The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

I also said it was a long term investment. Long term isn’t normally 1 or 2 years.

These days, in the nanosecond markets, 1-2 years is an eternity. While the stock price alone tells an abysmal story, company fundamentals tell an even worse one. And if you want to make it about company strategy, their acquisitions are nonsensical. They make perfect sense if you want to spin things up yet again to bilk investors out of more money on the story, but business-wise, it's lunacy.

Two years, four years, even longer will not make a difference. The core purpose if this company is to defraud its investors. Time will not fix this stock. 2, 4, 6 years or more, fraud is fraud. Jail time is the true fix.

 

[muttly]

While the court overturned the vote because of legislative improprieties, it seems worth mentioning how the people actually voted. This was not a poll, it was an election. These same people will vote again in November. They're not going to change from blue to red because the court ruling.

This is a good question. Hopefully the DOJ is looking into this as well.

 

[ATeam]

This is a good question. Hopefully the DOJ is looking into this as well.

You can slice this and speculate all you want. It won't matter what opinions you form or what questions you raise.

The recent election just showed Virginia will vote blue in the statewide races because gerrymandering does not apply statewide. And my guess is that, even with the current district map, Virginia voters will flip a good number of district seats from red to blue given what the polls now show. And even if you struck the entire state from the US House vote totals, the Democrats are still going to take the House and impeach Trump (if he lives that long).

Once upon a time, Virginia was a red state. Not today.

 

[muttly]

You can slice this and speculate all you want. It won't matter what opinions you form or what questions you raise.

The recent election just showed Virginia will vote blue in the statewide races because gerrymandering does not apply statewide. And my guess is that, even with the current district map, Virginia voters will flip a good number of district seats from red to blue given what the polls now show. And even if you struck the entire state from the US House vote totals, the Democrats are still going to take the House and impeach Trump (if he lives that long).

Once upon a time, Virginia was a red state. Not today.

View attachment 24787

They tried. Didn’t they? A state that votes around 45 percent Republican and they wanted to shut out the rural vote completely.And the Governor lied to Virginians prior to getting elected about redistricting. Dems ignored the rules. Deceptive language in the “referendum”. Got a barely majority vote. At least the courts did the right thing and called them out on their shenanigans.
Sneaky sneaky. Unconstitutional
DOJ will look into it about whether there are any racial gerrymandered districts. She’s on it.
Concur with Hans:

 

[muttly]

.And the Governor lied to Virginians prior to getting elected about redistricting. Dems ignored the rules.

Grok fact check: True

 

[muttly]

These days, in the nanosecond markets, 1-2 years is an eternity. While the stock price alone tells an abysmal story, company fundamentals tell an even worse one. And if you want to make it about company strategy, their acquisitions are nonsensical. They make perfect sense if you want to spin things up yet again to bilk investors out of more money on the story, but business-wise, it's lunacy.

Two years, four years, even longer will not make a difference. The core purpose if this company is to defraud its investors. Time will not fix this stock. 2, 4, 6 years or more, fraud is fraud. Jail time is the true fix.

Tesla, Amazon, Airbnb, Twitter, Uber, Facebook. All took lengthy time( certainly not “nanoseconds”) and reorganizations before they made it big.

 

[ATeam]

Tesla, Amazon, Airbnb, Twitter, Uber, Facebook. All took lengthy time( certainly not “nanoseconds”) and reorganizations before they made it big.

They also had products or services of value to offer consumers from the beginning. What exactly does TMTG offer of value today? What do they sell that customers are willing to pay for?

I'm not asking about what they intend to sell or do, I'm asking what products and services they provide right now. In their early stages, Amazon sold books online. Tesla sold cars. Airbnb provided a service that connected travelers with hosts. What does TMTG provide?

 

[muttly]

They also had products or services of value to offer consumers from the beginning. What exactly does TMTG offer of value today? What do they sell that customers are willing to pay for?

