Jump to content

The most sensible comment from a politician "I want them to stop dying"


Recommended Posts

Posted
21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hardly unexpected though. There was an opportunity to negotiate before the border was crossed, but we can thank Boris for destroying that option.

Absolutely. They had an agreement that it would all stop until Boris got involved.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

This claim is false. Austin Private Wealth did not short sell 12 million shares of Trump Media on July 12, 2024.   I will make it simple for you , please provide the  documentation that supports the claim. A nonsensical allegation from Instagram, Rumble or X is not acceptable.

 

Austin Private Wealth is an investment advisory company based in Austin, Texas.  US SEC records show that the firm filed a July 12 report that did show a "put" amount of 12 million on Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (DJT)  The put was for the quarter that ended June 30.  This was not a day or so before  before the PA event.  A PUT option is NOT short selling. 

 

A put option (or “put”) is a contract giving the option buyer the right, but not the obligation, to sell a set number of the declared securities at a predetermined price within a specified time frame. This predetermined price at which the buyer of the put option can sell the underlying security is called the strike price.  Ever since  DJT was launched, analysts have stated that it was overpriced and that the share price would be corrected down, and that is what occurred;    From April 8, 2024

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/04/08/trumps-stock-officially-down-50-since-first-day-peak--trumps-stake-down-over-3-billion/

Former President Donald Trump’s social media company’s stock market slide continued Monday, as the more than $10 billion valuation scored by Trump’s company’s just two weeks ago looks to be fleeting.  (It reduced by 50%)

 

The company is a meme stock. It generated $40 million in revenue in 2023. That  kind of revenue cannot support the stock price, which means that the stock price will fall.  This then brings us back to why larger investment firms would have registered their rights to sell securities. Prudent traders typically buy Puts when they expect the stock’s underlying asset to fall, i.e. the value of DJT corrects. The DJT stock performed as expected. It has been up and down like a toilet seat.  IMO the  small investors who bought the stock will lose much of their investment.

 

Every article I have seen on DJT says the stock is essentially worthless. Which is true of most stocks. when income is far outweighed by expenditure. It's another Trump con.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

no, that is incorrect. you have been fed a lie, 

Tell me something positive about Putin. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hardly unexpected though. There was an opportunity to negotiate before the border was crossed, but we can thank Boris for destroying that option.

 

No, no, this is a lie. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

No he did not. PM Johnson went to Ukraine in early April to show support to the country, particularly after the Russian war crimes were discovered. Ukraine was hurting and he did what a responsible international leader should do.

Yes. To show support, offer more weapons and cash and to keep the war going.

There is no excuse for war crimes but you have conveniently forgotten those that had been going on to the Russian speaking people of Donbass since 2014. What a surprise.

Maybe you should watch the interview of Putin and Tucker Carlson. Well worth a look if you want to informed.

Edited by rasg
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 hours ago, TedG said:

 

No, no, this is a lie. 

I'm agog to know why it's a lie. Don't keep us in suspenders, and tell us why it's a lie.

If you can't, it's true.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

No he did not. PM Johnson went to Ukraine in early April to show support to the country, particularly after the Russian war crimes were discovered. Ukraine was hurting and he did what a responsible international leader should do.

Given Britain had no treaty and far as I know no cultural or historical links with Ukraine, on what do you base that statement? Has the British PM made trips to other warn torn countries ( other than israel ) to offer support? If not, why not? Are they not hurting too? I'm sure the Congolese government would appreciate a visit from the British PM in their time of conflict.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt he allows the gender identity fiasco to have the time of day in Russia.

Show me on the doll where this hurt you.  

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, TedG said:

Show me on the doll where this hurt you.  

It hurts my head trying to understand that after 50,000 years of human evolutionary progress, some actually believe that a man can be a real woman and vise versa.

  • Confused 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It hurts my head trying to understand that after 50,000 years of human evolutionary progress, some actually believe that a man can be a real woman and vise versa.

You should worry about real problems. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 8/4/2024 at 7:07 AM, Patong2021 said:

The UK has had an historical relationship with Ukraine since 1945 when  the UK actively recruited  Ukraine workers.

LOL. You effort to manufacture a reason for Britain prolonging a war that is destroying Ukraine is noted.

Britain has a much longer and historical association with India, but they didn't rush down to give them support and millions of pounds worth of weapons when they were fighting China.

They also had a historical and cultural association with Hong Kong for over a hundred years, but they abandoned them to the Chinese with barely a wimper.

 

The only "ties" Britain has with other countries are the ones Britain wants. The rest can go hang themselves for all Britain cares, IMO.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
On 8/1/2024 at 1:48 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

No need to do any research if one believes everything from western MSM is the truth.

 

As opposed to either dismissing everything that appears in the MSM despite the evidence, for the simple reason that it does not fit your narrative or, alternatively, inventing 'facts' to 'support' that narrative.

  • Like 2
Posted
On 8/6/2024 at 4:41 AM, Patong2021 said:

The UK had a legal obligation to vacate Hong Kong once its lease expired. The UK had neither the legal, nor the moral standing to do anything other than vacate Hong Kong at the end of the lease, to do anything else would have meant that the UK was squatting and illegally occupying land that was not theirs. The UK went above and beyond its moral obligations when it offered various protections and  rights to Hong Kong residents. 

If you are going to try and repudiate what I said, do try and get it right. The British had Hong Kong in perpetuity. It was ceded to them in 1842 by the treaty of Nanking. The "lease" refers to the New Territories

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

Posted
On 8/6/2024 at 4:41 AM, Patong2021 said:

You have not provided a compelling case and instead have thrown out weak excuses for the Russian expansionist policy. Why not just be honest and state that you support Putin and the Russian hatred of Ukraine, are ok with the mass murders and torture of Ukraine non combatants and excuse the Russian sponsored shooting down of the Malaysian passenger airliner with its 173 victims.

Unless you can provide a quote from me supporting that you are lying.

Posted
14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless you can provide a quote from me supporting that you are lying.

 

It is not a lie to state that you have not provided a compelling case (to support Putin's invasion of Ukraine) and instead have thrown out weak excuses for the Russian expansionist policy.  Your comments oppose the provision of aid to Ukraine.  As a result I have asked why  you just not come clean and make clear that you support the war initiated by Putin, and as a result  support all of the  knock on results that I have  listed.

 

Are you now saying that you do not support the Russian position and that it is acceptable for Russia to have started a war with Ukraine and to have  supplied and directed militias that have attacked Ukraine?

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...