5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The free world supported the Ukrainian resistance  when Russia formally invaded in 2022 because Russia unilaterally attacked and invaded a smaller, weaker nation.

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

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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

OR Al Jazeera... right???

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.

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.

8 hours ago, TedG said:

Russia is evil and invaded Ukraine on a lie. 

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

7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

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

Tell me something positive about Putin. 

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. 

It's not. It was Boris that went to persuade Zelensky not to stop fighting.

 

 

13 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. That is not historically accurate. Russia  unilaterally annexed Crimea in 2014.  The invasion of Ukraine began on February 24th, 2022. The peace talks only began on February 28, 2022. These were held  outside of Lyakhavichy in Belarus. The talks continued for weeks as  fighting raged. The Russians has assumed that they would rush through Ukraine and  destroy the Ukraine military  quickly. The Russian position was a demand for unilateral surrender. As the war continued, the Russians realized that they would not have an easy time, and the peace talks then moved to Turkey in March.  As Russian atrocities like the Bucha  mass murderers and tortures, the Ukrainianians were forced into an untenable situation: They could not give in to the Russians who had undertaken these atrocities.

 

 

3 hours ago, rasg said:

It's not. It was Boris that went to persuade Zelensky not to stop fighting.

 

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.

6 hours ago, TedG said:

Tell me something positive about Putin. 

he is a world leader and far superior to any western one.

6 hours ago, TedG said:

 

No, no, this is a lie. 

no, that is the truth

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.

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.

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

They could not give in to the Russians who had undertaken these atrocities.

In the real world they can, and looks likely they will.

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.

 

15 hours ago, TedG said:

Tell me something positive about Putin. 

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

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.  

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.

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. 

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

You should worry about real problems. 

It is a real problem as it is evidence that humans are IMO too stupid to survive.

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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

He doesn't. If you watch any of his speeches he describes it as abhorrent as well as calling out the West for importing illegal immigrants in their millions. Putin loves his country unlike most of the Western leaders.

On 7/31/2024 at 1:19 PM, Lacessit said:

IMO I am not alone in questioning how wealthy Trump really is. Consider the following facts:

 

1/ Trump was the only President in US history to refuse to make his tax returns public.

 

2/ He could not come up with the $450 odd million to appeal the Engoron judgment. It was then reduced. Bond was arranged through a shell company which had less NTA than the new bond.

 

3/ He is using campaign funds to pay his legal expenses.

 

4/ He owes Deutsche Bank somewhere north of $400 million, which loans mostly fall due in the next couple of years.

 

5/ He owns 17 golf courses. Nearly all of them are losing money hand over fist. He can't get PGA endorsement for any of them.

 

6/ He has had six bankruptcies on his business record.

 

7/ Contrary to popular belief, many of the properties with the Trump name on them are not owned by him. They are leased.

 

What kind of billionaire flogs gold sneakers and bibles? True, he's excellent at grifting a low IQ base, but one has to wonder whether his purported wealth is not all smoke and mirrors.

Your obsession with trump is pretty clear from that post. Trump as the only one to not take the salary too, but to didn't mention that.

A classic case of <removed>. (Trump Derangement Syndrome). It's probably incurable.

On 8/1/2024 at 8:59 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

 

PM Johnson made 26 foreign visits during his time as PM.  The UK has had an historical relationship with Ukraine since 1945 when  the UK actively recruited  Ukraine workers. There were multiple visits between their leaders. Even PM Thatcher visited Ukraine. The UK could not have close relations with Ukraine while it was still under the yoke of the Soviet Union's tyranny.  However, once the Russian tyrants temporarily withdrew , relations  grew. You seem to forget that the UK was involved in the Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. 

 

Your fixation on  the PM's visits to the Ukraine are irrelevant.  PM Johnson visited 3 times over 2 years. prior to the war, President of Ukraine  president Victor Yuschenko visited the UK 3 times in one year.   The visits to the Ukraine were important because Russia had invaded Europe and violated previous agreements. The invasion put European allies at risk.  PM Johnson also visited nations who had been targeted by Russian military threats and incursions. These visits included; Poland,  Estonia, Sweden and Finland.  PM Johnson visited India at a time it was facing border  tensions with China and Pakistan. He also visited Rwanda and the UAE (2X).  

 

Why would you expect the PM of the UK to visit the Congo? The UK did not have a significant relationship with the country. Belgium and  France are the Congo's key allies.

 

The UK has 34 agreements and MoUs in effect with Ukraine dating back to 1991 when  diplomatic relations were restored after the Russian occupational forces influence  diminished. Until then, Russia did not allow Ukraine the freedom to establish relations with other nations without Russian approval.  https://uk.mfa.gov.ua/en/partnership/881-ukrajina-velika-britanija/593-dogovirno-pravova-baza-mizh-ukrajinoju-ta-velikoju-britanijeju

 

 

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.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

You stated that the UK had "no cultural or historical links with Ukraine" and I  showed that it did. And your response is to write that I have manufactured a reason. Great Britain is not prolonging  the  Russian invasion of Ukraine. The war  would end tomorrow if Russia agreed to suspend hostilities and withdrew from parts of Ukraine it illegally occupies. Russia attacked Ukraine.

 

Why are you bringing up India? It has no relevance.The border dispute is contained and does not involve China denying India's right to exist. India has neither requested nor expected weapons from the  UK. More importantly, India has a longstanding policy of refusing foreign aid, including disaster relief. Nor does India have a need for weapons from the UK. China has not  engaged in the mass murder and torture of Indian nationals. Both India and China are treating their dispute as a local border issue and have reduced tensions on their own without need of foreign involvement. Your position is patronizing to Indians and indicates a smug colonial attitude. 

 

It is condescending that you raise the issue of Hong Kong. Worse, it is an arrogant colonialist position.  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.  No other nation has ever agreed to protect 5 million + asians with the generous laws and financial support  that the UK provided. 

 

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.

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.

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

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.

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?