Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

How the hell do they justify charging delivery fees when they can't be bothered to actually deliver packages?

I mean, they did? This is their second lawsuit, they're suing him for not paying the settlement reached in the first one. If they hadn't delivered, Lindell wouldn't have settled the first time.

[PACOX]

As funny as the dog shit (lol) is, remember that these kinds of false narratives not only come from Nazis, they also foreshadow violence against the targeted groups. Very important to tell someone to STFU and get in that ass when someone tries to spread this bullshit or any false narratives regarding immigrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ll-bomb-threat

[alach]

What I am looking forward to is this duo releasing over the next month. I think these will have a way of reaching Average Joe other ways would not.



and;



I am reminded of when SBC released Borat 2 right before the election in order to expose some of Trump and Co's misdeeds.

[Breccia]

What I am looking forward to is this duo releasing over the next month.

STOPPING THE STEAL is a clear-eyed account of Republican officials who stood firmly by their principles often at great personal cost.

Misleading title. Trumpers will watch and get all mad. Looking forward to the reviews!

[Belize]

How the hell do they justify charging delivery fees when they can't be bothered to actually deliver packages?

This is one of those lawsuits where I cheer for both sides to lose horribly.

Off topics, but DHL has always been 100% the best shipping company I've ever interacted with. Everytime I get something through economy shipping with DHL it gets here at warp speed in like a day or 2.

[Doomcookie]

What I am looking forward to is this duo releasing over the next month. I think these will have a way of reaching Average Joe other ways would not.


I am reminded of when SBC released Borat 2 right before the election in order to expose some of Trump and Co's misdeeds.

I think the first one will hit much harder than the second. The latter just looks like a weird period piece, like Casino. I think my biggest problem with almost all of the republicans who are now speaking out against him, is that they didn't really develop those spines and principles, until they were already thrown under the bus.

[alach]

I think The Apprentice is going to reach alot more people as its much more of an éntertainment' film. It might enlighten some people who were on the fence on how and why Trump is such a crook and how he has been for years and years. Also I read somewhere that trump's team has been trying hard to stop its release.
The first one is for sure going to be a powerful documentary, will be like the Jan 6th hearings folded into a couple hour documentary.

[Lanrefni]

Off topics, but DHL has always been 100% the best shipping company I've ever interacted with. Everytime I get something through economy shipping with DHL it gets here at warp speed in like a day or 2.

Off topic- I've had multiple packages sent by DHL's economy shipping and the fastest they ever delivered was 2 weeks,longest was 6 weeks to move a package a whole 150 miles,I could have walked and gotten it faster.

[Breccia]

Trump announced today his intention to sell his stock.

I have absolutely no intention of selling

"That's the opposite of...oh."

Yeah. Tell me you believe that. I sure don't.

[Fuiking]

Off topics, but DHL has always been 100% the best shipping company I've ever interacted with. Everytime I get something through economy shipping with DHL it gets here at warp speed in like a day or 2.

Sweet summer child, try the dutch branch of DHL.. the amount of shittery is not funny.

[PhaelixWW]

I have absolutely no intention of selling

"I'm also totally not trying to drive the stock price back up. And I have a bridge for sale. Nice bridge. Beautiful bridge. Some say it's the best bridge ever made. A lot of people wanted it, but I have it. And now I'm selling it, along with some crypto. You're welcome."

[PACOX]

"I'm also totally not trying to drive the stock price back up. And I have a bridge for sale. Nice bridge. Beautiful bridge. Some say it's the best bridge ever made. A lot of people wanted it, but I have it. And now I'm selling it, along with some crypto. You're welcome."

Im familiar with the desperate words of someone when bills are due but the bank account is low

[Breccia]

Trump accuses NASDAQ of oh just read it.

“Why is NASDAQ halting the sale of DJT?” Trump said Friday on Truth Social, referring to the ticker symbol of Truth Social owner Trump Media & Technology Group. “What right do they have to do this? They have done it twice today. What’s going on?”

Trump suggested Nasdaq was “taking orders from the SEC,” an agency he accused of delaying Trump Media’s merger “for political reasons.”

Trump threatened to punish Nasdaq.

“I am going to hold NASDAQ, and maybe the SEC, liable for doing what they are doing,” he said in his Truth Social post. “If they do it again, we will move the stock to the New York Stock Exchange.”

"Why would NASDAQ go out of their way to halt Trump stock specifically?"

They didn't. The rules are the same for everyone. NASDAQ halts various stocks all the time, multiple times per day.

"How is he going to hold them liable?"

