Below is my column on Fox.com on the demand for roughly a $455 million dollar deposit or equivalent bond for Donald Trump to be able to seek appellate review of the recent judgment against him. The combination of the fine and the deposit rule highlight the confiscatory elements of this judgment.
Here is the column:
In the wake of the massive judgment against Donald Trump, many in New York are celebrating the prospect that the former president could be forced to sell off his property just to be able to appeal the $355 million judgment against him. While Trump has good grounds to object to this excessive fine, he still has to come up with close to a half billion dollars just to make his arguments to the New York Court of Appeals.
In order to file an appeal, the courts require a deposit for the full amount of the damages or a bond covering the full amount. Even with escrow options, the call for cash or collateral can be enough to put some executives in a fetal position.
It can be challenging enough for many companies drained from years of litigation. For Donald Trump, the demand for $355 million plus $100 milion in interest could force a fire sale on properties to pony up just the deposit.
Many of us have been critical of the ruling of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron who imposed the astronomical fine despite finding that Trump’s “victims” not only did not lose a single dollar but made handsome profits. Indeed, these banks testified that they wanted to continue to do business with Trump as a “whale” client, but Engoron is now barring them from doing so.
Putting aside the merits of this judgment, the threshold deposit rule magnifies the unfairness of this New York law that does not require that anyone actually lose money to claim hundreds of millions from a company.
One can argue that, if upheld, any insolvency is the fault of the company. However, this rule can force insolvency just to seek review of a judgment.
For Trump, even this fine would only amount to roughly 14-17% of his wealth. The addition of the recent $83.3 million in damages imposed in a separate New York courtroom for defamation would bring the demand to over half a billion dollars in deposits with interest.
So, by making the fine so large, Engoron not only makes an appeal difficult, but could guarantee that Trump will lose tens of millions even if his judgment is dramatically reduced or tossed out.
On top of this looming penalty, however, he already owes the writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages from a separate defamation case that concluded in January. His legal fees are also mounting as he battles four criminal cases at the federal and state level.
There is already speculation of whether Trump will have to leverage or sell his iconic properties at distressed prices. He has 30-days to ante up with the court and buyers could use that deadline to their advantage. The added amount is due to another New York provision imposing a massive 9 percent interest rate on judgments.
That means that every day, Trump is being hit by roughly $90,000 in just interest increases.
Trump could secure a bond, but such a guaranty would come at its own premium price. However, a bonding company requires a defendant to put up 10% for the total and would lose that amount even if he prevailed. That is a roughly $45 million cost just to secure the right to an appeal. In this case, the cost could be higher given the judgment and the bar on Trump doing business for three years in New York.
Trump can move to ask the trial court (or the appellate court) to allow him to proceed without posting the money or bond. That, however, is up to the courts in granting an exception.
The expectation is that Trump can make the deposit or secure a bond to avoid what some gleefully called a “fire sale” on this properties. The deposit is now being celebrated as an added indignity and penalty.
However, as New Yorkers cheer this moment, many business are likely wondering “but for the grace of God go I.” Undervaluing or overvaluing property is a common practice, particularly in real estate. That is why representations, like the one made by the Trump Corporation, come with a warning that estimates are their own and that the banks need to make their assessments.
Faced with high crime and high taxes, the spectacle in Manhattan is only likely to accelerate the exodus of businesses and high-earners from the city. That prospect has already alarmed Gov. Kathy Hochul who declared “business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
That sounds a lot like “you are fine so long as you are not Trump.” Yet, that is not reassuring to businesses who want a legal system that is based on something other than selective and arbitrary enforcement. Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on bagging Trump without even bothering to name the offense. She also sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association.
The line between doing business and a public execution appears to be the dubious discretion of Letitia James.
That is not the type of assurance that most businesses would accept in risking billions in investment. Despite the high taxes and falling services in New York, the city remained a draw for business as a commercial and legal center. The experience and objectivity of courts in dealing with business disputes was a selling point for companies.
