Longwood50

No jealousy. Merely a fact. If you have to have the government subsidize something in order to sell it, it is proof that the product on its own merit would not be attractive. The very fact it needs the subsidy proves it to be a faulty idea that without the subsidy would fail. If you subsidize something with enough money, you could get a car that costs $2 million USD to sell. However the problem as Margaret Thatcher once said. Eventually you run out of "other peoples money"

A subsid means that someone else is paying for your EV to make it "cost effective" for you. THE MONEY COMES FROM SOMEPLACE. The study proves that EV's if they had to compete fairly without a subsidy would be less competitive than they already are. A truly great idea does not need a subsidy to make it attractive and wanted. Nobody subsidizes the high cost of an Apple Iphone. EV owners in addition to paying more for a vehicle despite the subsidy are experiencing push back from the insurance companies who now have to pay huge money for battery replacement when a car is involved in just a minor accident. The USA salvage yards are filled with EV's with 10,000 miles or less on them because the battery replacement cost renders the car a salvage. One owner in Scotland faced a 33,000 Euro bill because rain damaged the cars battery. Hint: It rains heavy in Thailand and driving through even slightly flooded streets may cause the battery compartment to be compromised. It’s not abnormal for it to rain in Scotland. It is abnormal, however, for it to rain so heavily your electric car battery gives up the ghost. A couple from Edinburgh was shocked after receiving a £17,374 (A$33,370) bill to replace the battery on their Tesla Model Y, after the vehicle wouldn’t turn on after driving through heavy rain. As EV owners express their problems, demand for EV's is shrinking forcing huge discounts and every manufacturer has announced cut backs in their planned EV expansion due to lack of sales. I am not against EV's but I am against them being shoved down the publics throat. Let them succeed or fail on their own. If they are a great idea they will flourish. If they are a lousy idea they will fail and they should fail. More alarm bells sound on slowing demand for electric vehicles | Reuters

I didn't know this site was not being used to troll for dates but this is exactly what this OP did

The study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) found, for example, that the average 2021 electric vehicle “would cost $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without $22 billion in government favors given to EV manufacturers and owners.” https://t.co/bu1hwp7Sma — Bud Brigham (@bmbrigham) October 27, 2023 The study found that the only thing making electric vehicles cheaper to run than traditional gasoline cars is a "wide array of direct subsidies, regulatory credits, and subsidized infrastructure that contribute to the economic viability of EVs." “Adding the costs of the subsidies to the true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline," the report stated. "And these estimates do not include the hundreds of billions more in subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act." EV's A solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist.

Letticia James focused on only one person. Irrespective of whether Trump had been 'accused' of Fraud or Not. Disprove me or otherwise stop lying. This cartoon summarizes the kangaroo court in New York Again to repeat. Without a complaint from the bank this is nothing more than weaponizing government As said. It was wrong of Nixon to weaponize government. It is wrong for New York to do so also. Even the Chinese recognize what your hatred for Trump blinds you to.

Because as general Powell once said. YOU ARE STUCK IN STUPID GEAR. They don't allow police to enter your home "looking for incriminating evidence' They don't allow police to stop only the vehicle of a particular person without "probable cause" The only cause that the attorney general of NY had to look at Trump was that it was Trump. That sir is weaponizing government to pummel a political adversary and it is wrong. It would be just as wrong if it was the Attorney General of Texas only looking at Joe Biden. It was wrong when Nixon did it, and it is wrong wrong when Letticia James does the exact same thing. Trump was the only person on her Enemies List The master list of Nixon political opponents was a secret list compiled by President Richard Nixon's Presidential Counselor Charles Colson. It was an expansion of the original Nixon's Enemies List of 20 key people considered opponents of President Richard Nixon. In total, the expanded list contained 220 people or organizations. The master list was compiled in mid-1971[1] in Charles Colson's office and sent in memorandum form to John Dean. On June 27, 1973,[1] Dean provided to the Senate Watergate Committee this updated "master list" of political opponents.[2] The original list had multiple sections, including a section for "Black Congressmen".[3][4][5] The purpose of the list was to "use the available Federal machinery to screw [their] political enemies."[1] One such scheme involved using the Internal Revenue Service to harass people on the list.[1]

