What is Trump really trying to tell us in his latest speech?

[0ffshore360]

9 hours ago, Yagoda said:

How does in feel to be stuck at the bottom of the losers cesspool looking up, screaming he lied, he lied, he lied while 70 million Americans excrete down 

IMHO chances many a current Trump voter/believer will be in a position to answer your question probably well within the next 4 years.

The ludicrous social media proclamations about "already " enacted  policy is depressing  enough without acknowledging the fact that global reactivity to the singular  horrific fact Trump is yet again going to inflict his or the extremist ideals of sycophantic coat tail graspers is creating serious potential for backlash on a scale no Leader would rationally invite on self or Nation.

The USA that Trump expects to "control" as of 2025 will suffer isolationism in every measure that he will perceive as a success rather than the ruin of a society that allowed itself to shoot itself in the foot!

Trade partners of any significance have or already are relegating US significance.

US agriculture is undergoing a massive hit equivalent to that it inflicted on the USSR back  when.

Drill drill drill for low grade shale oil that needs transportation to insufficient refineries capable of processing is just  one illusory promise.

While it may be correct that such as  Biden and the Democrat political approach as been to blindly prop up the assumed continuance of the contrived superiority of US hegemony the GOP induction of Trump as an alternative  is simply suicidal.

 

 

 

[frank83628]

7 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Total coincidence her husband bought 1mn just a few weeks before subsidy vote by Congress on chips.

 

 

Yeah, so much so there is a site following her trades!!

but folks like Candide block those things out,  or perhaps they just don't hear about it on their MSM channels

[atpeace]

4 hours ago, candide said:

Does your comment changes what Trump is and what he has done? No!

He's still talking B.S., as the OP shows once more! 😃

No. but your comment is a perfect example of why the democratic party took a beating in this election. I get it - Trump can be offensive and he lies.  Why would so many Americans support such a person?  I disliked him immensely in 2016 but in 2024 he seems the best option.  Maybe he has become a slightly better man but the main issue is how democrats let their party be controlled by elites and the far left.  

[candide]

37 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Total coincidence her husband bought 1mn just a few weeks before subsidy vote by Congress on chips.

 

 

The act was just a reconciliation of two bills previously voted in February and March by the house and the senate.. Nothing unexpected in it.

 

When did her husband resell them? How much profit did he get from it?

Edited 3 hours ago by candide

[candide]

26 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Yeah, so much so there is a site following her trades!!

but folks like Candide block those things out,  or perhaps they just don't hear about it on their MSM channels

Right. She discloses every trade by her or her husband. It's transparent. Anyone is free to buy the same shares. Anyone is also free to complain to the SEC.

You are welcome to try to use this information for posting your usual baseless claims! 😀

[candide]

28 minutes ago, atpeace said:

No. but your comment is a perfect example of why the democratic party took a beating in this election. I get it - Trump can be offensive and he lies.  Why would so many Americans support such a person?  I disliked him immensely in 2016 but in 2024 he seems the best option.  Maybe he has become a slightly better man but the main issue is how democrats let their party be controlled by elites and the far left.  

There are other long threads about why the Dems lost.

 

This thread is about whether Trump was just talking B.S. at this occasion or he had something specific in mind.

 

I think he was just talking B.S., as usual. Feel free to give your own opinion about this event.

Edited 3 hours ago by candide

[BigStar]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

I'm not going to read this entire thread but there's a lot of chatter on the internet about a "secret" Tump has about the election, including something about the Brunson case. 

 

Desperate lib chatter demonizing (as we see here) and fearmongering as usual over a big nothing. Explained not after Trump caused all the pearl clutching.

 

Speaker Mike Johnson reveals Trump's 'little secret' ahead of Election Day after Dems panic

 

[frank83628]

46 minutes ago, candide said:

Right. She discloses every trade by her or her husband. It's transparent. Anyone is free to buy the same shares. Anyone is also free to complain to the SEC.

You are welcome to try to use this information for posting your usual baseless claims! 😀

Yes, she is totally fine with what many would class and insider trading, she even said so on live camera, how you would bitch n cry if it were DJT or any of his family..... bring on the retribution!!

[gamb00ler]

5 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Hitler, fascist, psychopath? True. Probably should give those up. Didn't work.

 

 

Hateful and seduced by the DNC and their donors to believe the propaganda lie that Trump was convicted. Pathetic. No wonder you're so misguided. He's a defamation suit going against the media on that point. 🙂

 

 

are you one of those denying that Trump's status is that of convicted felon?

