Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Logwyn]

Insider trading anyone?

https://newrepublic.com/post/193860/...onaires-richer

"The day’s biggest individual winner should come as no surprise: Elon Musk made a whopping $36 billion as Tesla stock soared up 23 percent."

[Edge-]

Insider trading anyone?

https://newrepublic.com/post/193860/...onaires-richer

"The day’s biggest individual winner should come as no surprise: Elon Musk made a whopping $36 billion as Tesla stock soared up 23 percent."

That's expected. His wealth is incredibly tied to Tesla, so when it gains any meaningful amount it's going to be a huge boost to him. Just as when it drops in value he loses upwards of hundreds of billions in wealth as he has so far.

That's not insider trading, just the result of someone holding a ton of valuable-but-volatile stock that's also held by a lot of people who haven't given a shit about the companies fundamentals for over a decade and simply will its value higher because they want to also be rich.

[Tech614]

Insider trading anyone?

https://newrepublic.com/post/193860/...onaires-richer

"The day’s biggest individual winner should come as no surprise: Elon Musk made a whopping $36 billion as Tesla stock soared up 23 percent."

I don't think you understand what insider trading is.

Musk himself is not trading his personal stock in TSLA, his net worth went up because the stock itself went up.

There was definitely some insider trading that happened, but stock Musk already owned increasing in value is not insider trading, it's not even trading cause he didn't move any TSLA stock or buy any.

[tehdang]

And you could say that about a person’s right to identify by the pronouns they wish, or whom they choose to marry, or a woman’s reproductive choices...

And sometimes I wish LGBT+ and gender identity cultural issues did not go against the website's rules to discuss. Especially since you consider this a "moral ground." It's a very pretty thing to believe that the other person has no moral ground to argue from, when it comes to subjects related to the regulation of shower heads!

People and corporations wouldn’t have “chosen” to self-ban DDT, the government had to do it. People and corporations wouldn’t have chosen to discontinue asbestos, or ozone-degrading aerosols, or dumping toxic chemicals or any number of things that corporations have a vested interest in maintaining (up to and including intentional misinformation and lobbying,) the government steps in for the common good and outlaws those things.

Let me state, for the record, that showerhead water flow regulations I do view as a little less government-critical-to-regulate as the claims against DDT, asbestos, and CFCs. The government is safe to let consumers choose. You haven't really challenged that, except by insinuation to "where water is a precious resource," which I presume would govern rationing of all water consumption, not making showerheads illegal.

What good reason?

I thought it was obvious from the satire at reversing the regulations that people thought so little of them that institution/reversal was a trifling thing. Fine. Let's leave it at government nonintervention.

I'd say ongoing regulatory pushes towards conservation for both consumers/citizens and agencies/companies, especially given the impending fresh water crisis facing many parts of the US, is pretty good, personally. It may not always be popular, but nor were seatbelts when they were first introduced, for example.

I'm sure you can bring a proposal that addresses any water crisis by debating consumption limits, especially as applies to watering lawns and the whole. For the whole country, though? Hardly. Federal government regulations are not tailored to desert climates.

But for what reason beyond, "Let people choose."? That reasoning stands to lift expansive regulations that are in personal and societal self-interest, yet I doubt we'll see it considered beyond this very weirdly narrow application of it. That's not much of a compelling reason to me, personally.

Showerheads are such a small thing that reverting to a basic stance that government shouldn't be in the business of inserting itself between willing consumer and manufacturer is desirable. If there were a compelling reason for Obama to outlaw them, then I think that would be the debate. Freedom as a basic desirable outcome is a kind of default; government intervention in markets is the one that needs compelling reasons.

Narrow application is an obvious consequence of a narrow subject matter.

[Edge-]

I thought it was obvious from the satire at reversing the regulations that people thought so little of them that institution/reversal was a trifling thing. Fine. Let's leave it at government nonintervention.

That's a very strange non-answer.