That has been shattered by the James campaign and the Engoron ruling. Telling business to just “don’t be like Trump” is more menacing than consoling. Letitia James is now the face of New York corporate law — it is the “face that launched a thousand ships” . . . toward Florida. Businesses can get lower taxes, lower crime, better schools, and a better regulatory environment in virtually any other state. Fewer are likely to want to come for the shows, but stay for the disgorgement.
Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary said Monday that he would “never” invest in New York after this absurd judgment.
Creating an ad hoc business code for Trump undermines the city’s reputation as a premier jurisdiction for corporate and tax law. If the rate of exit increases, it will impact not just employees working for these companies (like the Trump companies) but the vast network of supporting businesses, including law firms.
As New York politicians campaigning on “eat the rich” platforms, the confiscatory Trump judgment leaves many in the city wondering if they could be the next course.
Since the Judge said Mara Lago is worth a mere 18 million, and Trump overvalued all his properties used for loans, the loans were way too big, in the case of Mara Lago being used half a billion vs 18 million, means the loans were way too big, and the banks made way too much money on the ten times oversized loan, even at a small percent less interest.
So the banks owe President Trump 90% of the profits they made by loaning him way too much. The banks abused President Trump. I don’t know why Ergodon gave the banks a pass when he clearly stated the actual value of Mara Lago. Thus the banks are guilty. Predatory loaning and we just went through all that in 2008.
Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Why does the Eighth Amendment (“nor excessive fines imposed”) not apply to this case?
Sorry to say, Professor, but the facts of your premise aren’t exactly true. Trump’s lenders did lose money, because they would have received a higher interest rate than what the eventually earned. The City and State likely lost tax income when he undervalued the same properties. Although Chicago was not involved in this case, the lender had to eat a huge part of their loan, approximately 250 million write off.
And, finally, posting a bond in a appeal of a civil decision is normal, and required to avoid frivolous appeals to avoid or delay paying the damages to the plaintiff. Many defendents are caught in the same pinch. Why shouldn’t the same rules apply to Mr. Trump?
Please, sir, go back to the legal scholar you used to be.
Your assumption that bankers and city and county and state assessors are stupid is just naive and uninformed. The idea that banks would have received higher interest is just wrong. And, that the city and state would have received more in taxes is not based in reality. Banks and assessors have and use their own methods of determining value. They can and do employ appraisers in every case. A bank takes what the borrower says is the value of the collateral and then determines a value using their own methods. No bank of taxing authority accepts what the property owner says the property is worth. This judge is guilty of what he is accusing Trump of doing. He wrongly valued the properties without utilizing an expert such as an appraiser. He said the value of Mara Lago was $18,000,000. while even a moron with a minimum of brain cells knows that it is worth considerably more. I don’t know what it’s worth but I know it’s a lot more than $18,000,000
Regardless of one’s politics, this is an unjust outcome and very likely will be overturned.
It’s beyond ironic that the left is trying to argue that the banks didn’t make enough profit on the loan
Aside from the fact that the bank can charge whatever rate it wants, there is no actual formula to even claim that the bank should have been entitled to more interest. Even if this were true, we are talking maybe 1 or 2 % difference which over 10 years on a $200 million dollar loan is 40 million tops
If ny actually had a case, they would have charged Trump with felony fraud, not some convoluted civil charge
Just the thing a coward that hides would say.
“. . . lenders did lose money” and “he undervalued the same properties.”
I gather that such obvious contradictions do not disturb you — or the rest of the confiscatory Left.
The banks tried their predatory lending against Trump, like they did before the 2008 crisis. As Judge Ergodon said, Mara Lago is worth 18 million not 25 times more, nearly half a billion. So the banks made way too big loans so they could take advantage of President Trump and force way bigger payments and thus interest profits.
So the banks owe Trump about 95% of the interest they charged him for their profit, since all the loan value about 18 million collateral was the banks predatory malpractice. More money loaned, more interest, more profit, at 25X a tiny percentage of one percent interest change can be forgotten.
