- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Rogan shreds people for saying Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago is only worth $18Million
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:28 pm to SDVTiger
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:28 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
The lady who built it in 23 spent 7mill equivalent to about 120mil just to build it
Theres no way its worth just 350mil today
And yet it is. The deed restriction severally limits is value.
Trump bought it in 85 for 5 million, so if your a assumption on valuation was correct he would have paid 44m for it.
2
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:30 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Because even an improper motivation by the AG does not mean that the case lacks substantive merit.
THIS IS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
There, said it again.quote:
Then why the frick are you supporting it?
From what I have seen, this case DOES have substantive merit, even if Trump had been the ONLY PERSON ON PLANET as to whom an AG sought Section 63(!2) enforcement.
quote:I think you are now talking about the separate criminal prosecutions. As far as I can see so far, only the Florida case appears to have much merit.
there are 91 counts of selective enforcement BY THE TAXPAYER SUPPORTED STATE against a single individual.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Are you really so fricking stupid that you think something in 2022 doesn't mean dick" when the "plaintiff" specifically cites 2022?
The main one he's getting crucified for is the Deutsche bank loan. That he misrepresented in other years is the pattern of fraud. But yes keep acting like improvements to the property in 2022 somehow changes its valuation a decade prior.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:31 pm to tango029
quote:
The deed restriction severally limits is value.
Maybe. Maybe not. It is now an income producing property. A lot of income. So now you not only have the value of the buildings and the property, but the business value of the entity as well. Other single family homes can’t do that. You are likely referring to his inability to subdivide the property. However, the single family residences around it cannot do that either, generally. So using that as a comp is irrelevant.
Again….where are you getting your info?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:34 pm to tango029
quote:You really are dense.
keep acting like improvements to the property in 2022 somehow changes its valuation a decade prior.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:37 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Goodness gracious, we can quote my TexAgs posts, if that makes you happy
So you only said it once
quote:There are two other threads there. Do we need to quote/link them, too?
Is your point that Trump is being targeted? I don't contest that, and I certainly won't argue with someone making that assertion.quote:Well, that is not the state's claim. The claim is that he knowingly and intentionally claimed values that he KNEW to be inflated. But let's set that aside and focus on what I think is your major point.
That's exactly my point. I think it's a much bigger problem if a political party is trying to ruin the lives of their opponents by using the department of justice, than if Trump took out this loan by saying his property was worth more than whatever the state says.
By all means, let's discuss "selective enforcement," rather than "no reliance" or "no damages" or "no victim," which are all red herrings under this statute (whether thru intent or ignorance).
=======
"Selective enforcement is bad. I agree that this is a case of selective enforcement."
I think we are on the same page, there.[\quote]
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:38 pm to Antoninus
You’re not fooling anyone, Hank. Your “style” while not that effective in making relevant points, is unique enough to be easily recognized.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:38 pm to tango029
quote:And that restriction is only ONE factor. Another factor is Trump's transfer of a 25% interest to the National Historic Trust, which basically prevents him from unilaterally changing the property in any way.
The deed restriction severally limits is value.
Trump bought it in 85 for 5 million, so if your a assumption on valuation was correct he would have paid 44m for it.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:39 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Maybe. Maybe not. It is now an income producing property. A lot of income. Other single family homes can’t do that. You are likely referring to his inability to subdivide the property. However, the single family residences around it cannot do the either, generally.
Again….where are you getting your info?
Forbes estimated it was worth 160m in 2018, 325m in 2023
What valuations are you getting that puts it over half a billion 12 years ago?
Are you denying his own executive stated it was a fraudulent valuation? Why would his own execute lie? Are you so blindly loyal that you can't see the forest for the trees?
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:43 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Multiile threads both here and TexAgs.
First of all, the word is "multiple".....
Second of all, are you admitting to using an alter on TexAgs as well?
I thought you were the loser that wrote about "hanging offenses" on that forum after you had a slap-fight with one of their Mods who didn't kiss your azz....
Why don't you have the balls to admit who you really are instead of playing this stupid game, Hankus?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:44 pm to tango029
quote:As I recall, that was also a valuation of the land, not considering the multiple restrictions on its use.
Forbes estimated it was worth 160m in 2018, 325m in 2023
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:45 pm to tango029
quote:
Forbes estimated it was worth 160m in 2018, 325m in 2023
Forbes is well known for being wildly off when it comes to their estimates on closely held companies.
quote:
What valuations are you getting that puts it over half a billion 12 years ago?
There aren’t many comps for a property like that. That is widely known. But if I post a respected expert that estimates it well above $500 will you stop making definitive statements? Forbes is your source?
good lord. quote:
Are you denying his own executive stated it was a fraudulent valuation?
Absolutely, I deny that. What he said was he used a private resident valuation method. That doesn’t make the number fraudulent. Especially given the fact the property is income producing.
quote:
Why would his own execute lie?
He didn’t say what you said he did. THAT is a straw man.
quote:
Are you so blindly loyal that you can't see the forest for the trees?
Oh my. Your lack of self awareness is staggering. You just used Forbes as your cite for the valuation.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:46 pm to Antoninus
Lol it's FaggyHank the pedo
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:48 pm to Strannix
quote:
Lol it's FaggyHank the pedo
Yep, apparently getting banned and using an alter isn't a "hanging offense" on TD.
The irony is how many times that puzzy has cried for the Mods when people start bitch-slapping him, yet now he's spitting in their faces by using yet ANOTHER alter.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:How would the status of the Trump Organization as a closely-held business be of any consequence as to the value of twenty parcels of real estate? Would the dirt not have essentially the same FMV as dirt, whether currently owned by John Smith or by Apple Computers?quote:Forbes is well known for being wildly off when it comes to their estimates on closely held companies.
Forbes estimated it was worth 160m in 2018, 325m in 2023
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:49 pm to Antoninus
quote:and there it is. Good Lord!
Because even an improper motivation by the AG does not mean that the case lacks substantive merit.
Given enough work, can a case "with merit" not be contrived against anyone not named "Jesus"?
Can you honestly sit back and condone partisan legal action like this?
Whoops, sorry for the selective legal persecution Mike Flynn and the threats to expand it to your family if you don't cop a plea. But as NO ONE IN THE LEGAL FIELD IS MAN ENOUGH to threaten our licence to enact Critical Legal Theory against you, we're gonna hose you.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:50 pm to Antoninus
So the land was 324mil then add in a 60 bedroom 30bath, clubhosue, banquet hall etc etc
so its worth a bill
so its worth a billPosted on 10/8/23 at 5:51 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Because even an improper motivation by the AG does not mean that the case lacks substantive merit.
Wow...I did NAZI that coming.
So much for Hankus giving a shite about that pesky ole Constitution....
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Oh my. Your lack of self awareness is staggering. You just used Forbes as your cite for the valuation. ?
There's plenty of others who've given similar valuations. Get off your arse and Google them up.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:"Good Lord" indeed.
Because even an improper motivation by the AG does not mean that the case lacks substantive merit.quote:
and there it is. Good Lord!
I have SAID that this case (and the criminal proceedings) are clearly "selective enforcement." I have acknowledged that he would not be facing these cases, if he were not running for office. As such, I do not "approve" of their having been filed. Plain and simple.
That is a completely different question versus the INTELLECTUAL question of whether the claims/counts have substantive merit, and I have very little doubt that THIS ONE DOES.
I have ZERO problem with a poster saying "This is Selective Enforcement!!!" I agree with him. But a poster screaming "This whole thing is fabricated because Trump is as pure as the driven snow!" is just wrong to the point of being delusional.
Page 15 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News