[BigStar]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

are you one of those denying that Trump's status is that of convicted felon?

 

Yes. He's not yet convicted, so he can't be a convicted felon either. You can figure this out independently by common sense, if you had any. If he were convicted, then he'd immediately appeal his conviction. He isn't appealing because he can't. 

 

[gamb00ler]

2 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Yes. He's not yet convicted, so he can't be a convicted felon either. You can figure this out independently by common sense, if you had any. If he were convicted, then he'd immediately appeal his conviction. He isn't appealing because he can't. 

 

You should read the definition of convicted that is used in the state of New York.  It doesn't agree with you.  Show me actual proof that he is not convicted.  The fact that he hasn't appealed is not proof of anything.

Edited 2 hours ago by gamb00ler

[Yellowtail]

Just now, gamb00ler said:

You should read the definition of convicted that is used in the state of New York.  It doesn't agree with you.

Yes it does.

 

[candide]

27 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Yes, she is totally fine with what many would class and insider trading, she even said so on live camera, how you would bitch n cry if it were DJT or any of his family..... bring on the retribution!!

You have no proof of insider trading

 It's the usual RW propaganda which you are reproducing, as usual. 😀

[BigStar]

Just now, gamb00ler said:

You should read the definition of convicted that is used in the state of New York.  It doesn't agree with you.

 

In fact, it does, consistent with Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). So you're stuck wondering why Trump isn't appealing his conviction. 🙂 

 

[gamb00ler]

5 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

In fact, it does, consistent with Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). So you're stuck wondering why Trump isn't appealing his conviction. 🙂 

 

the only thing correct in your argument is that at this point Trump cannot appeal.  He has to wait for sentencing to start the appeal process.   BUT.... he is convicted, just not yet sentenced.  An Illinois case is 100% irrelevant.

 

For the New York state's definition of convicted see here:

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyc/criminal/glossary.shtml#:~:text=Conviction - When the court enters,felony%2C misdemeanor%2C or violation.

 

Your "internet friends" aren't really your friends.... they're your puppetmasters.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by gamb00ler

[BigStar]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

You have no proof of insider trading

 It's the usual RW propaganda which you are reproducing, as usual. 😀

 

Nancy Pelosi's Portfolio Returned Over 700% In a Decade: Copy Her Investment Strategy Here

 

Hee. Problem with Pelosi trackers is that she doesn't have to report them quickly enough. 45, 80 days later is too late to cash in with her insider speed.

[BigStar]

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

the only thing correct in your argument is that at this point Trump cannot appeal.  He has to wait for sentencing to start the appeal process.   BUT.... he is convicted, just not yet sentenced.  An Illinois case is 100% irrelevant

 

 

100% relevant, as a criminal conviction in NY isn't final until it's been affirmed on direct appeal (or until the defendant waives the right to appeal), as shown in the Illinois case. After sentencing, there's also judgment. All you got is a jury verdict, DUH. The judge may even throw out the case and has the right to, since there's no conviction.

Edited 1 hour ago by BigStar

[BigStar]

37 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

For the New York state's definition of convicted see here:

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyc/criminal/glossary.shtml#:~:text=Conviction - When the court enters,felony%2C misdemeanor%2C or violation.

 

Superficial glossary.

 

(k) Judgment.

(1) In General. In the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court's findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32

 

Technically, Trump isn't "found guilty" until a judgment of guilt by the judge. Again, all you got is the jury's verdict. And his "conviction" won't be final until the direct appeal.

 

37 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

Your "internet friends" aren't really your friends.... they're your puppetmasters.

 

 

Yah yah. When he's "convicted," then he can appeal.

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BigStar

[rumak]

The anti Trump group here will never change .   Fortunately a large majority in the States finally had seen enough.  Enough of the so obvious lies and lawfare of a tyrannical government .  I actually was surprised .  Certainly these anti Trumpers here will not own up to possibly being the victims of a great media conspiracy to brainwash them.

Anyone who can sit for 16 minutes should just listen to Tulsi Gabbard giving a great summation of what transpired over the last four years ( actually longer) .  Just sit and listen !   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Oi7spP6xk

 

[gamb00ler]

26 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

100% relevant, as a criminal conviction in NY isn't final until it's been affirmed on direct appeal (or until the defendant waives the right to appeal), as shown in the Illinois case. After sentencing, there's also judgment. All you got is a jury verdict, DUH. The judge may even throw out the case and has the right to, since there's no conviction.

the word "final" doesn't appear in the NY state's definition of conviction.  He's convicted, he will be sentenced and then he can appeal at which time the conviction can be overturned.  You're just making up stuff... even if you have a law degree... you have to abide by the NY State's definitions ... it's their court and their rules... not your layman's assumptions that rule.