So Ergodon is obviouysly aware of the predatory loaning problem here, given his valuations of Mara Lago. The bank, as the entire demoncrat party argued post 2008, is guilty.
The opposite of what you say is true. The banks were competing with one another for Trump’s business, attempting to offer Trump lower interest rates than competing banks. All the competing banks had to do their own due diligence and Trump’s Statements of Financial Conditions were only one starting point. Banks consider many factors in determining the size of the loan, the interest rates, and other terms and conditions.
Moreover, in any event, James and Engoron FAILED to determine in any of Trump’s loans what the terms would have been or even claim what they would have been, even assuming, arguendo, that Trump’s SFC documents were “corrected” to reflect the lower valuations that they presumed to be valid without any evidence whatsoever. So, James and Engoron were just speculating and couldn’t quantify anything. Of course, if they had a real case, they would have brought in experts to opine on what the purported profits that the banks lost. But they brought in no such bank and valuation experts because they either could find any experts that would tell the lies they wanted, or they came across as obvious liars in their practice cross sessions.
Similarly, tax authorities always do their own calculations to determine the tax base. Leave the legal scholarly analysis to Professor Turley and leave the technical valuation and analyses to the professionals. You should stick to what you know best, bit is gender studies, Marxist transitioning, or whatever.
1. Since the banks adjusted his financial statement, their decision on rates was based on competitive factors, not valuation opinions. The rate would not have changed.
2. Trump’s valuations didn’t affect the property taxes paid on these properties. If you own any property at all, you know that the assessor’s office sets the value of properties within it’s jurisdiction, not the owners. Owners have the right to appeal, but even in the case of an appeal the ultimate arbiter will be a government employee or public arvbiter.
3. Perhaps Trump Derangement Syndrome kept you from seeing these things clearly.
Fake process it was, not due process. A sham of socalled justice for ridiculously high penalty based on zero damages. This defies everything law students are taught in school and makes mockery of American legal system.
This, the most preposterous civil verdict in American history, is transparently fake. It will cost them votes in the long run, and perhaps a whole lot more.
As for Turley mocking “eat the rich” platforms, make no mistake, it’s the billionaires who have it out for Trump in the first place. He is a pro-American national-capitalist among a field of internationalist jackal billionaire parasites. This system of financial capitalism is a ruination of America and there has to be a return either to an efficient industrial capitalism, or else we too will wield socialism against our enemies, and vae victis.
From flyover-land with sincerity, Saloth Sar
It seems to me that the lower court has found a way to issue a judgement that is non-appealable. I would have thought that all judgements by the lower court should be appealable. Instead they managed to impose a requirement for appeal. This doesn’t seem right.
It is designed to bankrupt Trump. Justice and honesty do not enter into Marxist thinking nor justice.
Personal bankruptcy is a strategy that possibly could allow an appeal without the posting of bond. It worked for Alex Jones.
I think Mr Turley misspoke. The failure to post a bond does not mean Mr. Trump can’t appeal the judgment . It just means that absent a court order, the judgment can be enforced against his properties. But the appeal can proceed.
Trump might be reconsidering his “hit back hard” reflex. That’s going to be daunting for him, because it’s impulsive, not calibrated. He’s his own worst enemy. His approach to conflict is defame and discredit the person, not a more mature, emotionally-intelligent approach, where ideas are debated in a spirit of goodwill and trust.
Why doesn’t Trump file an emergency motion in federal court to have the NY statute declared unconstitutional as a violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines?
Never would have known. Such profound insights! /sarc
You can’t debate or negotiate with evil.
LOL — the Turleyville comment section is now fully unhinged. This is what happens in a kindergarten classroom when the teacher takes a break to go out to the parkinglot and smoke a few much-needed cigarettes.
Jonathan: DJT is very worried about the USSC these days–especially over what the Court might do with his claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Here are some other cases just ruled on by the Court that are ringing alarm bells in the DJT legal camp:
1. On Tuesday the Court declined, without comment, to take up an appeal by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood over sanctions imposed on them by lower courts over their roles in filing spurious lawsuits claiming the 2020 election was “stolen”. Sidney Powell has already plead guilty in the Georgia RICO election interference case. Lin Wood has given up his law license for his role.
