[Lord Dave]

"The former president owns a majority stake in the company and his stake was valued at about $2.9 billion on Monday, down from a peak of over $6 billion after its debut on its trading debut."

It sounds like Trump's stake is still worth billions. This still appears to be his most profitable venture, and appears to be a doing lot better than most business ventures.

Which he can not sell until September.  So its not very helpful wealth to have.


That being said, I think it's telling how $3 billion(after a 50% loss) is his most successful venture.  Of course if it loses more value over the next two weeks, might underperform his casinos.

[Tom Bishop]

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

[Lord Dave]

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not. 

[Roundy]

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not.

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

[Lord Dave]

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not.

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

I believe in heart attacks from high stress, poor diet, and lack of exercise.
But god damnit, if that hasn't happed yet.

[Rushy]

In other news, poll numbers for Trump aren't looking too hot. He's losing ground in every poll. Sad!

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-west-vs-stein

The 2-way race now puts him at only 0.2 points ahead on average. The 5-way race is now 1.9 points ahead on average. Keep in mind that Trump has always outperformed his polling, including 2020.

[Lord Dave]

So.... does that mean that some of the non-trump republicans would vote for Biden instead?

[honk]

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

It's been a common tactic of Trump supporters over the past several years to try and lump anyone who's criticized or spoken out against Trump into one "team," and then act like there's an expectation that anyone else opposed to Trump has to somehow answer for the misbehavior or gaffes of any other Trump critics. They've done it with Louise Mensch, Piers Morgan, Bill Maher, Jussie Smollet, Brian and Ed Krassenstein, and especially Michael Avenatti, to give just a few examples. Just recently you might remember Tom doing it with Keith Olbermann. Obviously Trump and his team don't have a monopoly on stupidity or sleaze, and nobody here needs to defend or answer for whichever delusional people were confidently predicting Trump's downfall.

[Rushy]

So.... does that mean that some of the non-trump republicans would vote for Biden instead?

I doubt it's Republicans switching. It's likely independents seesawing between Trump and Biden based on whatever the most recent headlines are.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't think this tactic of defaming Trump is working out for you guys.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/voters-cnn-trump-unfit-vote-for-him-anyway

Voters shock CNN when they reveal who they're voting for after saying Trump is unfit for office: 'But I'm voting for him'

APRIL 17, 2024

Democrats love to harp on Donald Trump's moral fitness, arguing his criminal proceedings and moral character render him unfit for the presidency.

CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman recently spoke with voters in Roberts County, Texas, where he discovered that voters agree with that argument. But at the end of the day, those same voters admitted they will still support Trump over President Joe Biden on Election Day.

Voter Kay Swart described Trump's moral character as "terrible," something that "can't get much lower than it is."

"He continues to make crazy comments about being a dictator first day and repercussions against people who he feels have wronged him," Swart continued.

But, to Tuchman's surprise, neither Trump's moral character nor the possibility that he will be criminally convicted will deter Swart or her husband, Ron, from voting for Trump.

"I don't think he's fit, but I'm voting for him," Kay Swart said.

Ron, moreover, agreed that Trump "most definitely" possess poor ethics and morals. But in his view, anything is better than Biden.

"I feel like as wrong as it's going to be to have [Trump] for president, he's still going to be a lot better president for the United States than what we're going with Joe Biden and the Democrats," Ron Swart said. "I really feel like that we are not going be able to survive another four years of the Democrats in charge."

[Lord Dave]

I don't think this tactic of defaming Trump is working out for you guys.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/voters-cnn-trump-unfit-vote-for-him-anyway

Voters shock CNN when they reveal who they're voting for after saying Trump is unfit for office: 'But I'm voting for him'

APRIL 17, 2024

Democrats love to harp on Donald Trump's moral fitness, arguing his criminal proceedings and moral character render him unfit for the presidency.

CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman recently spoke with voters in Roberts County, Texas, where he discovered that voters agree with that argument. But at the end of the day, those same voters admitted they will still support Trump over President Joe Biden on Election Day.

Voter Kay Swart described Trump's moral character as "terrible," something that "can't get much lower than it is."

"He continues to make crazy comments about being a dictator first day and repercussions against people who he feels have wronged him," Swart continued.

But, to Tuchman's surprise, neither Trump's moral character nor the possibility that he will be criminally convicted will deter Swart or her husband, Ron, from voting for Trump.

"I don't think he's fit, but I'm voting for him," Kay Swart said.

Ron, moreover, agreed that Trump "most definitely" possess poor ethics and morals. But in his view, anything is better than Biden.

