The Joe Biden thread

[Mountain Man]

The retraction had to do with him *currently* owing money. They never disavowed the truth that he, at one time, *did* own them money.

Never directly, so Politico's claim, and more importantly their implication that the Chinese government had some sort of leverage on Trump, is false.

[JimL]

Never directly, so Politico's claim, and more importantly their implication that the Chinese government had some sort of leverage on Trump, is false.

How about the Russian's!

[DivineOb]

Never directly, so Politico's claim, and more importantly their implication that the Chinese government had some sort of leverage on Trump, is false.

Here's what the politico clarification states

The article cited a nearly $1 billion refinancing deal from several banks, including the Bank of China, struck in 2012 with a New York City real estate venture in which the Trump Organization has a substantial minority interest. We reported that President Trump, through the Trump Organization, owes the Chinese state-owned bank tens of millions of dollars on a loan that comes due in 2022.

This assertion, which was referenced in the headline as well as the story, was based on public documents related to the deal as well as property records.

The only part of the story which was inaccurate was the fact that BoC had actually sold off the loan shortly after the deal went through. If there is something more that is wrong then quote it from the article and explain what is incorrect about it and which isn't covered by the correction.

[Mountain Man]

Here's what the politico clarification states

The article cited a nearly $1 billion refinancing deal from several banks, including the Bank of China, struck in 2012 with a New York City real estate venture in which the Trump Organization has a substantial minority interest. We reported that President Trump, through the Trump Organization, owes the Chinese state-owned bank tens of millions of dollars on a loan that comes due in 2022.

This assertion, which was referenced in the headline as well as the story, was based on public documents related to the deal as well as property records.

The only part of the story which was inaccurate was the fact that BoC had actually sold off the loan shortly after the deal went through. If there is something more that is wrong then quote it from the article and explain what is incorrect about it and which isn't covered by the correction.

Trump never owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.President Trump is not the debtor and Bank of China is not the creditor on the loan. Trump is a minority partner in Vornado Realty Trust, which took out the loan, and is not liable for the repayment. The Bank of China was one of a consortium of lenders in 2012 that provided $950 million but sold its interest 22 days later.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...nk-china-story

In summary, Politico got the story wrong, updated it, and still got it wrong.

Like I keep telling you, you need to find more reputable sources.

[seanD]

Planting the seeds?...

Btw, to stop the paywall from blocking you out -- load it in Google Chrome and hit the Esc key. If you time it right, you can stop the block.

[DivineOb]

Trump never owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.President Trump is not the debtor and Bank of China is not the creditor on the loan. Trump is a minority partner in Vornado Realty Trust, which took out the loan, and is not liable for the repayment. The Bank of China was one of a consortium of lenders in 2012 that provided $950 million but sold its interest 22 days later.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...nk-china-story

In summary, Politico got the story wrong, updated it, and still got it wrong.

Like I keep telling you, you need to find more reputable sources.

I'm no apologist for Politico. I'm pointing them out as an example of a news organization which *correctly* handled a blown call.

Re: your copy / paste "response" -- it is false to say that the BoC was not the creditor. It says so right here "The Bank of China was one of a consortium of lenders in 2012 that provided $950 million but sold its interest 22 days later."

It is also false to say that Trump was not a debtor -- Donald Trump probably is personally a debtor to no one since all his debts are part of his various failing businesses. Obviously then to say he "owes" the money, in the context of the article which was talking about financial leverage to the BoC, it is true in technicality as he would still have personal exposure to the BoC even if indirectly.

Am I satisfied merely for them to be correct in technicality but not correct in spirit? Absolutely not. A news organization is expected to be right in both things, and where a tradeoff must be made correctness in spirit seems preferable to correctness in technicality. They clearly blew it on this story, hence their prominent correction.

Contrast this with your attitude towards the Breitbart article I mentioned; you hide behind it being correct in technicality despite knowing it is extremely misleading in spirit. It speaks to which one of us is actually interested in following the truth *and projecting the truth* wherever it leads.

[Bill the Cat]

Creepy Joe.jpg

Then-Vice President Biden brazenly plants a kiss on the lips of a Chula Vista, Calif. Little League usher in 2009, after he's enshrined in the Little League's Hall of Excellence. Is this how a married man should behave?