2. On Tuesday the SC, again without comment, also rejected an appeal by MTG and two other MAGA House members when their pay was docked in 2021 over their refusal to wear face masks on the House floor during the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. Then on 2/15 DJT missed a key SC deadline to appeal the ruling of the DC Court of Appeals ruling that DJT is not immune from civil lawsuits as a result of Jan,6. In the landmark case in Blassingame v. Trump, the DC Court ruled DJT is not immune because his actions on J.6 fell outside the parameters of his presidential duties. Why did DJT miss the filing date? Could be more incompetence by Alina Habba. Or it could be a calculation by DJT’s legal team they did not want the SC to consolidate both the Blassingame case with DJT’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. Both cases involve the same facts and the decision in Blassingame is rock solid on the facts and the law. If the SC were to uphold Blassingame they would be hard pressed to find DJT is immune from prosecution in the criminal context.
So for now the flood gates are open for anyone who was injured on J.6 to sue DJT for civil damages. That’s why DJT is desperate to find money to pay his legal bills!
O T
A poll published yesterday by the Detroit Free Press shows Trump with a 4% lead over Biden. yahoo.com/news/poll-biden-still-trails-trump-110118799.html When you consider that Trump fares better on election day than his poll numbers, these are truly dark days for Brandon. The good news for him is that he is living 30 years in the past.
Edwardmahl,
A poll I would like to see would be of one Democrats who are not going to vote this year.
Reading articles on The Free Press of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and even Jews are angry with the Democrat party, many saying they are not going to vote and some even considering voting for Trump.
My own sister says she will vote, but not for Biden. Many of her sane Democrat friends have said the same.
If you need a medication abortion but don’t know where to obtain pills in your state, http://www.plancpills.org will help you locate a provider. More info in their FAQ. Spread the word.
I heard that Putin is going to lend Trump the $455 large, iff Trump promises to donate $5M to planned parenthood.
Please, this is just another method of NSA surveillance and identity gathering for when the Communists make their final move. We will all be rounded up and sent to reeducation camps. How soon we forget the tidbits of Obama era ideology. From my visit to a local Walmart that may be best for humanity now.
Banks Trump is alleged to have defrauded will gladly loan him $ to post the bond — proving how corrupt this prosecution was.
NY banks cannot loan him money.
Anyone can loan him money. But doing so allows James/Engoron another bite at the apple.
When the courts become disconnected from logic, law and reality, the only thing that can reign them in is higher courts.
Take heed and stop listening to the lying blobs on fake news cable TV:
“When the top 20 tech giants (Amazon, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft) pledge to “work together to detect and counter harmful AI content” in the 2024 elections, that means they’re going to work together to STOP TRUMP.
That’s why America is headed for chaos.”
“Most Americans have their election math totally wrong.
President Trump has the overwhelming support of the American people.
But Biden/Obama has the support of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and all the rest of the intelligence agencies.
Which side wins in 2024?”
“Stop listening to any conservative media figure who tells you the Biden regime is “stupid” or “incompetent.”
The Biden regime is executing a communist takeover of the USA (backed by China) and it’s doing just fine.
The hour is much later than you think”
@EmeraldRobinson
The real “election math” is not about real voters and votes; it’s about who manages the voter rolls, ballot distribution and vote counting in the key swing states. So far, no change from 2020 or 2022 🙁
A Strange Truth:
On Jan1 2021, George Noory had several psychics/prophecy types on his Coast AM show. One, Elizabeth Joyce, said “Biden is going to be arrested–but if he isn’t, America will become a Marxist-Leninst state”.
Loony tunes.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer city…
If you listen carefully, you can hear Turley’s troll-filled comment section getting stupider by the minute.