The practice is not unique to the USA it is widely used around the globe. ASEAN governments must stop using ‘lawfare’ against critics, Southeast Asian MPs say  DFF | Statements lawfare | Philippines | walden bello  Jan 27, 2023 MANILA – The Philippines, as well as other ASEAN member states, must immediately halt the use of judicial harassment and politically-motivated charges against critics and political opponents, a phenomenon known as ‘lawfare’, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said today at a press conference held in Manila. “We call on Southeast Asian authorities to stop abusing the legal system to stifle dissent and urge ASEAN to reprimand member states that continue to use lawfare to attack political opposition. The Philippine government can take the first step by dropping all charges against Walden Bello and immediately releasing Senator Leila De Lima and any others that have been unjustly detained due to politically-motivated charges,” said Mercy Barends, Chairperson of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and member of the Indonesian House of Representatives.

Ah the apples to oranges argument. 1. What prompted the investigation. 2. Was the aggrieved party injured by the action. 3. The AG's office was not targeting a person it hated and wanted to punsih. In Trump's case there was no party who complained. I suspect that in the case of Uber you had drivers complaining. Most important, the drivers were damaged by the actions of Uber. The banks suffered no damage. The term sir has now been recognized. It is called LAWFARE. You get those in government using government resources that no person can compete with the pummel a political opponent. Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights.[1][2][3][4] The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits), or winning a public relations victory

As I said, using your logic 1. Have the police raid your home to see if you are doing anything illegal 2. Have the IRS deliberately go after a political opponent to review just his taxes 3. Have the building inpectors go after only the buildings of your political opponent 4. Subpoena only the bank records of your political opponents to see if you can uncover anything that might be used to bring charges 5. Have the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency raid your home to see if you possess any illegal weapons 6. Have Medicare look at all the submissions of only your political opponents to see if you submitted any false claims Bottom line, keep your political opponent so bottled up in audits, investigations, and court actions to pummel them into submission. You obviously lack the common sense to see the difference between there being probable cause to investigate a person versus engaging on a targeted witch hunt. Also you are supplanting the governements assessment for what the values are versus the bank that made the loan. The bank is the one who made the loan and was comfortable with the valuations. IN NO OTHER CASE DID THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEARCH THE RECORDS OF ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS USING THE GOVERNMENT TO CRIPPLE A POLITICAL FOE. Danderman, As said, your hatred for Trump has blinded you. As said, even the Chinese government recognizes the actions by the State Attorney General as weaponizing. Be careful what you ask for, it might come true. I am sure you would cry foul. If the State of Texas engaged in a targeted investigation focused only on Joe Biden and subpoenaed only his records. Not investigating a reported crime but trying to determine if one was committed.

No we are not making progress. You still believe that it is OK for the government to target a specific individual and only that individual who happens to be your political opponent. The AG's office is a prosecuting office. IT IS NOT A BANK OVERSIGHT ORGANIZATION. It responds to complaints to parties who report a crime. THE BANKS DID NOT COMPLAIN. THEY WERE BEING PAID. I have said this numerous times and you stil don't seem to get it. If bank was under some form of audit lets say by the Comptroller of the currency with a scope covering thousands of loan applications and reviewing financial statements given to the bank to determine if the bank was making sound loans. If during the course of their audit, they came acroos Trump and it was found that he inflated values, it would be ok for charges to be brought. 1. The banks are federally chartered and charges would be brought by the federal not state government 2. And read this several times because you still don't get it. The AG of New York hates Trump. She did not look at any other loan applicant, or review the documents of any other borrower. THAT IS TARGETING AND USING YOUR OFFICE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES The Chinese government even recognized it as such. It is said it is impossible to argue with a person who has renounced commons sense. Your hatred of Donald Trump has led you to believe that somehow the ends justify the means. PS I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and a partisan AG's office only looked at Joe Biden's records found something they thought was illegal and brought charges. That is turning the USA into a police state not different than Stalin, or Hitler.

