Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Either way, I'm sure that he's taking the tax write off.Take this with a grain of salt because I don't have a link handy, but I saw a headline when I was toilet-scrolling through the news earlier that I'm pretty sure said the returns showed he did not donate his presidential salary for a couple years he was in office. So he might not have.
Neither Trump, nor the company that released these NFTs, have any reason to care, really. They already got paid (assuming they didn't just buy all these up themselves, which they almost definitely did for at least some of the transactions), and will continue to get paid any time they resell no matter how much they tank, and all of that is just free money from beginning to end. Stolen artwork, used to childish looking cards, sold to fools with a recurring revenue stream to keep money trickling in that no one has to work for any more.Maybe, maybe not. I doubt that it'll be long before Trump NFTs tank like just about every other NFT.They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.And they sold out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.
The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.
It's built into the contract that governs the NFT collection and is (was?) a pretty common practice among NFT creators. Any time they are sold, it can take a percentage of the sell price and give that to the wallet that the NFT originated from. According to OpenSea, where they are listed, that's a 10% commission for everything in this collection.10% commission on every resale? How does that work?They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.And they sold out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.
The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.
They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.And they sold out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.
The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.
This documentary was made possible by Goldco. Protect your wealth by investing in precious metals, and use THIS link to receive up to $10,000 in free silver for qualified accounts: <link redacted>
The Stew Peters Network would not be possible without the loyal and endearing support of all our sponsors. There is something for EVERYONE!
HUGE Black Friday Sales this week, so please support our sponsors who make it possible for the Stew Peters Network to give away ALL of our films and content for FREE!
BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL! 25% Off EVERYTHING!
Keep your brain sharp with individualized supplements, GO TO: <link redacted>
Prepare your family for famine and shortages by purchasing food through: <link redacted> Use Promocode STEW for great discounts.
Support anti-vax activism, free clinic care for the vaccine injured, and IGF1 for Men’s supplements visit: <link redacted>
Protect yourself from Vaccine Shedding, chemtrails, and toxic air. Personalized Protection that WORKS! Visit <link redacted> Use Promocode STEW for 10% OFF
CACOA is a super food that Big Agriculture doesn’t want you to know about: Keto, Paleo, and ALL NATURAL COCAO. Buy it now: <link redacted>
The Solution to Pain Management that Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know about: CBD! Go to: <link redacted> Use Promocode STEW20 for 20% off
Trying to lose weight? It starts with your gut health. Get your metabolism back in order, cleanse with this protocol: <link redacted>
The neat thing is, if you go back and look at that page and just scroll up a little bit from where you seem to have gotten lost, there's a whole bunch more data. Take a peek. You might notice a thing that happens in midterms normally. And you might also notice that the Dems did pretty well in this midterm when viewed against the entire history of midterm elections in the US. And, as was pointed out, they also did better than most when viewed against the last 20 years of midterms. So that's history viewed through both from afar (at least in US terms, we aren't that old of a country) and when viewed over a much shorter timeframe.Have a glance at history for a moment. You aren't making the strong case that you seem to think you are. Remember, history is only an internet search away!
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/seats-congress-gainedlost-the-presidents-party-mid-term-elections
Yes, I posted that link on the last page. That page shows that number of seats an incumbent president's party wins during the midterms is directly related to the president's approval numbers. According to that page George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had terms where their approval numbers were at 65 or above, and so their parties gained seats during the midterms. During one of Bill Clinton's terms he dipped in approval to 48 near the midterms, and his party lost seats in that one. During one of George W. Bush's terms he had an approval of 37, and likewise lost seats. Obama had approval numbers in the 40's during both his terms for his midterms, so his party lost seats in each instance. There is a direct correlation to this relationship.
“I still believe we’re going to have 52-plus. That’s where I believe,” Scott said Saturday. “I think if you look at the numbers, I think we can do better, way better than 52. But we’ll see. It’s all tied to voter turnout.”
Yeah, both of those factors seems to have driven a lot of people to go vote in an election they might normally have stayed home for. Strangely, I did see a statistic earlier that white women turned out more strongly for Republican candidates this year than in previous cycles. That is a demographic that I would have thought would move in the Democratic party's direction over the Roe verdict, but they zigged instead of zagging.I think we have Roe to thank.And gen Z showing up.
So you don't actually know how modern thermonuclear weapons work, then? Perhaps this infographic from the very same wikipedia article you obviously read will be helpful to revisit?I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?
"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
I suppose it comes down to what you may consider a "large amount". It's all made up concepts, anyway, as I've said before, none of these designs are real.
I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?
First Lady Jill Biden was also seated directly next to Ignazio Cassis, the president of Switzerland.Another injustice that never would have happened under a Trump presidency! The disrespect is now being visited upon our key allies?! It's unconscionable.
I mean, it's an extremely generous interpretation of their words, I am by no means trying to stand in their corner and champion that video as a paragon of excellence in science communication, but I think it might still be a fair interpretation. They need to be better though.If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.
Funny, this didn't even occur to me. I was too fixated on the colors, not the white stripes. So yeah, if this is the case, the guy's statement kinda makes sense now.