85
Theres only so much of this shit I'm willing to see. I'm on the edge of being fully radicalized, to the point where I could leave my kids to go fight.
Just get organized and fight without leaving anyone :)
Is there a good starter guide?
Similar boat to the person you responded to and tired of feeling impotent.
I don't know of a starter guide. I guess because it depends a lot on where you live and what kind of activism/political work goes with your opinion and, well, your life.
I guess the common approaches to increase one's political agency are
- tumble into/ join a social movement This can be almost anything. Eco stuff, feminism, labour, city planning, community solidarity networks, antifa, antira, whatever floats your boat kind of.
- having a job and getting in touch with your union
- being a nerd, have a lot more theory going on then praxis so you search for groups matching your specific opinion
Basically no matter wich one it is, from there on you will meet people, meet ideas, discuss, get (even) more specific ideas of who is doing what and why and if you agree. Orientation comes with praxis, as in all fields I guess.
Maybe 2 starter guide like points:
- Don't go apocalypse mode. Yes, shit is hitting the fan more aggressively every minute and it's beyond reason, empathy, humanity. Still, changing social order is a long term project. Make it sustainable, don't burn out.
- Get started. All that dooomscrolling, theorizing, accumulating frustration, anger, fear without any praxis just makes you either depressive or indifferent. All thinking no doing doesn't work. Having people around you that aknowlede the problems you see and fight on your side makes all the difference.
- you may choose your form of epic. "Fighting" might sound weird to you. "I'm a revolutionary" sounds weird to me. Transforming society as good as you can without becoming unhappy af is what counts. The Zapatistas say "preguntando caminamos" - "asking we walk" or "proceeding while questioning". I think thats a good epic and the best advice a have for you.
See you in the streets ;)
Possibly the most eye opening quote is at the end of the article:
"When the bond was reduced, we thought they could cover the damages themselves and didn’t think we’d hear back from them again, but they called us back" a couple of days later, Hankey said. The talks went quickly, with the company saying it would collateralize the full amount using a combination of cash and bonds. The money it eventually did put up appeared to be all cash, Hankey added."
Some billionaires expected Trump to be able to post the bond, but Trump could not. If Trump is fooling billionaires, do you really think he's not fooling you?
"Hey bro, can you lend me $450?"
"Yeah maybe man. You don't have it?"
"Nah. I've got almost enough though."
"Hey man, I actually don't need the full amount now. Just $175."
"Bro, I thought you said you had that money."
"Uhhh..."
It’s just… like, what the actual fuck does this insurance company think is gonna happen? He’s gonna stiff them, and tie it up in court indefinitely. It’s not a mystery. He’s done it before. He will do it again. It’s a pattern and practice.
It's interesting that he went and got the bond anyway, even though he had the cash to cover the full amount. The fee the bond company is charging is significant. I suspect the better financial decision would have been to just hand the cash over. Even in the unlikely event the judgement is vacated on appeal, the Court would give back the money and he's just be out the interest he would have made.
Also interesting the guy went and blabbed that they were in talks with Trump for the full amount. One of his justifications for getting it reduced was the idea that it would be impossible to get the full amount. But althat appeared to be yet another lie.
Let's audit this guy's company to see if it had a sudden infusion of cash recently.
The court already has a financial monitor in place at the Trump Organization, retired federal judge Barbra Jones. As part of the verdict, she’s staying for the next three years. She has complete access to the books, and will wave a red flag if she sees anything suspicious.
Excuse me, but I have my "appeal" flag and my "don't have to pay as much as everyone else" flag.
What about Hankey?
If it’s red, she can wave that, sure.
When youre famous they let you do it.
He's probably going to win the election at this pace and then we're all fucked.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump were in discussions to pull off what they'd described as a "practical impossibility" when a New York appeals court reduced the size of the bond they had to post because of a judgment in his civil fraud case by almost $400 million.
The posting of the bond prevents New York Attorney General Letitia James from collecting on the $464 million judgment against Trump and his co-defendants in a civil fraud case while the appeals process plays out.
In New York, if a person or a company wants to pause a judgment while they appeal, they typically have to post security for the full award, and then some.
They argued that having to post the full amount was "impossible" and would require Trump and his company to start selling off assets because they didn't have that much cash on hand.
“Defendants’ ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is ‘a practical impossibility,’” they said in a March 18 filing.
Experts told NBC News that Trump needed the appeals court to hit pause because if James started seizing assets, the results could have been disastrous for his company, potentially leading to bankruptcy.
The original article contains 819 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
85 points (94.7% liked)
politics
18138 readers
3684 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS