because of the criminal charges. Because of its bank loan covenants in fact, if even the smallest bit of this case is true, I think the Trump Org could be dead. It's complicated, but it primarily pertains to the 12th count of the indictment.
<lengthy exposition on the financial position of the Trump organization>
...all bank loans with a business come with "lending covenants." These are basically a series of requirements, some of which include "you'll behave" in minor character. But *the most important part* of any loan covenant is the "books and records" portion. It is included in every covenant for a bank loan to a business. The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't. Which brings us to count 12, which I think you can now understand the significance of:
TWELFTH COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendants the Trump Corporation, d/b/a the Trump Organization, Trump Payroll Corp., d/b/a the Trump Organization, and Allen Weisselberg of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, committed as follows:
Forget Weisselberg. That is every every corporate defendant, every entity that could have a loan covenant in its name. Every Trump Org bank lender in the world, right now, is looking at this indictment, looking at their covenants, and calling the Trump Org demanding they turn over every relevant book and record pertaining to these issues. If they refuse...BOOM. Loans pulled. If they do and the banks don't like what they see...BOOM. Loans pulled. If the loans come due (which 100s of millions do next year) no way they get refinanced there may be something I am missing here, but I do not see how the Trump Org survives this without some sort of corrupt deal overseas. But even that seems far-fetched. Instead, it may be the biggest real estate corp bankruptcy in history and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?
Bolding added by me, except in the indictment excerpt where it's in the original document. If you want further details read the thread. It's not terribly long.
The quote majors on
The terms are simple: You maintain truthful books and records, you attest to us that they are truthful, and we are allowed to review them at any time. There is no "You can lie *just a little bit* on your books and records" it's all or nothing, like pregnancy: You either are or you arent. The books and records either are truthful or they aren't.
I think that whoever's behind the twitter thread may perhaps being a little starry-eyed about how banks (and any other corporation) approach contracts. The words of the contract might not allow you to 'lie *just a little bit* on your books and records' - but it doesn't follow that this term will be rigidly imposed.
So Mr Trump's organisation may not be in quite as much risk as the quote suggests.
Really? The same banks that insisted that Trump personally guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars will be sanguine about this latest development?
Do you really think Trump's lenders will be upset that Weisselberg and the Trump Organization didn't pay taxes on his compensation?
The author of the twitter thread seems to think the lenders are dying to get out of their arrangements with the Trump Organization, but doesn't give any evidence of that. They had their reasons for lending the money - if this case doesn't affect those reasons, why should they care?
Do you really think Trump's lenders will be upset that Weisselberg and the Trump Organization didn't pay taxes on his compensation?
The author of the twitter thread seems to think the lenders are dying to get out of their arrangements with the Trump Organization, but doesn't give any evidence of that. They had their reasons for lending the money - if this case doesn't affect those reasons, why should they care?
No. I think they'll be upset that a) They falsified financial records (most lenders take that very seriously coz it's their money at risk and financial records are key to their assessment of risk) and b) that there may well be big fines / company being wound up (possible under NY law).
I am simply postulating that lenders care about getting their money back...
Do you really think Trump's lenders will be upset that Weisselberg and the Trump Organization didn't pay taxes on his compensation?
It's not that specifically, it's the prospect that the books are cooked in other ways as well. How likely is a bank to assume that this specific instance of Weisselberg and the Trump Organization allegedly evading taxes is the only time they ever cooked the books? From the same Twitter thread:
Like most real estate companies, the Trump Org is horribly illiquid. This means it cannot readily convert its assets into cash as needed. Worse, because of the incredible incompetence and business idiocy of Trump, cash on hand (and access rapid loans through what is known as the commercial paper market) is small. So, the company survives on loans against assets.
If you're a banker, how willing are you to assume that the value of Trump's assets is accurately portrayed by the Trump Organization given the current evidence of fraud?
The author of the twitter thread seems to think the lenders are dying to get out of their arrangements with the Trump Organization, but doesn't give any evidence of that.
They had their reasons for lending the money - if this case doesn't affect those reasons, why should they care?
Like insurance companies, banks love risk but hate uncertainty. The technical, economic distinction between these terms that are often used interchangeably in colloquial English is that risk is a situation where the outcome is unknown but the probability curve of all potential outcomes is known, while uncertainty is when the outcome is unknown and the probability of various outcomes is also unknown.
