• CableMonster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    They are punished to prevent them from driving drunk in the present and the future, there is not actual harm from them being drunk and making it home save.

    If people are convicted by what could have been that is a very slippery slope.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Exactly, and Trump is being punished to prevent him from lying on loan documents in the present and future.

      • CableMonster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        He is being punished for running for president, that should be obvious. So again, please very directly tell me how people were harmed by trump. I can tell you how they benefitted.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I already told you. He broke a law designed to keep New Yorkers safe. That means he put New Yorkers at unnecessary risk.

          It doesn’t matter if any particular person was harmed, just like it doesn’t matter if a drunk driver actually harms someone or if a person who shoots into a crowd actually harms anyone.

          It also doesn’t matter if anyone benefited from his illegal actions. If you put on an illegal fireworks show, maybe people benefit and maybe nobody gets hurt. You get punished nevertheless.

          The law is the law. When you break it, you face punishment. End of story. Even if nobody was actually harmed, even if some people benefited.

          • CableMonster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            And what was the risk to New Yorkers? Who exactly was defrauded by trump?

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              When Trump lied on his loan documents, his NY lenders assumed unnecessary risk. Along with any NY institutions that dealt with those lenders.

              Are you suggesting that lying on loan documents is okay as long as you pay the loan back? Do you routinely lie on your credit card and mortgage applications to get a better rate?

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Again, in underwriting they look at the properties and make a decision on their own. And what was the risk to New Yorkers? Who exactly was defrauded by trump?

                Is the only thing that was wrong the square footage on an apartment?

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  The square footage was not the only thing that he lied about, you can read the court docs for the whole list.

                  The entire basis of finance is that lenders get paid more when borrowers have more risk. If you have a low credit score, lenders get paid more even if you make all your payments on time. But Trump lied, in order to avoid paying what they would have charged him if they knew the truth.

                  It really sounds like you are admitting to lying on credit card and loan applications in order to get better rates. How much money have you saved that way? Increase that by several orders of magnitude, and that’s what New York lenders should have gotten from Trump.

                  • CableMonster
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Firstly, you dont understand how they underwriting process works, if you are actually intersted I can explain it. Secondly, you have not been able to tell me directly who was harmed and how. In any other fine like this that I am aware of, you could directly point to what they did and who was harmed (no one was harmed). Do you see the problem when the fine is half a billion and its missing those basic details?