Actually we are the ones who know who Kevin Clinesmith is (and of his crimes) and what happened to Gonzalo Lira. As opposed to you thumb-suckers who stll believe in “TrumpRussiaCollusion”. Hey did Stick Schift ever come across with the “incontrovertible proof”?
I’m a TRUMP SUPPORTER, you MORON. I don’t know who you think you’re addressing, but thanks for proving my point. Some of you people need to go back to nursury school, pronto.
Trump needs to counter-sue NYC for $50 billion dollars. Forget the appeal, go on the attack.
John Say
Appreciate your comments: well reasoned, well said, well supported. Thank you.
I like John Say’s comment too.
I find him arrogant and verbose.
This one particular “Anonymous” is a juvenile punk with a bad attitude. Hey “Anonymous”, go away, your mom is calling.
I don’t care if you are for Trump or Biden, you are a juvenile jerk.
He can be a little prolix, but he makes a lot of good points.
People generally find those who point out there errors arrogant.
The length of my posts reflects the scope and number of errors I respond to.
If you want shorter posts from me – make less mistakes.
All you have to do is check your on claims and get it right and I wont write a thing.
thx
There are many posters on this blog whose comments are worth reading. Including many posters I disagree with.
I am not going to name them – because inevitably I will miss someone.
Regardless, there are posters here who argue the facts, the law, the constitution, first principles, economics, …
citing information and data.
And there are those that just make things up, or who rant rather than argue. Orange man bad, is not an argument.
Each and every one of us is free to make choices in our own lives on any basis we wish – including our feelings, ouija boords, or dice.
We each rep the rewards or suffer the consequences of our own decisions, we are free to make them however we please.
We do not have limitless freedom to make choices for others. The social contract – the foundation for government, Empowers government to use FORCE to infringe on our rights in a FEW limited domains, for the specific purpose of realizing the optimal public order consistent with the maximum of individual freedom. Government is empowered to use force to punish those who initiate force against others – criminal law.
It is empowered to use force to assure that each of us keeps the binding agreements we make with others – that is civil law.
It is not governments business to determine whether the agreements we made were good ones or bad ones. Only to neutrally assure that whatever we mutually agreed to we do.
It is empowered to assure that when the actions of others cause us real harm – intentionally or not, that to the extent possible we are made whole – that is tort law.
Finally government is empowered to secure the nation. To protect us from outsiders.
Everything beyond that is the domain of the individual, of personal freedom.
The above is the duties and obligations of govenrment. As the declaration of independence says – whenever govenrment becomes destructive of those ends – it is the right of the people to alter an abolish it.
The US Constitution is a blueprint to achieve that. I think it is an excellent blueprint. But the constitution is a means to an end – it is the means to the end of the maximum of individual liberty consistent with public order.
To those on the right and left – the constitution and the laws of this nation are important., but they and our courts and our justice system are NOT the final authority. Nor are the people in the sense of political democracy.
The final authority is what works.
Many of the supra constitutional aphorisms that I cite regularly – “the rule of law, not man”, “Government is force, …”, …
Really boil down to what several millenia of experience have taught us works.
There is massive amounts of economic data that shows that the bigger govenrment is the slower the rise (or larger the decline) in standard of living. The USSR did not fail in the sense that its people were poorer 70 years later than at its inception. It failed because the rest of the world got richer much faster than the USSR – Though China actually managed to have ZERO increase in standard of living through the entirety of Mao’s rule.
We are in the midst of a massive fight today over morality. The left and the right do not even agree on what morality mean.
But the principles of western morality – if less than perfect, are the product of atleast 10 millenia or human development.
As they improve into the enlightenment, they resulted in the most rapid improvement in human standard of living that has ever occurred.
No matter what the merits of the lefts attack on western morality – and we have yet to acheive perfection, it is still inarguably by the evidence the best humans have ever acheived.
The rule of law, western morality, the constitution, all have merit BECAUSE THEY WORK, because they leave us better than we were before.
Conversely the morality of the modern left is a luxury good that to the extent it has any merit at all, only does so while resting on the foundation of the western morality that it all so often seeks to destroy.
