Truth Social

[Yagoda]

16 hours ago, bubblegum said:

Look it up and see how they are doing as a business. Trump the great business man. My a**, just another con sending money not earned to himself at the cost of his supporters.

 

Press Releases - Trump Media & Technology Group. IR

 

Truth social is social media like X and all the rest is is thus a sewer where once in while a clean $20 bill floats to the surface. This place is more than enough Social Media for ones life.

[spidermike007]

Truth social is one of the biggest scams in the history of mankind, the company has absolutely no value other than that which his supporters put on it. If you doubt that, talk to me about the net profit of the company. 

[Harrisfan]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Truth social is one of the biggest scams in the history of mankind, the company has absolutely no value other than that which his supporters put on it. If you doubt that, talk to me about the net profit of the company. 

The climate crisis scam is far worse. Affected billions. Truth Social doesnt affect any non investor.

[Lacessit]

It takes a really good propaganda machine to dress up $600,000 income and $16 million in expenses as a good share to own.

 

It takes utter stupidity to assign any value to the same stock, when it posts an income of $3.6 million while listing a $401 million loss.

 

One can only hope the MAGA people have put their money where their mouth is.

[Harrisfan]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

It takes a really good propaganda machine to dress up $600,000 income and $16 million in expenses as a good share to own.

 

It takes utter stupidity to assign any value to the same stock, when it posts an income of $3.6 million while listing a $401 million loss.

 

One can only hope the MAGA people have put their money where their mouth is.

It doubled since last year so MAGAs are up 100% 

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You're confusing the government with the country. The government is not a democracy, and the Executive branch is by design, dictatorial.

 

 

The executive branch is not dictatorial. That's why Congress is there.

Time for a check for you on the trias politica. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

The executive branch is not dictatorial. That's why Congress is there.

Time for a check for you on the trias politica. 

You are mistaken. The government is not dictatorial, but the Executive branch. which is one equal branch of the government, is dictatorial, as was the intent of the founders. 

 

"The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

 

Not the President and his staff, not the President and the Court, not the President and the Congress, the President alone. 

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are mistaken. The government is not dictatorial, but the Executive branch. which is one equal branch of the government, is dictatorial, as was the intent of the founders. 

 

"The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

 

Not the President and his staff, not the President and the Court, not the President and the Congress, the President alone. 

Far from the same as dictatorial.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Far from the same as dictatorial.

Again, you are mistaken. I never said the government was dictatorial, but that the Executive branch, which is one equal branch of the government, is dictatorial, as was the intent of the founders. It is to be run the same way a CEO runs a company. I agree it is not dictatorial in a sense, because the President does have to operate within the law, within the Executive branch, he is not much different than a CEO. 

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, you are mistaken. I never said the government was dictatorial, but that the Executive branch, which is one equal branch of the government, is dictatorial, as was the intent of the founders. It is to be run the same way a CEO runs a company. I agree it is not dictatorial in a sense, because the President does have to operate within the law, within the Executive branch, he is not much different than a CEO. 

 

 

 

 

You interpret my post, you're wrong. I also disagree with your reading of the intention of the founders.

[bubblegum]

5 hours ago, frank83628 said:

That a lame response after a massive back fire and  having you ass handed to you on your own  thread

I guess you only read the maga responses 

[bubblegum]

5 hours ago, frank83628 said:

That a lame response after a massive back fire and  having you ass handed to you on your own  thread

And btw Frank did you invest in it?

[Wrwest]

On 2/15/2025 at 8:04 PM, save the frogs said:

no he is probably the most successful businessman to become a president

along with elon.

and running a country is like running a business. 

forget about biden. what did Obama do before becoming president? nothing? his claim to fame was being a good orator. 

i'm not saying i'm a trump fan because I am not sure what he will do.

but i find it interesting that two very successful business men are in power.

this should not be brushed aside as insignificant.  

most politicians are just that, professional politicians and blah blah artists. nothing more.  

 

"running a country is like running a business" ah ... no.

"this should not be brushed aside as insignificant" ... absolutely correct we are undergoing a stress test ... testing whether that nation or any nation can long endure" ...

[Harrisfan]

2 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

"running a country is like running a business" ah ... no.

"this should not be brushed aside as insignificant" ... absolutely correct we are undergoing a stress test ... testing whether that nation or any nation can long endure" ...

Countries have more bludgers. In a business they would get sacked!

[Harrisfan]

20 hours ago, bubblegum said:

And btw Frank did you invest in it?

I did. Made 100% then sold. 

[gamb00ler]

On 2/16/2025 at 1:33 PM, Yellowtail said:

You are mistaken. The government is not dictatorial, but the Executive branch. which is one equal branch of the government, is dictatorial, as was the intent of the founders. 

 

"The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

 

Not the President and his staff, not the President and the Court, not the President and the Congress, the President alone. 

except when 2/3 of both houses insist.  The veto proof majority overrules the President.  That by definition means the president does not have final authority.  When the President refuses to sign a bill passed by >50% the bill goes back to the originating house for further consideration.  That house then decides if they want to override the Presidential veto.

 

As usual you have again been promulgating at best half truths.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

except when 2/3 of both houses insist.  The veto proof majority overrules the President.  That by definition means the president does not have final authority.  When the President refuses to sign a bill passed by >50% the bill goes back to the originating house for further consideration.  That house then decides if they want to override the Presidential veto.

 

As usual you have again been promulgating at best half truths.

I never said nor meant to imply that the President had final/dictatorial authority over what the government does, only that that he has dictatorial power over the Executive branch, as long as he is acting within the law. 

 

Yes, both Congress and the Supreme Court can overrule the President. 