For example, risk is the throw of an unbiased 6-sided die. The outcome is not known in advance but the probability curve is. The outcome will be an integer number not less than one and no greater than six, with each integer having an equal probability of occurrence. If the payback for a correct prediction is 7:1 ($1 wagered will become $7 if correct, $0 if incorrect) then it's a good risk (from a risk-neutral point of view). If the payback for a correct prediction is 5:1, it's a bad risk.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, is like being asked to correctly predict a number of any possible size and no guarantee that number will be an integer, or positive, or even a real number.
Which is a long way of saying that these latest revelations have shifted loans to the Trump Organization from the realm of risk (an asset with this history has X% chance of failing in the next Y years) to the sphere of uncertainty (you can have whatever is in this bag for $10). And as I said at the beginning, banks love risk and hate uncertainty.
When the banks made those loans, they already knew he was a New York real estate developer named Donald J. Trump. I hardly think anyone expected absolute scrupulousness, or even very much at all; I doubt that anyone is shocked or surprised by this. And I don't think it's plausible that the banks used to think they had a solid model of the probability distribution of outcomes from a bet on Trump, but now all of a sudden they don't.
Eichenwald can wave his hands and say the assets are plunging in value and the banks are desperate to get out; maybe they are, but he didn't offer any examples.
When the banks made those loans, they already knew he was a New York real estate developer named Donald J. Trump. I hardly think anyone expected absolute scrupulousness, or even very much at all; I doubt that anyone is shocked or surprised by this. And I don't think it's plausible that the banks used to think they had a solid model of the probability distribution of outcomes from a bet on Trump, but now all of a sudden they don't.
Whether they're shocked or surprised, my guess is that banks may have assumed that either the Trump Organization wasn't cooking the books in a way that would lead to felony convictions (evidence: prior lack of felony convictions of senior Trump Organization officials) or that the Trump Organization was cooking the books in such a way that they would never be caught (evidence: ditto). The fact that a lot of the evidence being presented was internal documentation by the Trump Organization casts both those possibilities into doubt.
Well, maybe, but “he’s never been convicted” seems like a pretty weak reason to think Trump would be a good person to lend money to. I would have guessed that they assumed it was OK because the loans are backed by real estate holdings whose value doesn’t really depend on the name of the person who owns them. I’d be happy to see Trump wearing the bankruptcy barrel, but I don’t think Eichenwald really made the case that the banks are now rushing to put him in one.
The one thing that a society that values diversity really cannot accept is people who try to force everyone else to behave in a certain way.
You want to be intolerant of intolerance? Fine. But own it. Don't try to pretend that you're accepting of all beliefs and cultures when you're not.
This is exactly the completely false argument I referred to earlier. It is a logical impossibility to demand that tolerance includes a decision to tolerate it's exact opposite, and yet this is the same fucking stupid argument that always gets raised by people invoking variants of the word 'tolerant' without actually thinking about it logically.
Intolerance is not a "belief and culture". It's a demand that other cultures not be tolerated. There is simply no room in an ethos of accepting a diversity of opinion to include in that diversity an acceptance of the opinion that the other opinions in the room ought not be accepted.
It makes no more sense than claiming that if I want to set up a colony of an endangered animal to protect it, and give them a natural environment, I ought to include their predators. You're demanding that the only way to achieve a goal is to deliberately defeat the goal.
I think there is some argument that if you have a colony of an endangered animal then once you're out of the critical stage you want a full ecosystem including indigenous predators.
I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack. I'm not sure he's advocating that for any purpose beyond being aware how the enemy thinks. Being aware how the enemy thinks is useful, especially when the best road to victory is converting the waverers.
Comments
I’ve made no such assertion. What I’ve said is that they’re right to feel that their culture and beliefs are under attack by people who want to see them utterly eradicated. Because they are. The fact that the people doing the attacking believe firmly that they are in the right (or that I mostly agree with them) doesn’t change that fact.
There’s a culture war going on. You can’t expect one side of it to roll over and surrender just because you’re on the other one.
They’re opportunists hitching their wagon to the racists and homophobes, no argument there. But they haven’t created the racists and homophobes.
I’m not sure why that matters.
It’s pro-black, which is enough for them to hate it.
Agreed.
That being true we are circling back to where we were a short time ago.
1. Trump's prosecution is not politically motivated
2. Despite this, there are some of wish to depict it as such
3.
They've spent 3 decades cultivating them.
Let's be honest and say it's pro equality, which is enough for them to hate it.
Amendment accepted.
Those that want to will trumpet their assertions loudly. Truth is irrelevant to them
Just their beliefs.