[candide]

34 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Nancy Pelosi's Portfolio Returned Over 700% In a Decade: Copy Her Investment Strategy Here

 

Hee. Problem with Pelosi trackers is that she doesn't have to report them quickly enough. 45, 80 days later is too late to cash in with her insider speed.

Not true, she declares them quickly. Example here:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4122059-nancy-pelosi-discloses-buys-of-nvidia-broadcom

 

And you still (as others) have not provided any proof of insider trading.

[BigStar]

Just now, candide said:

Not true, she declares them quickly. Example here:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4122059-nancy-pelosi-discloses-buys-of-nvidia-broadcom

 

And you still (as others) have not provided any proof of insider trading.

 

Not enough to make a tracker accurately duplicate her trading results. Pelosi doesn't want any regulation on that practice, hee hee.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing pushback from some members of her own party for defending the practice of members of Congress trading stocks while in office.

https://phillips.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=588

 

If there were regulation, then she could be investigated. Until then, you'll have to go with the obvious. 🙂

 

 

[gamb00ler]

8 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Superficial glossary.

 

(k) Judgment.

(1) In General. In the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court's findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or is otherwise entitled to be discharged, the court must so order. The judge must sign the judgment, and the clerk must enter it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32

 

Technically, Trump isn't "found guilty" until a judgment of guilt by the judge. Again, all you got is the jury's verdict. And his "conviction" won't be final until the direct appeal.

 

Nothing that you quoted supports your belief.... it only illustrates your poor understanding.

 

Do you have evidence that the NY judge didn't fulfill his duties and sign the judgement delivered by the jury... I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

 

[BigStar]

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

the word "final" doesn't appear in the NY state's definition of conviction.  He's convicted, he will be sentenced and then he can appeal at which time the conviction can be overturned.  You're just making up stuff... even if you have a law degree... you have to abide by the NY State's definitions ... it's their court and their rules... not your layman's assumptions that rule.

 

If his conviction were "final," then he couldn't appeal. A little glossary is just that, and used as shorthand. It's all a little more complicated, which is why I suggested you just use common sense. 

[gamb00ler]

1 minute ago, BigStar said:

 

If his conviction were "final," then he couldn't appeal. A little glossary is just that, and used as shorthand. It's all a little more complicated, which is why I suggested you just use common sense. 

you're just arguing in circles.  you introduced the term 'final' where it really has no relevance.

[mogandave]

Just now, gamb00ler said:

you're just arguing in circles.  you introduced the term 'final' where it really has no relevance.

Wrong. Did you see Trump voting in the election?

[candide]

21 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Not enough to make a tracker accurately duplicate her trading results. Pelosi doesn't want any regulation on that practice, hee hee.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing pushback from some members of her own party for defending the practice of members of Congress trading stocks while in office.

https://phillips.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=588

 

If there were regulation, then she could be investigated. Until then, you'll have to go with the obvious. 🙂

 

 

You still haven't provided proof of insider trading. 😀

 

700% increase is quite good (it's only 550% for the Nasdaq index), but it's no evidence of insider trading.

 

If the regulation changes, she cannot be indicted retroactively. 😀

Edited 56 minutes ago by candide

[gamb00ler]

mis quoted

Edited 54 minutes ago by gamb00ler

[gamb00ler]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Wrong. Did you see Trump voting in the election?

LOL    LOL    can you read?  do you care if your statements make sense?

 

https://dos.fl.gov/elections/for-voters/voter-registration/felon-voting-rights/

 

It's your move..... 

 

Edited 52 minutes ago by gamb00ler

[BigStar]

15 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Nothing that you quoted supports your belief.... it only illustrates your poor understanding.

 

 

Rather, your own, in trying to defend an agenda important to you.

 

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Do you have evidence that the NY judge didn't fulfill his duties and sign the judgement delivered by the jury... I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

But what would you know? He can't possibly have signed the judgment.

 

Justice Juan Merchan said he will rule next week on whether a July Supreme Court ruling granting Trump presidential immunity for official acts precludes a jury from finding him guilty after a criminal trial this spring.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-new-york-presidential-immunity-hush-money/

 

With that I'll leave you to hold dear to the common belief that Trump's a convicted felon. Predictably, you're a waste of time.