I'm not asking about what they intend to sell or do, I'm asking what products and services they provide right now. In their early stages, Amazon sold books online. Tesla sold cars. Airbnb provided a service that connected travelers with hosts. What does TMTG provide?

Some of those companies didn't know what they had originally. Airbnb was air mattresses when they started.
Grok:

 

[muttly]

Grok:

 

[ATeam]

Grok:
View attachment 24792

You are talking about TMTG like it is a legitimate company that may one day find its way. My point is that TMTG is no such thing.

Trump has a long and well-documented history of fraud. TMTG is a recent manifestation of this lifelong trend. Click the link to see 13 of his fraudulent endeavors.

Trump Ventures Summary

Spoiler Alert: Donald Trump is a serial fraudster.

 

[ATeam]

Is "Unconstitutional" Bad?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL (commonwealth)

Question: Is it bad that a State of Virginia legislative action was found unconstitutional? I would say yes. Constitutions serve a good public purpose. People should abide by them; especially the political leaders who take oaths to support and defend them.

Next Question: If it is bad for the Virginia state legislature to do something unconstitutional, is it also bad for the President of the United States to do something unconstitutional? Here too, I would say yes for the same reason.

Sadly, Trump has committed multiple unconstitutional acts through various policies or orders. These have all been found to be unconstitutional by one court or another. Yes, some of these may be pending appeal, but the finding is there. Others have been appealed and the finding stands.

Trump is not a supporter and defender of the Constitution. He is a serial violator. And for that reason, he must be impeached.

• Travel Ban (early versions)
  DACA termination
  Attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary cities
• Attempts to end birthright citizenship
• Use of unauthorized spending freezes (violating the Separation of Powers)

This does not include the hundreds of orders halting Trumps policies or actions. The above lists only items that were expressly labeled unconstitutional by the ruling court.

 

[muttly]

Is "Unconstitutional" Bad?

Question: Is it bad that a State of Virginia legislative action was found unconstitutional? I would say yes. Constitutions serve a good public purpose. People should abide by them; especially the political leaders who take oaths to support and defend them.

Next Question: If it is bad for the Virginia state legislature to do something unconstitutional, is it also bad for the President of the United States to do something unconstitutional? Here too, I would say yes for the same reason.

Sadly, Trump has committed multiple unconstitutional acts through various policies or orders. These have all been found to be unconstitutional by one court or another. Yes, some of these may be pending appeal, but the finding is there. Others have been appealed and the finding stands.

Trump is not a supporter and defender of the Constitution. He is a serial violator. And for that reason, he must be impeached.

• Travel Ban (early versions)
  DACA termination
  Attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary cities
• Attempts to end birthright citizenship
• Use of unauthorized spending freezes (violating the Separation of Powers)

This does not include the hundreds of orders halting Trumps policies or actions. The above lists only items that were expressly labeled unconstitutional by the ruling court.

Whataboutism

 

[ATeam]

Whataboutism

Wikipedia:

"Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability –whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.

Not Whataboutism. I did not deny or defend the unconstitutionality of the Virginia state legislature's action. I acknowledged it and said it was wrong. Nor did I change the subject when I brought Trump under the unconstitutional light. "Unconstitutional is bad in all cases" IS the singular topic. Nothing I said evaded or tried to evade the point you made about the unconstitutional Virginia law under which the redistricting election was held.

True whataboutism means the speaker or writer changes the subject to something else, which is something you routinely do. Since you brought it up and since it is now clearly defined, the next time you do it, I will point that out with a link back to the above definition.

 

[muttly]

Wikipedia:

"Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability –whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.

Not Whataboutism. I did not deny or defend the unconstitutionality of the Virginia state legislature's action. I acknowledged it and said it was wrong. Nor did I change the subject when I brought Trump under the unconstitutional light. "Unconstitutional is bad in all cases" IS the singular topic. Nothing I said evaded or tried to evade the point you made about the unconstitutional Virginia law under which the redistricting election was held.