Having lived among the group you're describing for most of my 76-and-counting years, I can't say your explanation is wrong, but I do think it's incomplete. I also think it fails to tackle certain realities about how we live here.
The extent and depth of the separation between social and racial groups in this country is perhaps more far-reaching than you realize. I grew up in Greater Boston, a geographically small, crowded environment. Despite the relative lack of local (i)Lebensraum(/i) (living space), I was well along toward middle childhood before ever even laying eyes on a person of color. It's astonishing how separate different groups' lives are / can be here.
Indeed.
And there are two separate groups here. (In a slightly different way, the same applies in the UK).
1. Self conscious white supremacists. They may not consider themselves racist but do believe in a cultural superiority of European-Christian-Americans.
2. White people who often socially conservative are genuine believers in equality and justifiably are offended by accusations of racism. But they are also blind to structural racism (and that's normal; we all only live our own lives).
Part of the issue is that the GOP are selling group 2 on the argument that *they* are under attack by 'liberals' for being the wrong kind of poor people (I.e. White poor people). As I pointed out above, on the 3 specific examples, no one is attacking them. It is a propaganda war.
AFZ
Observation: the (racist, homophobic, etc) beliefs of the MAGA crowd are under attack.
Conclusion: the MAGA crowd can legitimately perceive themselves as under attack.
If the premise holds then the rest holds regardless of whether those doing the attacking perceive themselves as attacking people or not, because nothing in the premise says it only applies to those beliefs everyone else judges to be acceptable.
Note also that just because I think they're right to perceive themselves as under attack doesn't say anything about whether I think that attack is justified or not.
The caveat:
The paper itself is short enough for a quick read, but for the tl;dr version there's this Twitter thread by one of the authors. The basic take-away is that this isn't necessarily a partisan issue, that in addition to Democrats and Republicans there's a third faction of white Christian nationalists who currently favor the Republican party (though not exclusively) and who are uniquely invested in the political fortunes of Donald Trump.
One of the caveats to the caveat is that political parties are adaptable. The Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight election and despite having considerable mal-apportionment bias in their favor currently control neither House of Congress. It doesn't take a lot of insight to see that if openly embracing white supremacy can get a national candidate a four point boost the motivation to do so will be quite strong. Prior to Trump that's something the U.S. hasn't really seen on a national scale since George Wallace's unsuccessful attempts to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
One of the things that's irksome about this framing is the way that it's portrayed as a contest between Trump-supporting white Christian nationalists and "liberals". African Americans, gay Americans, immigrants, etc., aren't portrayed as people with agency in their own right who can advocate for themselves but passive objects to be fought and argued over. Of course it's harder to sell as a legitimate grievance if it's baldly stated as 'black Americans are upsetting Trump's supporters by acting as if they're full and equal citizens of the United States'.
For example:
Black/gay/Hispanic/Muslim Americans asserting that they are also real Americans is correctly perceived as an "attack".
And you clearly saw the distinction between attacking people and their ideas here. This is a poor attempt to cover up sloppy posting and/or shoddy argumentation.
The question isn't whether Marvin sees it. It's whether the MAGAts see it.
Of course. But the issue at focus is Marvin's logic, which is sound.
But it's not legitimate. When it comes to gay marriage, gays aren't interested in attacking straight marriage. When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
The only way you can frame this sort of thing as an 'attack' is if one somehow regards other people behaving in a different way is a threat to your own ability to live the way that you personally want to.
And quite frankly, there's a psychological fragility involved in that notion that is kind of pathetic. If the only way you can maintain your way of life is when everyone else across the country has the exact same way of life, and the notion of diversity upsets you... I'm sorry but that kind of person needs to fucking grow up.
I'm quite happily on board with the notion that parts of America are suffering through economic changes, but most of that isn't "attack", it's neglect. But any time someone wants to treat rights for others, or diversity, as an attack on themselves, it's pretty much bullshit. The loss of a person's privilege isn't discrimination. It's merely a piece of information that there are other people in the world who are different from you, and if someone can't cope with that then I've little sympathy.
When it comes to women who want abortions, they're not going around insisting that women who don't want abortions also have them.
Because the MAGA mob give the foetus the rights of a born child, they see the women who want abortions as insisting that a child which would not choose to be aborted is aborted.
I don't agree with them, but it seems to me that that that is what they believe.
I think what folk are taking issue with is your assertion that the redcaps are right to believe these things.
It's what they claim to believe, but when it comes down the brass tacks they mostly don't. If they genuinely thought that abortion was murder, that genocide was being committed in their own country on a daily basis, would they not be taking action a little more drastic than voting for Republicans? No, the anti-choice rhetoric is a convenient way to wrap voting for Trump and his fellow travellers in a cloak of righteousness.
