I’m guessing because 1) dumb ideological reasons involving cutting every government service that isn’t the military or immigration enforcement and 2) FDIC is primarily funded by fees from the banks. Consumers are so detached from how stuff works for the most part that removing the FDIC insurance fee wouldn’t give consumers higher interest rates, but just decrease the banks expenses and make them more money.

Not even remotely true. In the 2008 financial crisis, between 2008 and 2012 , there were nearly 500 bank failures, and more than a trillion in assets involved and the FDIC covered every cent labeled to be covered.

No, that’s actually a pretty reasonable idea. Given that they’ve never lost a cent of money, can take more from the other banks if they need to, and are ultimately backed by the people who print the money.

You don’t understand insurance or how the FDIC works.

He was indeed not running for a state or local office in Missouri.

“A lot of people don’t don’t think about the fact that Donald Trump, if he met all the other requirements, if he was a Missouri resident, could not run for state representative or state Senate,” Davis told the Missouri Independent.

“He would be precluded from running for these offices but was able to be re-elected president of the United States. So I think that at least causes people to start thinking about the issue a little more than they might otherwise,” Davis added.

The law in question did not apply to him, and the bill was just named referencing him.

The entire thing is moot. All I was saying is that Missouri doesn’t permanently disenfranchise felons, and the law being discussed didn’t apply to trump for a variety of reasons.

I’m not super interested in defending trump or Missouri, but he was neither sentenced in general nor convicted of a felony, or running for office, in Missouri.

So other than the name and inspiration, none of this even applies to him.

I was just pointing out that in Missouri, felons aren’t completely disenfranchised. Yay marginally better civil rights than a lot of people assumed!

Felons actually can vote in Missouri if they’ve completed their sentence. This includes parole and probation terms.

Permanent disenfranchisement is actually less common than people think. It’s still too common by far, and we need to revisit the reasoning for disenfranchisement while incarcerated or on probation, but in most of the country a felony doesn’t prevent voting permanently.

I was a bit skeptical as well, but there’s at least one seemingly reputable academic researcher who says as much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests (first citation).
So even if it wasn’t, one could easily be forgiven for the mistake.

The estate has a duty to maximize the value of the liquidation, and pay back creditors as best it can. Specifically to settle the debts.

While a creditor can’t dictate the value of the estate, they can offer to forgive debt, which is the same for the purposes of the estate.

If the cancelled debt would have been worth more than the cash, then the creditors would be rightfully furious if the state instead sold the asset for less cash and paid them that way.

If you owe me $50k, and I tell you your watch is worth $5k to me, and instead you sell it for $250 and give me that while declaring bankruptcy so I don’t get anything else, that’s a terrible outcome for me, and great for you if you sold the watch to your friend who then gave it back to you in exchange for $250 later.

No, that’s actually still the market deciding. It’s a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don’t know who or if anyone else is bidding.
If you want it, you make your best offer for what you’re willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.

Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it’s fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.

That’s essentially what they did. They chose an auction type where each party offers as much as they’re willing to pay and the highest offer wins. The Sandy Hook families included a chunk of their debt in the offer which was part of the value.

No idea, and not entirely sure why it matters. If your goal is to sell an asset and maximize proceeds, it’s a known and unsurprising strategy, particularly since it gives higher returns when there are few bidders.

So it’s unfortunately not actually a sale until the judge approves it, it’s just an accepted bid.
Sorta like when buying a car. The salesman tells you the price for the vehicle, overpriced perks, and how much your trade in is worth, and you accept the final price. Then the salesman has to get the floor manager to agree, which they always do, because they’re the ones with authority to approve the sale. Then you can sign the paperwork and exchange money and you’ve actually processed the sale. Until then either party can walk away for any reason.

In this case, it’s like the floor manager rejected the sale because the cash part of the sale price was less than MSRP, and they didn’t think the trade in value mattered.
It’s not common for the sale to get rejected, and it’s even weirder for them to reject “not cash” instead of paying attention to value.

The judge saying the estate can’t accept debt forgiveness in lieu of cash is just odd, since it reduces the debt more than the cash would.

Sealed buds are usually better for that.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp

Each party is incentivised to make the highest offer they’re willing to pay from the beginning, as opposed to negotiating the best price they can get.

Additionally, the families forgiving a significant amount of money as part of the bid should factor in, since the responsibility of the estate is to get the best deal, not the most cash.

A first price sealed bid auction is a perfectly common type of auction.
It’s functionally equivalent to an auction where you know the value of a thing (like we do a business being liquidated because the owner is in extremely deep unrelated legal debt), and the auctioneer starts by asking for the face value and then progressively lowers the ask until the first person accepts the price.
Instead of trying to get the lowest price possible, people are incentivised to start with their best offer for what they actually think the thing is valued. Allowing follow-up bids encourages people to low-ball and work their way up, which can reduce the price the seller gets for the item.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sealed-bid-auction.asp

They’re not similar situations at all. For one, it’s an absurd difference in scale. Whatever your opinions of Amazon delivery driver working conditions and pay, it’s in no way comparable to “an invading army murdered their family”.

Second, whether or not I should push a button to give someone $5 with no obligation on their part is a different situation from getting a bandaid for a murdered family on the whim of the responsible party.

If you could push a button and a random person somewhere in the world gets $1 million, would you push the button?

… What? That’s such a non-sequitor that I’m honestly not sure if you replied to the wrong thing or something.

I can’t say that I would say the same thing in an entirely different situation with nothing to do with the other.

Ah, the high risk situation of being called to deal with a man falsely accused of a non-violent crime, and an unruly mob of people keeping their distance and “begging the men with guns and armor not to murder a man in the street”. I can definitely understand why shitty cowards would feel threatened.

lied about in court

I’m gonna go with “nah”. He was found guilty, so he’s a guilty murderer.
I’m shocked a bootlicker like yourself would have such doubts in the system. Or is it because they actually found a cop guilty and you just can’t accept such a travesty? Just think of all the black kids he could have threatened!

Go to hell.

Yeah… Of all the antigovernment people to latch onto it’s vaguely unfortunate that we landed on fawks. Like, I do get that it’s a pop culture reference more than an actual historical reference, but still.
There was legitimate persecution of Catholics in England at the time, so it doesn’t least have a veneer of fighting tyranny, but he didn’t even actually succeed.

Shoulda gone for Louis Lingg. A bit more modern, and had the awesome criminal defense that “it’s his right to fill his house with dynamite”.

I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren’t subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
“Your children can’t be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave”.

You’re not paying, you’re clicking a button to have Amazon give $5 of their money to the driver.
They could have just given a bunch of drivers $5, but then they wouldn’t make a bunch of customers think Amazon isn’t too bad.

So you should push the button, but also pointedly continue to think badly of Amazon.