21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 12, 2024, 05:18:08 AM »It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.
Probably not.
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.
It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.
"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.
Wow, I hadn't heard that he did this.Because he didn't. The RNC is really bad at april fools jokes. And you're really bad at spotting them.https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1774840447380189243
Still winning.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wealth-tmtg-dwac-billionaires-stock-court-judgment-rich-list-2024-3
Truth Social trades on the Nasdaq Exchange under the stock ticker DJT, the initials of former President Donald J. Trump.
Did the bank send assessors?Also, isn't his networth increase due to Truth Social going public and the initial expected stock surge which will likely drop like a stone to its true worth soon after?
Yes. It's paper wealth in perhaps its most extreme form. Trump can't realize it and it's not going to help him pay his debts or cut any deals with financial institutions.
Ironically, this case proved he paid his debts to financial institutions. The fine is brought by the state claiming it was fraud to overstate the value of his property to the bank. The same bank that sent assessors to the property and accepted Trump's valuation of it. The debt to the bank is long paid off and they admitted they'd do business with him again.
This case is nothing more than government corruption. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.You'd think someone worth....*searches*
https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1
$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money.
Practically no one has the cash on hand to pay 11% of their net worth to settle a civil suit. Further, it makes very little sense to get upset at someone for overstating their net worth, then fine them more money than you know they can afford (because you were upset at them for overstating their worth!).
It's an obvious attempt to make Trump look bad and it was a huge waste of time. The only thing this case has done to Trump's support is cement his narrative that the "deep state" is out to get him.
It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.You'd think someone worth....*searches*
Maybe this is just a symptom of certain posters being gone or banned, but I'm surprised no one here is shrieking about the "bloodbath" comment that the media has been crying about. The situation seems to be a case of a single word taken out of context to declare that Trump was calling for a violent "bloodbath" if he loses.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/18/cnn-analyst-spreads-disinformation-to-get-feds-to-meddle-in-elections-against-trump/QuoteOn Saturday, Trump warned Americans of an economic “bloodbath” in the auto industry if Biden wins a second term.
“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico,” Trump said during an Ohio rally. “[China thinks] that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”
“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected,” the former president continued. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath.”
Democrats and the media, however, cut the clip to suggest the former president was simply saying there would “be a bloodbath” if he lost. All over TV screens and social media last weekend, they spread the deliberately false disinformation narrative that Trump had called for a violent “bloodbath” if he loses.
Comedy routines involving "random" ordinary people saying stupid things should never be taken as a representative sample of anything or in any way meaningful. It's a very real possibility that these interviews were entirely scripted and these people were paid to take part in the charade. And if they weren't scripted, they were almost certainly carefully selected from dozens of other interviews. If you spend hours and hours talking to lots and lots of people, you're bound to eventually run into someone of picturesque stupidity.Well, that's all fair.
But Trump's going to get in again, isn't he? The number of people who think like the above are not insignificant. We see people on here posting like it. It doesn't matter what is said or done, the only think that matters is who said or did it. Trump good. Biden bad. Simple as that.
Well, good to know he's really really bad at siting sources. And context since he was just talking about disinfecting rooms with light. But hey, good on you for proving a point.Source?https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
"On April 20, three days before Trump made his remarks, pharmaceutical company Aytu Bioscience announced that it had signed an exclusive license for worldwide rights to the Healight Platform Technology under research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."
The different answers based on the same words. But as Honk said, was likely staged or carefully picked.What hypocrisy?QuoteI suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.
So you admit that its not what's said but who says it. Love the honesty on your hypocracy.
There is nothing that old paedo fuck could ever say that would be remotely truthful or worthwhile.
Source? Because the paper was published in 2021 and Trump's words were in 2020.What do you mean it was done after Trump said it?Sigh.The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron
This is why democracy is a terrible idea.
Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?
https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Nice find.
I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point. If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia? Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?
A pharmaceutical company made mention of it three days prior to Trump stating it.
I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.
Sigh.The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron
This is why democracy is a terrible idea.
Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?
https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Despite his party all saying they would vote no to remove before seeing any evidence?You are correct, I am.It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.
Well, thats a bad ruling. Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.
Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.
It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.