Every moral claim the modern left makes. is close to unique to the modern era.
Diversity, racial equality, sexual equality, sexual preferences, sexual identities, are luxury goods that can not exist absent the underlying western morality that they seek to destroy.
This argument that things must work is very important. It is why the left is not going to succeed. Maybe this election is the turning point,
or maybe that will come later, but ultimately the modern left will fail – because its ideas do not work.
Those on the left rant at who those who disagree with them are Trump zombies. But it is not Trump that is failing right now.
Over the past al;most 2 decades democrats have had the reverse midas touch – everything they touch turns to $hit.
“What’s this button on the elevator for?”
“That’s for preventing elephants from getting in.”
“Elephants?! When have there ever been elephants on an elevator?”
“Exactly. Works like a charm.”
I don’t think we can usefully separate the quality of our morality from how well those morals are applied in law. Laws which “work” do so precisely *because* they are based on good morals. The reason the moral claims of modernity do not result in good law is not because they are “luxury goods”, but because the morals are bad. Collectivism (the root of the vast bulk of all modern moral claims) is inherently evil. It subjugates the individual, denying both freedom on the one hand, and responsibility on the other. No law built upon this fire pit will “work”, ultimately.
How do you establish the quality of your morals ?
For 99.99% of human existance 25% of people died as a result of the violent actions of another human.
No other species murders its own at the rates that we do.
All other animals operate under a moral system that is different from humans. A system that until recently resulted in less violence.
for 99.99% of human existance slavery was considered good and moral. Now it is not. Morality changes.
Human morality has not been constant over time.
I did not say “modern morality”. I said the morality of the modern left.
Human morality changes over time – most of the time it improves.
I offer that the changes that endure, do so because they work.
When I say that modern left moral values are a luxury good – that does not mean they are inherently good – or evil.
What I mean is that you can not even have the discussion of whether they are good or not until society has reached sufficient affluence.
Again for 99.99% of human existance sex roles were rigid. They had to be. Average life expectance was 25. Most children died before they reached adulthood. The survival of the species required large families. And that required women to bear large numbers of children in the portion of their lifes that they were able to do so. The survival of the human species required that. Human sexuality may be fun and often non-reproductive – but its purpose for most of human existance has been the creation of the next generation.
All forms of non-reproductive sex was therefore immoral for most of the past.
I would note that modern demographic changes and collapsing populations could bring us back to some permutaiton of that past morality.
I personally beleive – as I suspect you do that the correspondance between what works and classical morality is no accident.
Western Morality? Just say it
The Bible and true Christianity.
I have no problems with those. But no that is NOT what I mean.
Western morality does NOT mean living up to leviticus. It has take us 300,000 years but slavery is now accepted as immoral That it was considered moral for most of human existance is something those on the left can not fathom. The Old Testiment is full of references to slavery with little condemnation.
Absolutely western morality rests on Judeo Christian foundations. the absolutely critical moral construct of free will comes from that tradition.
But western morality has gone beyond and in different directions than christianity.
“The Old Testiment is full of references to slavery with little condemnation.”
“The Old Testiment is full of references to slavery with little condemnation.”
John, man changes slowly, a recognition noted in the Torah. In part, the Torah is a set of lessons. Joseph is enslaved by his brothers, and then in Genesis, we find the Jews enslaved in Egypt. That teaches the people what slavery is and not to like it. But how does one go from slavery to its absence? Slowly. The Torah discusses slavery and adds a day of rest for the slave. Is that not a recognition that a slave is not fully owned by another man? The end of slavery has been set in motion, and then in Exodus 21:2, we read, ” he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.”
The temporary status of slavery is revolutionary.
I too find John Say’s comments to be well reasoned, well said and factual.
Democrats have finally jumped the shark.
They have been jumping the shark repeatedly for over a decade. The only question is when will they have done so sufficiently frquently for everything to collapse on them.
\
We are getting there.