"I feel like as wrong as it's going to be to have [Trump] for president, he's still going to be a lot better president for the United States than what we're going with Joe Biden and the Democrats," Ron Swart said. "I really feel like that we are not going be able to survive another four years of the Democrats in charge."

I'm not sure that's the lesson you should take from that, Tom.

What I take from it is that even in a Republican heavy county, Republicans will vote party lines no matter how unfit the president is.  Party over country, morality, and God.

Kinda proves the liberal point.

[Tom Bishop]

Correct. Republicans see traditionalism and conservatism as a moral and fiscal vote. This is why Democrats have failed in defaming Trump.

It is not enough to defame him. You have provided something better.

In previous eras Democrats would have taken the tactic to move many of their positions back towards the center, or even to the right, and include their own specific pet liberal topics which have mass voter appeal. This is why it is said that Democrats were more conservative at various points in time. They sought to match the success of their opponents with some added liberalism, largely focusing on the strength and appeal of their positions.

[Lord Dave]

Correct. Republicans see traditionalism and conservatism as a moral and fiscal vote. This is why Democrats have failed in defaming Trump.

It is not enough to defame him. You have provided something better.

In previous eras Democrats would have taken the tactic to move many of their positions back towards the center, or even to the right, and include their own specific pet liberal topics which have mass voter appeal. This is why it is said that Democrats were more conservative at various points in time. They sought to match the success of their opponents with some added liberalism, largely focusing on the strength and appeal of their positions.

But he is defamed.  You said so yourself that they seem him as unfit and immoral.  It just doesn't matter.  If Satan were a Republican, they'd vote for him.

So what does it say about a group that would vote for anyone except a democrat?

[Tom Bishop]

If Democrats were more conservative and traditionalist like they were at some points in history, they would probably see voting Democrat as a viable option.

Joe Biden in his early political days existed at a time when liberals were extremely pro-police, anti-illegal immigration, and claimed to promote religous morality. They were also anti-gay marriage and you can find plenty of old videos of Democrats speaking against gay marriage.

To get republicans to vote democrat all they have to do is do what they have done for decades; warp their political positions to what is necessary.

[Lord Dave]

So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.


Wow... What a Tautology. >_>

Tho I think the issue is that all those who decided that Trump is unfit didn't bother finding a fit conservative candidate.  Or couldn't....

[Roundy]

So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.

Tom gonna Tom.

[Lord Dave]

So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.

Tom gonna Tom.

Yeah but it demonstrates that Republicans don't care about anything except their policies being supported.  Realistically we could put up an AI that just scans conservative sites for opinions and does that.  Would be way less hassle and embarassment than Trump.

But then I wonder: if all that matters is policy and party, why Trump and not someone else?


(Also it shows that any call of dems being immoral isn't a factor)

[Roundy]

So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.

Tom gonna Tom.

Yeah but it demonstrates that Republicans don't care about anything except their policies being supported.  Realistically we could put up an AI that just scans conservative sites for opinions and does that.  Would be way less hassle and embarassment than Trump.

Black Mirror basically did an episode around this premise.

[Tom Bishop]

So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.

Correct. See what Obama did in regards to his opposition of gay marriage up until 2012. In years prior to 2012 he took the position that he opposed gay marriage. In 2012 he supported it.

It was revealed that he didn't personally oppose gay marriage in his first 2008 presidential campaign and the years leading up to 2012. He opposed gay marriage as part of his political platform prior to 2012 because that is what the people wanted. Some people say that he lied for political points, but a more charitable interpretation is that Obama wanted to be president for everyone and had an obligation to that position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/10/axelrod-says-obama-lied-about-opposing-gay-marriage-its-another-convenient-evolution/






Obama himself says that he always personally supported gay marriage before 2012 and had opposed as part of his political platform because he was taking "a whole bunch of religious sensitivities" into account.

https://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/obamas_dubious_marriage_equality_claim_why_hes_still_bullsing/

Obama framed his erstwhile position as a good-faith effort to marry his commitment to gay equality with a respect for religiously-based opposition to same-sex nuptials.

"I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there," he said.

"So my thinking at the time was that civil unions — which I always supported — was a sufficient way of squaring the circle. That, OK, we won’t call it 'marriage,' we’ll call it 'civil unions,' same-sex couples will have the same rights as anybody else, but the word 'marriage' with its religious connotations historically would be preserved for marriages between men and women," Obama continued

[Tom Bishop]

Apparently the Congressional Left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.



https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2024/04/19/will-dems-bailout-of-johnson-turn-bitter-00132333