I'm sure you can bring a proposal that addresses any water crisis by debating consumption limits, especially as applies to watering lawns and the whole. For the whole country, though? Hardly. Federal government regulations are not tailored to desert climates.

There are plenty of nationally applicable regulations, though. Shower needs in New York City aren't radically different than shower needs in Phoenix Arizona in terms of "galls of water-per-minute" needed to get your body clean, I imagine. So I'm unsure why you bring up desert climates or outdoor laws when talking about showers?

And it would hardly be the first time. The Energy Policy Act set maximum flow rates on many fixtures back in 92 as national standards, for example - https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/fi...urce-guide.pdf

Showerheads are such a small thing that reverting to a basic stance that government shouldn't be in the business of inserting itself between willing consumer and manufacturer is desirable.

Everything is a small thing. Until you suddenly start talking about tens/hundreds of millions of those small things, then that's fairly considerable.

And the government has tons of incredibly compelling interests in inserting themselves in between willing consumers and manufacturers. Like ensuring that the manufacturers aren't producing toxic or otherwise dangerous products unless clearly labeled. Or ensuring basic hygiene standards are met at food establishments and the like.

[Bwgmon]

https://x.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1910463186987606318

BREAKING: A 9-0 Supreme Court UPHOLDS a court order requiring the Trump administration to bring a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, back to the U.S. after mistakenly deporting him to El Salvador. Deadline TBD.

I see three options for what might happen here:

• He comes home, is reunited with his family, and between his apparent physical condition and any potential interviews he gives on his time there, casts a spotlight on the conditions in El Salvador and what Trump and ICE have been salivating over subjecting human beings to.
• He is confirmed dead, with or without a body being returned, which raises more suspicion over how dismal the conditions must be and likely results in Kilmar's name being immortalized as a rallying call among Trump's detractors.
• Trump defies the courts, and this is the moment where shit hits the proverbial fan.

[Breccia]

I thought it was obvious from the satire

"I was being sarcastic" is something Trump, and therefore you, say when caught in a lie.

[SAY HER NAME]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...1ab56107470%20

9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court on the Maryland father that the Trump admin has wronged him. The Trump admin must facilitate his release. Some issues here what does it mean release? And what are the limits on what the district court can order?

The ruling however makes it clear that the Trump admin must cooperate with Judge Xinis on getting this person proper due process. There is still the chance that the Salvadoran government just says no btw. But the supreme court is clear on this and has never been more clear as it has in any prior case, the Trump admin made a serious mistake and all the arguments to deport him are stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

https://x.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1910463186987606318



I see three options for what might happen here:

• He comes home, is reunited with his family, and between his apparent physical condition and any potential interviews he gives on his time there, casts a spotlight on the conditions in El Salvador and what Trump and ICE have been salivating over subjecting human beings to.
• He is confirmed dead, with or without a body being returned, which causes suspicion over how dismal the conditions must be and likely results in Kilmar's name being immortalized as a rallying call among Trump's detractors.
• Trump defies the courts, and this is the moment where shit hits the proverbial fan.

Beaten by a minute!!!!

I wonder this too. Its insane the Trump admin has fought so hard to not amend what by their own admission is a mistake. So something is happening here. Guess we will find out what

[We are covfefe]

Over/under on him openly saying lol no to the courts?

[Polgara]

I should be able to choose what shower head I want it's called freedom.

Also show me your genitals I need to make sure you are wearing the correct clothing.

Never change conservatives. No seriously don't the blatant hypocrisies are fucking hilarious.

[Poopymonster]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...1ab56107470%20

9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court on the Maryland father that the Trump admin has wronged him. The Trump admin must facilitate his release. Some issues here what does it mean release? And what are the limits on what the district court can order?

The ruling however makes it clear that the Trump admin must cooperate with Judge Xinis on getting this person proper due process. There is still the chance that the Salvadoran government just says no btw. But the supreme court is clear on this and has never been more clear as it has in any prior case, the Trump admin made a serious mistake and all the arguments to deport him are stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



Beaten by a minute!!!!