 

Checks and balances, as it should be. For example, if Trump tried to forgive student loans, the court would likely strike that down as unconstitutional, and Trump would have to decide whether to abide by the court's decision, or circumvent the court. 

[bubblegum]

Don't know why this topic is running way out of line. It's abut truth social. Not about whatever the government is or is not allowed to do. And with this administration, the law hardly matters.

[Harrisfan]

4 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Don't know why this topic is running way out of line. It's abut truth social. Not about whatever the government is or is not allowed to do. And with this administration, the law hardly matters.

How is the share price today?

[Fairynuff]

On 2/16/2025 at 10:02 AM, bubblegum said:

Dear Maga folks: What is truth social after Trump dies?

Any idea when that might be please?

[frank83628]

11 hours ago, bubblegum said:

Don't know why this topic is running way out of line. It's abut truth social. Not about whatever the government is or is not allowed to do. And with this administration, the law hardly matters.

Because its  pathetic thread from a sufferer of Trump derangement.

Hates Trump, yet activity seeks out his truth social company to start a thread and bitch about him.

 

[Harrisfan]

On 2/16/2025 at 4:59 PM, bubblegum said:

I guess you only read the maga responses 

The shares went up 100% so you were wrong last year about the election and the shares. You should apologise for being so wrong.

[MicroB]

On 2/15/2025 at 1:16 PM, Harrisfan said:

First non politician to become President too. He triggers socialists a lot. Trump is running the world's largest economy. They walk to 7/11 and back.

 

Not true. George Washington arguably should not be considered a politician, though he was in public office. But he was also a successful businessman, with one of the largest distillaries in the Colonies. Dwight Eisenhower was not a politician.

 

Elsewhere in the world, other non-politicians have become Presidents or Heads of State, Silvio Berlisconi comes to mind. As does Vladimir Zelensky. 

 

Back in Giliead, Jimmy Carter made a pot of cash in the Peanut industry, also a businessman. Herbert Hoover made a ton of cahs from Burmese silver. Harry Truman had a mining business and later, mens clothing. Both Bushes made a pile of money in oil before they got into politics (Trump has been a politician now for 10 years). Interestingly, Bush Jr didn't inherit a family business. Like his dad, he started one from scratch. Never went bankrupt. Was reagan a politician; technically he was, but when he became President, the talk wasn't so much about he record as Governor, but more about his movie career.

 

Trump is more of a showman than businessman. He creates the impression that he's a brilliant businessman, through that show where he created a Persona of a hands on businessman, which we all know now was complete cack. In many respects, he is probably a better actor than Ronnie Reagan. So he fooled you.

[MicroB]

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said nor meant to imply that the President had final/dictatorial authority over what the government does, only that that he has dictatorial power over the Executive branch, as long as he is acting within the law. 

 

Yes, both Congress and the Supreme Court can overrule the President. 

 

Checks and balances, as it should be. For example, if Trump tried to forgive student loans, the court would likely strike that down as unconstitutional, and Trump would have to decide whether to abide by the court's decision, or circumvent the court. 

 

What would stop him from firing the Judges? Loyal GOP politicians, right?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5140939-elon-musk-calls-judges-impeached/

 

Who would have thought that the series of events Ken Starr would unleash would lead to.

[Harrisfan]

3 minutes ago, MicroB said:

 

Not true. George Washington arguably should not be considered a politician, though he was in public office. But he was also a successful businessman, with one of the largest distillaries in the Colonies. Dwight Eisenhower was not a politician.

 

Elsewhere in the world, other non-politicians have become Presidents or Heads of State, Silvio Berlisconi comes to mind. As does Vladimir Zelensky. 

 

Back in Giliead, Jimmy Carter made a pot of cash in the Peanut industry, also a businessman. Herbert Hoover made a ton of cahs from Burmese silver. Harry Truman had a mining business and later, mens clothing. Both Bushes made a pile of money in oil before they got into politics (Trump has been a politician now for 10 years). Interestingly, Bush Jr didn't inherit a family business. Like his dad, he started one from scratch. Never went bankrupt. Was reagan a politician; technically he was, but when he became President, the talk wasn't so much about he record as Governor, but more about his movie career.

 

Trump is more of a showman than businessman. He creates the impression that he's a brilliant businessman, through that show where he created a Persona of a hands on businessman, which we all know now was complete cack. In many respects, he is probably a better actor than Ronnie Reagan. So he fooled you.

Trump is richer than all of them. He must trigger you.

[JimHuaHin]

Truth Social ... just the rants of a deranged snake oil salesman ... Truth maybe in an alternative universe, but not this one.

[Harrisfan]

20 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

Truth Social ... just the rants of a deranged snake oil salesman ... Truth maybe in an alternative universe, but not this one.

Are you the same Jim on TA?

[Yellowtail]

30 minutes ago, MicroB said:

 

What would stop him from firing the Judges? Loyal GOP politicians, right?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5140939-elon-musk-calls-judges-impeached/

 

Who would have thought that the series of events Ken Starr would unleash would lead to.

What would stop him from declaring himself a dictator and having all the judges, "journalists" and members of Congress that disagree with him killed of incarcerated? 

 

Is that not what the left insisted when they called him MAGA-fascist-Hitler-dictator?

 

From what I see, Trump is trying to do what he told voters he would do if elected. 

 

Trump has done nothing illegal and or unconstitutional, regardless of what media "lawyers" and hysterical politicians and activists claim. 

 

If judges are acting as activists making unsupportable bogus decisions for the sole purpose of slowing the President's agenda, why should they not be impeached?   

 

 

[Fairynuff]

9 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Because its  pathetic thread from a sufferer of Trump derangement.

Hates Trump, yet activity seeks out his truth social company to start a thread and bitch about him.

 

Trump and deranged sounds about right.