I said at the time it was a big win for companies to just concede to trump to huge publicity and pr regardless of what they actually were going to do. Seems to exactly what happened.

Anyone see trump supporters boycotting or protesting carrier or ford?

Isn't this standard? My house is assessed much lower than it would sell for.

Of course, there's still the issue that there's a huge conflict of interest in these things when there's a sitting president directly involved.

I can not even fathom this sentence.

Legislative bills? Nice.

EDIT: I mistook jj's podt for something else but I'm not deleting all this but it's not relevant to the trump issue and yeah arguing assessment value on properties is pretty standard.

No this is a California issue specifically not a home appraisal issue. In California if you bought a property before 1979 you pay taxes on its value from when you bought it. So if you bought a house in 1977 in California for 100k and now it's worth 3.5 million dollars you pay property taxes on 100k.

If you sell, however 50% or more then you get reset to paying based on current value. The deal with many of these golf courses are they are member owned. This actually prevents any one transaction being 50% even though ownership today might be 95% different from 1978. This has been challenged but the establishment has shot it down.

The 90 million/20k numbers are not exxagerated, those are the real numbers they would pay on the land today versus the pre 1979 value. The proposition that implemented this is one of California's most eccentric but these golf courses are clearly getting a huge pass on a silly loophole. A golf course is a pretty bad use of prime real estate.

His primary point in the podcast is Los Angeles has almost no park land yet these massive golf courses that are substantially subsidized only support the usage of a handful of people and almost all of them are closed to the public in any way shape or form. It was a really good podcast and I pretty much agreed with 100% of it. There is zero reason California tax payers should be subsidizing a private golf course to the tune of 90 million dollars a year. That is just one course.

Nor can he.

Many people are saying that's standard for pathological lying. I know it, you know it. Believe me, everybody knows it.

So, genius ... did it work?

Haha, so petty.

We've reached peak "states' rights" I think.


https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/st...28828455264256


https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/st...30537759883266

It doesn't have to be a pre-1979 purchase, Prop 13 locks in the assessed value at the time of purchase, allowing a maximum 2% assessment increase per year.

I see Wapo has rechronicled out the boy were obama and dems total ****ing idiots about Russia story (and GOP dgaf). Nothing new reported here, but it's fine to remind yourself and see it all in one place and the public probably doesn't know most of this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.ca7a9faf5744

Also tech firms are giving up source code to Russia to sell their product there. I sure can't figure out they hack us so fast. So anybody that sells a firewall or antivirus and the like to Russia is mostly worthless to use. **** you corrupt nerds.

I suppose it is "standard" in that this is a pretty common thing, but:

A) the conflict of interest issue you identified and

B) Just taking a larger step back to think about a system where a guy can claim a property is worth $50 million when he is bragging about how rich he is and what great business deals he makes (and, perhaps, when he's citing the property as an asset to get a loan), but then claim it's really worth far less than that (less, even than he paid for the land before spending over $40 million to build out the course), when the tax collector comes calling. Even the originally assessed value is, what, 70% of what Trump said it was worth on the disclosure forms?

That's consistent

7.5M for the land and 42.5M for his branding on the course

You don't have to have originally purchased before 1979 for prop 13. Tax increases are limited to 2% per year unless there's a reassessment due to sale or significant construction. I would expect there has been plenty of significant construction at the golf course, but that's what lawyers are for.

That WaPo Obama article is INFURIATING

WTF WERE YOU DOING BRO

If Kennedy retires in the next few years (as expected), Obama will have single handedly ruined the SCOTUS, and thus Civil Rights as we know it, for the next 40 years. THANKS OBAMA.

Can't believe this **** man.

Yeah that article is ****ing astounding in the hubris that they assumed Clinton would win anyway

Even more astounding to me is that Comey knew the Russians were actively trying to get Trump elected and he still torpedoed Hillary's chances.

Comey's friend is hinting that something very big will come out today or Monday. Boy I can't wait for nothing to happen afterwards.

Is this the guy who does that "tick tick tick" thing? Because he's 1 for 2 on those bombshells.

In case you missed it...

Yep.

I think he was just covering his own ass there, nothing more nothing less. He probably still assumed that no one would vote for a guy who bragged of sexually assaulting women and made fun of handicapped people. lolcomey

Maybe he's teasing the release of a new show based on The Tick?

What thing did he correctly predict?