I wonder this too. Its insane the Trump admin has fought so hard to not amend what by their own admission is a mistake. So something is happening here. Guess we will find out what

It looks horrible to bring home a dead body compared to saying "We can't get him back".
The lawsuit. Ye gods, Devon Stone, MMO-Champs second favorite lawyer, is gonna have a field day with it.

[Edge-]

https://x.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1910463186987606318



I see three options for what might happen here:

• He comes home, is reunited with his family, and between his apparent physical condition and any potential interviews he gives on his time there, casts a spotlight on the conditions in El Salvador and what Trump and ICE have been salivating over subjecting human beings to.
• He is confirmed dead, with or without a body being returned, which raises more suspicion over how dismal the conditions must be and likely results in Kilmar's name being immortalized as a rallying call among Trump's detractors.
• Trump defies the courts, and this is the moment where shit hits the proverbial fan.

Is it bad I'm surprised Alito and Thomas even agreed?

[SAY HER NAME]

It looks horrible to bring home a dead body compared to saying "We can't get him back".
The lawsuit. Ye gods, Devon Stone, MMO-Champs second favorite lawyer, is gonna have a field day with it.
Speaking of which, anyone checked on our first favorite lawyer? Haven't seen him posting lately. Probably up to his ballsack in bullshit but still.

I still have questions on why the Trump admin argued that they are allowed to deport american citizens to foreign countries and not have anything happen

[gondrin]

Insider trading anyone?

https://newrepublic.com/post/193860/...onaires-richer

"The day’s biggest individual winner should come as no surprise: Elon Musk made a whopping $36 billion as Tesla stock soared up 23 percent."

That has very little to do with insider trading itself. Everytime Tesla stock goes up or down $1 in value, Musk gains or loses about $410 million in net worth. Because he owns about 410 million shares of it. So when it drops $20 a share, he loses about $8 billion. If it goes up $40 a share, he gains about $32 billion. In fact, if Musk were to sell his shares in mass, he actively would cause the opposite effect he would want and that is he would actively tank the stock price.

[Iphie]

Is it bad I'm surprised Alito and Thomas even agreed?

9-0, you gotta screw up real bad if this court unanimously agrees.

[Breccia]

This is barely a meme. Trump said it was a big strong thing he did applying them, then tried to say it was a big strong thing to reverse his own bad idea. The Onion really does have a hard time coming up with fictional humor these days.

[Rasulis]

Researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health have been told they cannot attend scientific conferences and meetings without official permission, even if they pay their own way and go during time off, three current and former NIH scientists told Reuters.

That's a new one.

- - - Updated - - -

Apple airlifted 600 tons of iPhones to the U.S. to try to beat Trump’s tariffs as customers scramble to secure devices before possible price increases

- - - Updated - - -

This is a good one.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement declared that its agents were diligently at work enforcing “400+ federal laws” to prevent the following from crossing “the border illegally”: people, money, products and ideas, in a post to social media site X that was deleted hours later on Thursday.

[s_bushido]

It looks horrible to bring home a dead body compared to saying "We can't get him back".

What justification could they possibly use to say "we can't get him back," though...that wouldn't look just as bad as a dead body?

[Logwyn]

That's expected. His wealth is incredibly tied to Tesla, so when it gains any meaningful amount it's going to be a huge boost to him. Just as when it drops in value he loses upwards of hundreds of billions in wealth as he has so far.

That's not insider trading, just the result of someone holding a ton of valuable-but-volatile stock that's also held by a lot of people who haven't given a shit about the companies fundamentals for over a decade and simply will its value higher because they want to also be rich.

But I'm looking at as a net gain.. not he lost... then he gained it back?

[Breccia]

What justification could they possibly use to say "we can't get him back," though...that wouldn't look just as bad as a dead body?

That would really depend on how he died.

Remember, Giuliani refused to turn over his financial records when sued, and Trump never once showed his taxes. These are people that are committing acts so vile, they would rather leave it up to our imagination than tell the truth.