True whataboutism means the speaker or writer changes the subject to something else, which is something you routinely do. Since you brought it up and since it is now clearly defined, the next time you do it, I will point that out with a link back to the above definition.

Good, I’ll remember that the next time I try to compare something to make a point and get accused of Whataboutism.

 

[Ragman]

Good, I’ll remember that the next time I try to compare something to make a point and get accused of Whataboutism.

And the nonsense continues.....

 

[muttly]

Whataboutism

Ragman, I'd modify your Whataboutism meme to say, "When you can't defend Trump ... so you change the subject to Obama, Biden, or Clinton.

Another poster defended Trump because of precedent and presidential powers that others like Clinton and Obama used. Then was accused of Whataboutism. No change of subject. He used examples of other presidents with similar incidents regarding military action.

Not Whataboutism. I did not deny or defend the unconstitutionality of the Virginia state legislature's action. I acknowledged it and said it was wrong. Nor did I change the subject when I brought Trump under the unconstitutional light. "Unconstitutional is bad in all cases" IS the singular topic. Nothing I said evaded or tried to evade the point you made about the unconstitutional Virginia law under which the redistricting election was held.

True whataboutism means the speaker or writer changes the subject to something else, which is something you routinely do. Since you brought it up and since it is now clearly defined, the next time you do it, I will point that out with a link back to the above definition.

And the nonsense continues.....

Apparently so.

 

[ATeam]

50-50 Chance Trump TACOs Out of This Week's China Summit

Trump is scheduled to meet with China's President Xi Jinping later this week. It would not surprise me if Trump bailed out at the last minute (actually, TACOs out as in Trump Always Chickens Out).

If Trump shows up, he'll be sitting at the table with a far weaker hand than Xi. If he chooses to do so, Xi is able to send Trump home empty handed, and thereby humiliated and weakened int the world's eyes. Facing that possibility, Trump may TACO once again.

 

[ATeam]

Straight of Hormuz Status Check

Is the Straight of Hormuz open or closed to normal traffic? Just checking.

Closed you say? My, my.

Does this make Trump look strong or weak? Does it make him look wise or stupid? Does it make him look competent as a world leader or a sorry case?

 

[Ragman]

Straight of Hormuz Status Check

Does this make Trump look strong or weak? Does it make him look wise or stupid? Does it make him look competent as a world leader or a sorry case?

It makes Trump look like a world class patsy.
He is ( and by extension, The U.S. ) getting played.

 

[ATeam]

It makes Trump look like a world class patsy.
He is ( and by extension, The U.S. ) getting played.

Now 73 days into the war with Iran, Trump has a developing history. While the case can certainly be made that he is getting played, I think the case can also be made that he is playing himself. It seems Trump holds an underlying belief that Iran's surrender will come in just a few days if the US does this, that, or the other thing.

If the US bombs Iran, the people will rise up and overthrow the mullahs. If we destroy their air force and navy, Iran will stop fighting. If we expend billions of dollars and draw down our supply of exquisite munitions to intercept Iranian drones, they will run out and cease fire. If we decapitate their leadership, their regime will collapse. If we blockade their ports, their oil wells will somehow explode and Iran will certainly surrender then. If we arm separatist groups in Iran, they will fight and defeat the mullahs. If we send Iran the right piece of paper, they will surely agree. If Trump posts the right kind of threat on Truth Social, that will certainly do the trick and Iran will come to us begging for a deal. If we call on our allies for aid, they will rush in to help and Iran will certainly surrender then.

Based on his actions and stated expectations, it seems Trump's belief in magic is consistent and steadfast. He keeps expecting Iran to surrender and thereby end the problems Trump has caused for himself, the US, and the world.

In a word, Trump does not understand Iran. His expectations are groundless fantasies, and that explains why his tactics repeatedly fail.