Yes, ok, absolutely.
But can you not see that being told that you’re psychologically fragile, kind of pathetic, and need to fucking grow up may well lead you to feel like you’re being attacked? Whether or not those things are true?
(My italics). But there's a distinction between feeling like something's happening and something actually happening. One is subjective, the other objective.
There is, I suppose, a certain irony that one of the accusations thrown from the political right at political correctness/woke/whatever is that it's about how people subjectively feel rather than what has objectively happened - that one shouldn't complain but should 'man up'. So for Trump supporters (who I think we can identify as being on the right) to claim (as MTM seems to suggest) that they feel under attack seems to be accepting an important woke principle: alternatively they need to man up and accept that things have changed.
True, despite the fact that it's a believe that bears no resemblance to Hebrew thought. or centuries of Western law based on that thought, or even church teaching for a very long time... nowadays they seem to believe that quite stridently, hysterically even.
No, of course not.
Simply that if you're going to attack their beliefs then you have to expect them to feel victimised as a result, rather than blithely asserting that their victimhood narrative is false.
1. There is serious crime here. The charges include Grand Larsony and Tax Fraud adding up (so far) to a million dollars and conspiracy
2. The prosecutors have a very strong case; they have detailed documentation - including it seems the Andy Dufresne School of book-keeping approach
3. Trump has not denied the charges and in-effect (though probably not to a criminal standard of proof) confirmed that they are true. The party line from the Trumps has been: who hasn't cheated of their taxes and therefore this is political
4. Whilst, under NY law the multiple felonies do not necessarily mean prison for Weisselberg on conviction, (the judge has discretion for non-violent offenders), he is probably looking at significant jail time.
5. Assuming, the prosecutors do have significant documentation (which they do; the sums alleged are specified to six significant figures), Weisselberg's only defence against Fraud is that he was authorised to claim from the Trump Org lots of things. Thus Weisselberg cannot effectively defend himself without implicating one or more person with the surname "Trump."
There is a lot more to come. I suspect with the documentation that they clearly have, Trump himself is in very hot water (I.e. justice is catching up with him). This is especially true if Weisselberg cooperates. These crimes are in the group where the prosecutors need to show intent (beyond reasonable doubt). As with UK tax law, making a mistake usually results in the taxman sending you a bill plus interest; it is deliberately sending inaccurate returns that makes it criminal. Weisselberg's cooperation would make that (IMV) very easy. And I think the above makes it very clear that he has a lot of motivation to cooperate now...
And I think there's a helluva lot more to come.
And watch Georgia for election interference charges against Trump and Rudi...
AFZ
For detailed analysis; this is a good place to start: (about 30mins worth)
https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/
(Episode 25)
That's a second-order response to the behaviour they're already exhibiting. The first-order response consists of asking why they don't let me live my life according to my beliefs rather than theirs. The so-called 'attack' that generates that behaviour is nothing more than people trying to go about their lives in a different way.
So what else are we supposed to do? Not react at all? I guess that might work when it comes to toddlers who have little power to impact others, but we're talking about people who go so far as engaging in terrorism to get their way. And you're effectively blaming the victims, suggesting that it's a problem to actually say this is not okay.
It's nothing more than a variation on suggesting that the things a tolerant society has to tolerate include intolerance, lest the intolerant people feel threatened. Years and years ago on the old version Ship I posted an explanation of why this is logically impossible nonsense, and I'm sure it was far better than anything I'll manage right now after 11pm, so let's just assume I've said it again brilliantly okay? The one thing that a society that values diversity really cannot accept is people who try to force everyone else to behave in a certain way.
This doesn't seem like the either/or situation you pretend it is. Someone can "feel victimized" for reasons that are false. That's kind of the whole point.
Hey, aren't you "victimizing" Trump's more enthusiastic supporters by saying that they're not allowed to violently overthrow the American government and lynch Mike Pence? And aren't they "right to perceive themselves as under attack" by you?
Expanding on one aspect of this is this Twitter thread:
Bolding added by me, except in the indictment excerpt where it's in the original document. If you want further details read the thread. It's not terribly long.
You want to be intolerant of intolerance? Fine. But own it. Don't try to pretend that you're accepting of all beliefs and cultures when you're not.
You're damn right I'm attacking them for it. If they don't perceive it as such then either they're not paying attention or I'm not doing it right.