You still miss the point. Irrespective of whether Trumps values were inflated THE AG'S OFFICE WEAPONiZED itself targeting only Trump If the AG's office for whatever reason was conducting a broad investigation of bank fraud and uncovered Trump, I would agree with you. However they did not. They went soley after Trump's records A prosecuting attorney's office does not go combing through records to find evidence of a crime. They respond to a complaint from an aggrieved party. The banks did not complain. The AG went solely after Trump.

I am not saying you are ignorant. You just have trouble with the thinking part. AG'S OFFICES DO NOT GO ON A HUNT THROUGH BANK RECORDS LOOKING FOR FRAUD. 1. The government solely went after Trump. They did not look at anyone elses records. This is the definition of weaponization “weaponization” appears to mean an inappropriate use of government resources to target people for unjustified partisan purposes. Now you may not be able to see it but the Chinese government does Now maybe you can comprehend this but I am not hopeful. This is a check from Sara Biden to Joe Biden. If there was no check, no complaint, no reason to look at Joe Biden's account would you equally favor the Attorney General from a state, subpoening JUST THE BANKING RECORDS of Joe Biden to see if there was anything that the AG's office might use to bring criminal charges against him.

I am not sure I understand your particular level of lunacy but I admire your dedication to it. The bank would 'FILE A COMPLAINT' Not any different than a person going to the police station to file a complaint. A person does not wait for the police to prove someone robbed their home before they go to the police to report the theft. DUH The AG office is a prosecuting office not an investigative office. No different than the FBI investigates crimes and the Justice Dept pursues them. The AG had absolutely no cause other than political persecution to search Trump records. Not really any different than they don't have a reason to enter your home to search for illegal activity without cause. As I have repeatedly said, name one case, just one, where the State of NY has subpoenaed records of a person or company without the bank filing a complaint. YOU CANT That means they singled out and target ONLY TRUMP. Whether the assets are inflated or not, New York can claim they are. If this was a civil trial the bank would have to show damages which there are none. But the government doing political prosecution is taking action where there has been no harm or loss. If doing so was part of a regular routine by the AG to seek out businesses and individuals that file false financial information with banks and insurance companies and Trump was discovered as part of that, and was found guilty. My position would be different. But it was not. Trump and only Trump was investigated. That sir is the eptiomy of weaponizing government against a political opponent. Just like Stalin did to prosecute his political adversaries and just like Hitler did with his secret police.

All that proves is that they have been clever in concealing their crime. As said, common sense tells you that Hunter Biden wouldn't receive the time of day for his efforts if he was not influence peddling his father. They have already uncovered over $20 million flowing to the Biden family. Now you pillary Trump for perhaps overvaluing assets but I see no public outcry against Hunter Biden who filed FALSE TAX RETURNS

You are the one that despite overwhelming evidence of influence peddling refuses to accept it. Common sense if you had any would tell you that no organization or country would ever give Hunter Biden a dime if not for his father. As to evidence you seem to ignore what has already been discovered and testified to. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12356923/Hunter-Bidens-business-partner-Devon-Archer-arrives-bombshell-testimony-Joes-involvement-shady-business-deals-DOJ-accused-trying-jail-talk.html Now I find Joe Bidens assertion that he never had any knoweldge of his son's business transactions a far greater cime that if Trump overvalued Mar Lar Go. Buty like most liberals you are hypocrites willing to let Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and Sandy Berger committ crimes and sweep them under the rug. But go out of your way to use government to use its power to investigate a private citizen when no complaint has been filed. No