[rogue06]

How about the Russian's!

The collusion delusion was obliterated by the Mueller report except among the "Flat Earth" brigade.

[Mountain Man]

Re: your copy / paste "response" -- it is false to say that the BoC was not the creditor. It says so right here "The Bank of China was one of a consortium of lenders in 2012 that provided $950 million but sold its interest 22 days later."

Do you know what a consortium is?

A consortium bank is a subsidiary bank, which numerous other banks create. These banks might create a consortium bank to fund a specific project (such as providing affordable homeownership for low- and moderate-income home buyers) or to execute a specific deal (such as selling loans in the loan syndication market).

The consortium leverages individual banks' assets to achieve their objectives. All member banks have equal ownership shares, and no one member has a controlling interest. After the consortium bank meets its objective, it typically dissolves.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...rtium-bank.asp

So, no, the Bank of China was not the creditor. The consortium was the creditor.

Furthermore, Trump not being the debtor means that if he failed to pay the loan, then the consortium could not go after him directly because he's not liable for repaymentn. That would be Vornado who negotiated the deal. Now Vornado could go after Trump for failure to pay, but that's a completely different matter.

[DivineOb]

Do you know what a consortium is?

A consortium bank is a subsidiary bank, which numerous other banks create. These banks might create a consortium bank to fund a specific project (such as providing affordable homeownership for low- and moderate-income home buyers) or to execute a specific deal (such as selling loans in the loan syndication market).

The consortium leverages individual banks' assets to achieve their objectives. All member banks have equal ownership shares, and no one member has a controlling interest. After the consortium bank meets its objective, it typically dissolves.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...rtium-bank.asp

So, no, the Bank of China was not the creditor. The consortium was the creditor.

Yes, I know what a consortium is (well, generally. I was not familiar with a "consortium bank").

Two issues

Here is a quote from the politico article

Another public document, however, lists Bank of China as a creditor on 1290 Avenue of the Americas

Now we know that their name was *retained* in error but initially there were correctly listed as a creditor.

Secondarily, the term "debtor" does *not* appear in the the politico article or the editor's correction. That the article claimed Trump as a debtor is either 1) a fabrication by Breitbart or 2) was corrected and no longer appears in the article.

[Mountain Man]

Spin spin spin...

[DivineOb]

Spin spin spin...

Find me the word 'debtor' in the politico article and get back to me.

[Mountain Man]

Find me the word 'debtor' in the politico article and get back to me.

Do you even know what a debtor is? It is someone who owes money to a creditor. So when the Politico article claimed that Trump "owes" or "owed" millions of dollars to the Bank of China, that was just another way of saying that the Bank of China was the creditor and that Trump was the debtor. This claim is unequivocally false. Neither Trump nor anybody in his organization had any dealings with the Bank of China; neither did Trump nor anybody in his organization at any time owe money to the Bank of China.

Politico blew it, and Breitbart busted them for their sloppy reporting. Why are you so reluctant to admit a fact so obvious that even a low information moron like you can easily grasp it?

[DivineOb]

Do you even know what a debtor is? It is someone who owes money to a creditor. So when the Politico article claimed that Trump "owes" or "owed" millions of dollars to the Bank of China, that was just another way of saying that the Bank of China was the creditor and that Trump was the debtor.

I'm not in the mood to play this game. Debtor and creditor are specific terms with specific accounting meanings. "owe" is a more colloquial term with a looser interpretation e.g. "I owe him my life." "I owe her my heart" etc.

This claim is unequivocally false. Neither Trump nor anybody in his organization had any dealings with the Bank of China; neither did Trump nor anybody in his organization at any time owe money to the Bank of China.

*any dealings*? *ANY*? There exists not even a tenuous connection between the two?

Politico blew it, and Breitbart busted them. Why are you so reluctant to admit a fact so obvious that even a low information moron like you can easily grasp it?

Quote me where I said Politico did not blow it once it became clear that they did. And I know you're frustrated and lonely but no reason to get personal.

[seanD]

Planting the seeds?...



Btw, to stop the paywall from blocking you out -- load it in Google Chrome and hit the Esc key. If you time it right, you can stop the block.

And more seeds...

"And yet Democrats should still insist that Biden step aside.Biden should be investigated and replaced."