Um, they are already "liable", this is the contract Trump signed up for. He knew the rules, or he should have. He can't sue for NASDAQ enforcing the contract he signed.

And moving it won't help.

A Nasdaq spokesperson told CNN on Saturday that “single-stock trading pauses, also known as ‘Limit up/Limit down,’ are SEC-mandated market-wide mechanisms deployed across all US exchanges, designed to protect both companies and investors and minimize excess volatility in a single stock or the wider market.”

Joe Saluzzi, a market structure expert and co-founder of Themis Trading, told CNN in an email Saturday that “these types of halts are very common” and noted that such halts are mandated by federal regulators and have been in place since 2013 across the entire US exchange listed stock market.

“So, Mr. Trump’s threat about moving his stock from Nasdaq to NYSE would have no effect since both Nasdaq and NYSE both follow the same SEC rules,” he said.

Yep, it's a safety feature in case, for example, people try to tank Trump's stock price by selling it all off at once. Somehow, I doubt he'd complain about that, since he's the one most likely to do that.

So once again, Trump doesn't know how things work. Nothing was done to single him out. Oh, and after the spike from announcing he wouldn't sell...he will...he lost half of it. It's back up to $18, true, but even his big announcement/lie didn't help him a whole lot.

[ringpriest]

Trump announced today his intention to sell his stock.



"That's the opposite of...oh."

Yeah. Tell me you believe that. I sure don't.

It's been a while since I was up to speed on the relevant US law, but I'm pretty sure that publicly saying, "I will not see this stock" (which I both own a majority of, and have significant control over the performance of) and then selling the stock is a felony. Then again, Mr. Trump operates tangentially to the laws of the United States.

[Surfd]

Trump accuses NASDAQ of oh just read it.

Remember, people, this is the very stable genius who claims to have graduated with top honours from the Warton School of Business. Doesn't know how tariffs work. Doesn't know how the stock market works. At this point, the list of things he genuinely does not understand about finance and operating a business is likely longer than the list of things he does.

[Breccia]

It's been a while since I was up to speed on the relevant US law, but I'm pretty sure that publicly saying, "I will not see this stock" (which I both own a majority of, and have significant control over the performance of) and then selling the stock is a felony.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think so. "Your Honor, the market is volatile and my client changed his mind". He would never be convicted.

[PhaelixWW]

I know what you're saying, but I don't think so. "Your Honor, the market is volatile and my client changed his mind". He would never be convicted.

I'm not sure it works like that, either. He made his statement, and made it public. It had an effect on the stock price.

Even if he "changed his mind", I don't think he's allowed to profit off his own statement like that. At that point, his only option would still be not to sell, even if he wanted to, simply because he's the one who directly manipulated the stock price.

[Breccia]

I'm not sure it works like that, either. He made his statement, and made it public. It had an effect on the stock price.

That's how it should work, yes. No question there. But I don't see the SEC, or anyone really, being able to prove Trump intentionally lied to change the price. Although I would love to see them try - yet another trial for Trump, yet another handful of sand grinding his gears.

[PhaelixWW]

That's how it should work, yes. No question there. But I don't see the SEC, or anyone really, being able to prove Trump intentionally lied to change the price. Although I would love to see them try - yet another trial for Trump, yet another handful of sand grinding his gears.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the intent matters, at least not on the statement. He certainly would be selling with the intent of making a profit. And that profit would be based strictly upon statements that he made, regardless of his intent to sell or not at the moment of the statement.

More importantly, if he had no intention to sell, then he still didn't need to broadcast that fact. That he did so was clearly an effort to communicate with stock owners. When he makes that kind of concerted effort, I think it handcuffs his ability to then claim that he just "changed his mind".

Otherwise, this is just a pump and dump scheme.

It doesn't become a crime until he profits off it. (Well, okay, that's a gross oversimplification of this specific scenario. Obviously there are things he could say that would be a crime even when he said it.)

[Breccia]

What I'm saying is that I don't think the intent matters, at least not on the statement. He certainly would be selling with the intent of making a profit. And that profit would be based strictly upon statements that he made, regardless of his intent to sell or not at the moment of the statement.

More importantly, if he had no intention to sell, then he still didn't need to broadcast that fact. That he did so was clearly an effort to communicate with stock owners. When he makes that kind of concerted effort, I think it handcuffs his ability to then claim that he just "changed his mind".

Otherwise, this is just a pump and dump scheme.

Hmm, that'd be nice. Hopefully when he sells all his stock in a few days, this is immediately brought up.