The quote majors on
I think that whoever's behind the twitter thread may perhaps being a little starry-eyed about how banks (and any other corporation) approach contracts. The words of the contract might not allow you to 'lie *just a little bit* on your books and records' - but it doesn't follow that this term will be rigidly imposed.
So Mr Trump's organisation may not be in quite as much risk as the quote suggests.
I suspect there is a tipping point. Up to a certain point the banks would rather the loans stay on their balance sheets looking like assets, but if it looks like the TO is going down the banks will grab any lever they can to extract something before the whole house of cards comes crashing down. It might only take one bank to start pushing on a domino (to egregiously mix metaphors) to start the ball rolling. I wouldn't bet against Deutsche Bank taking the opportunity to extricate themselves from exposure to Trump as soon as they can.
Really? The same banks that insisted that Trump personally guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars will be sanguine about this latest development?
AFZ
The author of the twitter thread seems to think the lenders are dying to get out of their arrangements with the Trump Organization, but doesn't give any evidence of that. They had their reasons for lending the money - if this case doesn't affect those reasons, why should they care?
No. I think they'll be upset that a) They falsified financial records (most lenders take that very seriously coz it's their money at risk and financial records are key to their assessment of risk) and b) that there may well be big fines / company being wound up (possible under NY law).
I am simply postulating that lenders care about getting their money back...
AFZ
It's not that specifically, it's the prospect that the books are cooked in other ways as well. How likely is a bank to assume that this specific instance of Weisselberg and the Trump Organization allegedly evading taxes is the only time they ever cooked the books? From the same Twitter thread:
If you're a banker, how willing are you to assume that the value of Trump's assets is accurately portrayed by the Trump Organization given the current evidence of fraud?
The evidence Eichenwald offered (which I omitted for brevity) was "[ Trump ] now has huge amounts of debt against assets that are plummeting in value because of January 6 and his toxic brand name". Even if the dubious assumption that the Trump Organization accurately portrayed the value of its assets at the time the loans were made was correct, recent developments make this a time banks would be looking to re-assess that question.
Like insurance companies, banks love risk but hate uncertainty. The technical, economic distinction between these terms that are often used interchangeably in colloquial English is that risk is a situation where the outcome is unknown but the probability curve of all potential outcomes is known, while uncertainty is when the outcome is unknown and the probability of various outcomes is also unknown.
For example, risk is the throw of an unbiased 6-sided die. The outcome is not known in advance but the probability curve is. The outcome will be an integer number not less than one and no greater than six, with each integer having an equal probability of occurrence. If the payback for a correct prediction is 7:1 ($1 wagered will become $7 if correct, $0 if incorrect) then it's a good risk (from a risk-neutral point of view). If the payback for a correct prediction is 5:1, it's a bad risk.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, is like being asked to correctly predict a number of any possible size and no guarantee that number will be an integer, or positive, or even a real number.
Which is a long way of saying that these latest revelations have shifted loans to the Trump Organization from the realm of risk (an asset with this history has X% chance of failing in the next Y years) to the sphere of uncertainty (you can have whatever is in this bag for $10). And as I said at the beginning, banks love risk and hate uncertainty.
Eichenwald can wave his hands and say the assets are plunging in value and the banks are desperate to get out; maybe they are, but he didn't offer any examples.
Whether they're shocked or surprised, my guess is that banks may have assumed that either the Trump Organization wasn't cooking the books in a way that would lead to felony convictions (evidence: prior lack of felony convictions of senior Trump Organization officials) or that the Trump Organization was cooking the books in such a way that they would never be caught (evidence: ditto). The fact that a lot of the evidence being presented was internal documentation by the Trump Organization casts both those possibilities into doubt.
This is exactly the completely false argument I referred to earlier. It is a logical impossibility to demand that tolerance includes a decision to tolerate it's exact opposite, and yet this is the same fucking stupid argument that always gets raised by people invoking variants of the word 'tolerant' without actually thinking about it logically.
Intolerance is not a "belief and culture". It's a demand that other cultures not be tolerated. There is simply no room in an ethos of accepting a diversity of opinion to include in that diversity an acceptance of the opinion that the other opinions in the room ought not be accepted.
It makes no more sense than claiming that if I want to set up a colony of an endangered animal to protect it, and give them a natural environment, I ought to include their predators. You're demanding that the only way to achieve a goal is to deliberately defeat the goal.
I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack. I'm not sure he's advocating that for any purpose beyond being aware how the enemy thinks. Being aware how the enemy thinks is useful, especially when the best road to victory is converting the waverers.