Yes, I think that we are getting there in one respect, that more people are seeing the Democrats for what they are – a party that buys votes through lies and handouts. That accounts for the welfare bloc of their support. But what about the non-welfare class support? The people with Bill Maher Syndrome, who will openly admit the Democrat Left is wacky, but will vote for them anyway. Because reasons.
I do not think most of these people will ever stop voting for Democrats short of a societal collapse, and even then, there are many who I suspect will continue to vote for them. Think of this – we actually have supposedly rational people who see nothing wrong with castrating kids, and in fact, call it genocide if we do not permit that to take place. Earlier, I posted a youtube walkaway video, that is about 47 minutes long, where a very articulate young woman explains her exodus from the Democrat Party. I think this should be required listening/watching and study for anyone trying to figure out how to accelerate the demise of the Democrats, prior to collapse. If that is even possible.
Particularly, about the last 8 minutes of the video. She has finally seen thru all the lies, bullsh!t, and craziness of the party. She leaves the Democrat Party. But she still can not yet bring herself to vote for Republicans, because of all the brainwashing that she has been subjected to. She eventually does escape the Matrix, but it was a struggle. I post it again here. Frankly, I do not see the majority of Democrats ever making this journey, save having to sleep in their car, and being mugged several times a week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flp7gKg5G4E
Plus, like others, I always enjoy your comments.
More young women leave the Republican party than leave the Democratic Party:
“Why Republican Parents Raise Democratic Daughters”
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/why-republican-parents-raise-democratic-daughters/
That was a fascinating read! Thank you! I think they hit on the reasons – abortion and indoctrination. Plus, women seem to be more willing to try to fit in. That is why when one stupid fashion thing comes out, they will mimic it. I note that Hillary was once a Goldwater Girl.
FWIW:
“Alexandra of Denmark had already become a trend-setter as Princess of Wales. She was a huge fashion influencer and the women in England would copy everything she wore. She had a small scar on her neck from a childhood surgical procedure and she often wore choker collars and jewelry high on her neck to cover the scar. English women started wearing similar style chokers. And -just as they had been influenced and tried to mimic royalty before, they did so with her. Even going so far as to imitate her permanent limp.
Here’s a quote from an 1869 Edition of the North British Mail newspaper: “Taking my customary walk the other day, observant of men, women and things, I met three ladies. They were all three young, all three good-looking, and all three lame! At least, such was my impression, seeing as they all carried handsome sticks and limped; but, on looking back, as everyone else did, I could discover no reason why they should do so.”
It was the “Alexandra Limp” and it caught on like wildfire. A faked limp that was put on by women in the upper-class areas of London in order to appear more like Alexandra of Denmark. Women would walk with a pronounced limp and go so far as to use a cane that they didn’t need. They didn’t have any ailment. They faked it. “
They didn’t say that it’s indoctrination. They said that conservatives suspect that. And you omit other issues they identify, including LGBTQ Identity and Trump. You present no evidence that young women try to fit in to a greater extent than young men do.
They said Conservatives suspect indoctrination, and so I said yes. Gotta problem with that? If so, what. As for all that gay queer stuff, perhaps. A lot of people say they are non-binary to get in on the victim racket. And, I am not required to mention it, if I do not think it is a big factor. This is still a free country as far as me being allowed to have my own opinion. You ain’t the boss of me.
Does it matter the precise way that one finds themselves adopting a dysfunctional ideology ?
As to evidence – we KNOW that anxiety and depression are on the rise.
We KNOW the increase is worse among the young, among women, among left leaning women,
The difference in anciety levels between a young left leaning woman and an old right leaning and are about a factor of 6.
The probability of that not having a clear cause is ZERO.
Further though there have always been differences – since 2013 those differences have been dramatically amplified.
To answer your statement, “Why Republican Parents Raise Democratic Daughters”.
The ones that actually are birthing people, got the smart phone flu, and now after a decade or two of not accomplishing anything, feel they have to do something. Since they have no employable skills, they join a group to protest something and become leftists.