It's not theft. Not in the UK anyway I'm pleased to say. So possibly not in Canada either

dont break the law i guess? idk. i've managed to never be convicted of fraud or tax evasion in my life. must just be #blessed. what happened to the conservative values of if you didnt do something wrong you have nothing to worry about?

if the house republicans who were super motivated could find zero to connect it to the Obama administration it's safe to say there was nothing.


most of my career and life is dedicated to keeping the little guy from getting run over by the government, which is what someone like you should ACTUALLY care about.. not bootlicking rich fraudsters and conmen.

Ah, so it's kind of important those assets are listed accurately, eh?

it's funny how right wing/conservative/libertarianism always ends up at "we should let these rich white guys do fraud and cheat everyone out of money and get away with it" but not "hey we shouldn't as a society have cash bail because it's government hostage and ransom denying people freedom before they are convicted." i wonder why that is.

So in the UK an employee can take money out of the drawer without documenting it, blow it at the race track, and it's not theft?

Does that work at the bar, too?

If there is fraud there is a victim. The victim sues for relief.

In Trump case the bank testified in his favor, do you understand this?

I don't understand the bail part, i actually think that until convincted unless taken in flagrancy you should be free (at most with a gps monitoring device).

Think of it as selling a percentage of your action at better odds than you should get, because you convince people you are a better player than you actually are (including by lying about your past results).

They don't do due diligence so don't check objectively how good you are. They don't ask for your database, they don't ask for a pokerstars audit or anything like that, they just decide to believe you, and they do this (buying action) AS THEIR FULL TIME JOB and have 100k employees.

Then you win, so they make a profit.

Would you be liable in court, if they don't sue?

Missed this the first time. No, that's not how morality works.

If what the Democrats are doing now is truly immoral, the appropriate response isn't for Republicans to do the same when they come into power. This a great example of the wonderful :rollseyes: ways in which Trump and modern Republicanism has shifted the Overton window. Political leadership isn' t meant to be about getting revenge for how you feel you were wronged by the other side in the past. I know it might seem that way when we're treated to day after day of Trump spouting off about how he will be a "dictator for a day" and wreak vengeance on those who dared to work against him, but that's not the way a properly functioning government operates.

So if your man Trump wins the election and decides that he needs to take a bunch of immoral actions because the Democrats did, don't waste your breath telling me that makes his actions moral. It doesn't, and we should demand better.

That's not what I asked, and I even said that they don't prosecute everyone. I asked if you believe "there are lots of other people living in NY state that have been as deceptive and fraudulent as Donald Trump, and not prosecuted for it".

No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm saying that them/you complaining now about what's happened to Trump, and then "doing the same" to the Democrats but saying they can't complain about it like they/you just did endlessly, sounds a little hypocritical, so I was wondering if your "rules" handled that or not. I don't really care, it's a silly conversation anyway.

Did chez and luciom both short circuit? One is saying stealing petty cash is not theft, and the other one chimes in to say it's markup?

This is the crux of it imo

Puffery might be ok legally even if it's scummy. Legal documents is a different matter - that's where it's really important to have legal consequences.

I never said that.

Stealing is obviously theft

(for those with good forum knowledge - this is so nostagic)

I am not a christian and i don't have judaico-christian morality. Total revenge following severe aggression for me is one of the most moral actions possible, i am more "nordic"/pagan pre-christian in that (blood feuds, honor systems et al).

In libertarian terms, when you severely violate the NAP against me, everything is moral if done to damage you, it's actually imperative to act to damage you as much as possible until you are permanentely neutralized (until it is impossible for you to ever violate the NAP against me in the future), and as a deterrent for third parties to not violate the NAP against me and my allies.

There are no actual moral limits when you open the floodgate, not in my moral model.

Only if you borrow from the charity Trump set up, right Lozen?

In uk law, theft requires the intent to permenantly deprive.

It's a masterpiece of a law imo

A yes, the current MAGA threat of the week. Right on cue.

Spying isn't good, but I have no idea how you think it would be trying to overturn an election. If I peek into your house to look at you, does that mean I'm necessarily planning to steal the house from you?

As an atheist, I also have no religious basis for my morals, but all I can say to this is that I'm glad you're not in a position of power where I live. And hopefully not there either, because I love visiting Italy.

Dunno man, seems pretty biblical to me. This you?

confucious say 'dig two graves'

chez says 'dig three'

Bible (old testament) has the proportionality (eye for an eye and so on).

I am saying "complete annihilation once you prove to be a threat"

At the individual level, confucius might have some reasons.

At the state level, Japan get hit with 2 a bombs and 80 years later doesn't have an army yet.

Sounds like great vengeance and furious anger to me.

Better served cold

Most of the supreme court justices should be disqualified then, as all of the current ones are pretty partisan, and some regularly give speeches to political action oriented groups.

Does anyone ever get convicted for theft? Why wouldn't they all claim they planned to pay the victim back at some point? If anyone is ever convicted, I would say that portion of the law isn't truly in effect.