No I have not moved from my position. I said that the banks and I repeat that did not file a complaint. Now as to a crime, there are crimes that are typically prosecuted and those that are typically ignored. With Hunter Biden he committed a crime by signing the form to purchase a gun. Those crimes are typically not prosecuted. With bank "fraud" unless the bank has suffered a financial loss due to misrepresentation, using James Comey words about Hillary Clinton ' NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THE CASE" What you are proposing is that it is OK for the government to "target" an individual. It is ok to break into his home as see if you find anything incriminating. It is ok to have the IRS scrutinize not the tax returns of all citizens but to flyspeck one persons tax returns in particular. In this case it is without question that the NY Attorney General had no interest in Bank Fraud. She had an agenda to find a crime to charge Trump with. They went through his foundation, his tax returns, and lastly his bank transactions. That sir is the very epitomy of weaponizing government. The State of NY has unlimited funds and people resources. As I have repeatedly said, if this is not political targeting, Name 1 just 1 company or individual that the AG of NY has investigated for filing inflated financial statements when the bank did not incur a loss or file a complaint. If you can't it is case closed. This was the government weaponizing one of its departments to bludgeon a person who they hated politically. Stalin, Hitler, did it similar. China state run newspaper viewing the Trump indictments said the following

This is nothing but history repeating itself. Using the governent to soley go after a poltiical adversary in a show trial. There was no complaint by the bank and the AG of New York did not seek any information on any other business or person who similarly may have suspect asset values. The bank was being paid and asset values have if anything skyrocketed. Stalin In three widely publicized show trials (1936–38), The trials eliminated such potential rivals and critics of Stalin as Nikolay Bukharin, Lev Kamenev, Aleksey Rykov, Mikhayl Tukhachevsky, Genrikh Yagoda, and Grigory Zinovyev but earned worldwide condemnation. This trial and the January 6 one have only one purpose. To eliminate a political adversary.

Name 1 just 1 other person or company that the DOJ of New York has even investigated for filing fraudulent financial statements WITH THE BANK NOT FILING A COMPLAINT It is true that banks can not bring fraud charges. However they go to the regulatory agencies to file complaints. They did not. The attorney general SINGLED OUT Trump ignoring all others. That is weaponizing the government agency to punish a political adversary. This same thing was done under Stalin. The targets were political enemies. If the AG of NY was truly interested in bank fraud the investigation would be wide spread and cover a significant number of cases of fraud and filing of false financial statements. IT DID NOT. IT SOLELY FOCUSED ON TRUMP. Great Purge, also called purge trials, three widely publicized show trials and a series of closed, unpublicized trials held in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s, in which many prominent Old Bolsheviks were found guilty of treason and executed or imprisoned. All the evidence presented in court was derived from preliminary examinations of the defendants and from their confessions. It was subsequently established that the accused were innocent, that the cases were fabricated by the secret police

I wouldn't agree. With Biden you have a clear picture of money flowing from the Unkraine and China to Biden family members. You have testimony from Hunters business parters that Joe Biden knew full well of his sons business dealings and was meeting with those business associates and it was clear that influence peddling was taking place. You have Hunter Biden flying on Air Force 2 attending meetings following the flights with Chinese and Ukrainian officials. That is totally and completely different than a states attorney general singling out his tax returns, mortgages, or papers submitted to financial institutions without any cause at all.

Now according to you. It is OK for the government to not go after all false statements but only those of its political opponents. The attorney general of New York did not ask the banks for a list of all loan applications to review if there were fraudulent asset values on loan applications or insurance contracts. IT ASKED ONLY FOR TRUMPS. It was exactly as the the head of Stalins secret police said. You target the man inspect only his records and then find anything that you believe you can use to persecute him. Assuming Trumps asset values were inflated, the bank was being paid, hence it suffered no consequences. Had the bank lost money and then approached the attorney generals office claiming damage, this would be a different case. However the AG did not search all records or a sampling of records. It targeted Trump specifically. That sir is weaponizing government against a political adversary. No different than if the IRS is used to subject a political opponent to an extensive audit, or order one of the regulartory agencies to examine only the operation of enterprises of a political opponent. Note the banks are FEDERALLY CHARTERED, but it is not the Federal Government bringing charges only the biased NY Attorney General who without any complaint did a gestapo like siezure of bank records and then without any damage to the financial institution or complaint by them brought charges. If you can't see the difference, I can only explain it to you, I can't help you with the understanding part.

That is a false equivalent. If someone reported the drunk driver there is probable cause. However it is patently illegal in the USA for law enforcement to target a specific person and only check his blood alcohol level while ignoring all others. The attorney general of New York ONLY looked at Trump. The bank did not initiate the complaint. They singled out Trump asked for the records, then based claims that the valuations were not correct. First off valuations are very subjective. One way or another THE BANK accepted them. As a banker I can tell you we do our own due dillegence when financial statements are presented. So according to your "logic" and I use that term loosely it is OK for the government to seek out only one person and examine their behavior, past actions, and obtain all records to see if a crime has been committed. Does the book 1984 and BIG BROTHER sound familiar to you.

Name 1 just 1 other person the attorney general of New York has gone after for submitting what they believe are innacurate financial statements to a bank where the bank did not file a complaint. The attorney general singled out and targeted Trump. It is the only person the Attorney Generals office of New York asked to examine records. That sir is weaponizing the government against a policitcal adversary and you seem incapable of undestanding that.

No what I have said which you seem incapable of grasping is that the bank lost no money and that NO OTHER, I REPEAT NO OTHER person was similarly targeted. That is weaponizing government for political not criminal behavior. I can only explain it to you. Obviously you are incapable of seeing the difference. Maybe this will be something you can comprehend. This sailor took photos of inside a sub he worked at a "classified area" He never showed them to the public. He was sentenced to a year in prison. Hillarly Clinton violated numerous times having exposed classified material including top secret. She got nothing. Sandy Berger stuffed classified documents in his pants and carried them out. He was charged with a misdemeanor. This is political in reverse. Ignoring the law for some "privileged people' I A US Navy sailor was sentenced on Friday to a year in prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear attack submarine while it was in port in Connecticut. Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said. Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient. I can ou if this was not Trump how it would have played out if someone discovered that financial records at a bank used to support a loan was brought to the attention of an attorney general. I have challenged you. Name 1 other case just 1 that the AG's office has even gone to discover what documents they submitted to the bank. Since the bank did not complain it is clear the AG's office took it upon themselves to singularly look at the records of Trump and no other. If this was any other person The person at the attorney generals office, would walk into the AG's office say he wanted to bring criminal charges. The AG would say, how much money did the bank lose. The person would say none. The AG would say if they lost no money why are they wanting us to file charges. The person would say, oh the bank did not complain. The AG would say then why would we be charging them with a crime. The person would say oh out of principle. The AG would then reply, I think we are done here and if you bring me any more BS cases like this you can find another job.

You obviously can't read. Did you notice the actions in your article were taken because there were losses. The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz (October 2022) — Bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes. allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers’ compensation benefits Married couple convicted of house fire insurance claim, attempting to recover the cash value of various items of property that were ostensibly lost in the fire. Convicted for falsely claiming on a food stamps application that a young adult lived with her. THE BANKS LOST NO MONEY AND DIDN'T FILE FOR ANY DAMAGE

Now just where did you get the fraudulent statements that Trump got a low interest rate. How the H would you know what he did or did not receive. Again, point being WHY WAS HE TARGETED. The bank did not complain. Name 1 just 1 example where the attorney general of New York combed the records of banks seeking out a person who falsified documents given to the bank to secure a loan. There are none, zero, naughta. Black people often say the police unfairly target them for extra scrutiny. Here in Thailand foreigners get tickets when Thai's doing the exact same thing dont. In Trumps case he will be the only person the State of New York ever brings charges against for making false statements to a bank where the bank did not file a complaint. That sir is the very definition of Weaponizing Government due to politics and for no other reason.