EPTOn May 20 2026 01:47 WombaT wrote:
Don’t you frequently argue over setting a bad precedent as your opponents may pick that ball up and run with?
As opposed to here where you just bat it away
Show nested quote +
On May 20 2026 01:21 Introvert wrote:
See, it's the brazen nature not the act itself. Dems have been funneling money or intrest group rule changes to themselves for many many years using a similar strategy. But you didn't know that so this looks like "deflection." The next dem presidency will be interesting because all sorts of things will be justified by invoking the magic word "Trump." But what will be confused is that things will simply be more out in the open, not that the behavior will be nearly as different from former presidents as supposed.
On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:
By ‘conveniently’ you mean around an individual who is so brazenly corrupt that even people who accept a certain amount of corrupt churn think it’s a bit much?
Ridiculous deflection as per
On May 19 2026 23:05 Introvert wrote:
The point is, collusion between two sides that really don't mind or actively want a particular outcome (monetary included) is not unusual but probably almost no one knows it happens. People just conveniently keep drawing the line right where Trump is. I'd take a few steps back. But there will always be excuses made instead.
On May 19 2026 22:49 WombaT wrote:
Oh come on, you can’t believe that equivalence here
On May 19 2026 22:21 Introvert wrote:
Just the newest version of sue and settle or other related techniques. Dems have been passing money out or changing rules using similar tactics for ages. Environmental activist orgs and the EPA in particular have done many dances like that over the years. A way to get what you want without changing the law and often biding your successors.
On May 19 2026 08:57 Falling wrote:
@oBlade
I agree it would be considerably worse if Shirley did not say on camera that he was paying them. He is just as much a performative activist. Comparing him to Roger Stone's rats was probably hyperbolic and has gotten us off the main point. Partisan provocateur was my earlier descriptor and that stands. I'll settle for performative activist as a more accurate descriptor (using the mode of Just Asking Questions).
Now that you have the context, what is your view on how Shirley represented his time Ukraine as well as his claims on where US support to Ukraine went?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's astonishing at how brazen it all is.
Run a ten billion dollar lawsuit against your own government and when the justice system just starts to balk at Trump paying himself and whether there was any foundation...
Trump turns around and says, no problem. I'll do you a solid and pay myself and my followers $1.7 Billion instead. Art of the Deal. High ball with no foundation, then low ball with no foundation and generously include your supporters. The basic facts still haven't changed, but he's 'compromised' in how much he plunders the government. How very benevolent of Trump. Art of the Grift. Art of the Looter.
His 'compromise' also include an agreement that the IRS never audit Trump family members again.
Also, I strongly suspected deliberate market manipulation with most of Trump's tariff war of 'will he won't he' announcements seemingly timed with when markets close (and really many of his big bombshell foreign policy announcements.) But this is definitionally insider trading
https://www.notus.org/money/donald-trump-stock-investments-palantir-axom-nvidia
He bought Axon shares before Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracted Axon to produce Tasers. His departments control which companies get the contract and he can buy stocks before the contract is announced or approved.
A nice bipartisan bill that most Americans would support ought to restrict Congress AND the president from trading stocks in some way... blind trust? Index only? I don't know, but it's pretty wild as it stands now. And no doubt Congress restrictions would pass and somehow we would learn that the president cannot be restricted in this way as it would infringe on the executive somehow, even though past presidents did so voluntarily. But Trump is special.
Plus the pay for pardons
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/how-corrupt-is-trump-here-are-the-numbers-trades-chips-nvidia-pardons-settlement-fund
But 1.7B to himself and is supporters and pay for pardons is the swamp, the vast Dead Marshes, that Trump built from the mud puddle from before.
@oBlade
I agree it would be considerably worse if Shirley did not say on camera that he was paying them. He is just as much a performative activist. Comparing him to Roger Stone's rats was probably hyperbolic and has gotten us off the main point. Partisan provocateur was my earlier descriptor and that stands. I'll settle for performative activist as a more accurate descriptor (using the mode of Just Asking Questions).
Now that you have the context, what is your view on how Shirley represented his time Ukraine as well as his claims on where US support to Ukraine went?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On May 17 2026 22:20 Doublemint wrote:
@ABCThe Department of Justice is finalizing a deal to launch a so-called "Truth and Justice Commission" and establish a compensation fund of $1,776,000,000 to pay claims made by alleged victims of government "weaponization" in exchange for President Donald Trump dropping his ongoing lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, sources told ABC News.
it's astonishing how he is having his way with the US and its institutions. just one sham after the other.
whoever comes next better be of same moral disposition and continues to build upon this hollowed out carcass of the rule of law. or is in the most unenviable position picking up the pieces in a push for restoration.
@ABCThe Department of Justice is finalizing a deal to launch a so-called "Truth and Justice Commission" and establish a compensation fund of $1,776,000,000 to pay claims made by alleged victims of government "weaponization" in exchange for President Donald Trump dropping his ongoing lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, sources told ABC News.
it's astonishing how he is having his way with the US and its institutions. just one sham after the other.
whoever comes next better be of same moral disposition and continues to build upon this hollowed out carcass of the rule of law. or is in the most unenviable position picking up the pieces in a push for restoration.
It's astonishing at how brazen it all is.
Run a ten billion dollar lawsuit against your own government and when the justice system just starts to balk at Trump paying himself and whether there was any foundation...
"A sitting president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls," the experts wrote in what is known as an "amicus brief".
Trump turns around and says, no problem. I'll do you a solid and pay myself and my followers $1.7 Billion instead. Art of the Deal. High ball with no foundation, then low ball with no foundation and generously include your supporters. The basic facts still haven't changed, but he's 'compromised' in how much he plunders the government. How very benevolent of Trump. Art of the Grift. Art of the Looter.
His 'compromise' also include an agreement that the IRS never audit Trump family members again.
Also, I strongly suspected deliberate market manipulation with most of Trump's tariff war of 'will he won't he' announcements seemingly timed with when markets close (and really many of his big bombshell foreign policy announcements.) But this is definitionally insider trading
https://www.notus.org/money/donald-trump-stock-investments-palantir-axom-nvidia
President Donald Trump personally bought and sold millions of dollars worth of stock in technology companies and government contractors early this year, according to new government records.
Trump purchased $1 million to $5 million dollars worth of Nvidia stock on Feb. 10, only a week before Nvidia announced a major computer processing power deal with AI and social media giant Meta. Trump previously purchased $500,000 to $1 million worth of Nvidia stock on Jan. 6, a week before the Commerce Department officially approved the sale of some Nvidia chips to China. The Chinese AI market is a long-sought target for Nvidia since the federal government controls the sale of advanced AI chips to countries designated as foreign adversaries, such as China.
While the Trump administration spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement and mass deportation efforts, Trump also invested in companies that contracted with immigration enforcement agencies.
Chief among them: Palantir Technologies. Trump purchased at least $260,000 worth of Palantir stock during the first three months of 2026.
In January alone, Trump bought $65,000 to $150,000 of Palantir stock. In February, Trump sold between $1.1 million and roughly $5.3 million of his Palantir stock. In March, Trump’s Palantir stock purchases totaled between nearly $200,000 and $500,000.
In February, Palantir struck a billion-dollar agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to use the company’s software in the president’s deportation surge. Palantir also has a contract surpassing a billion dollars with the Pentagon to develop AI systems that help orchestrate attacks.
While the Trump administration spent billions of dollars on immigration enforcement and mass deportation efforts, Trump also invested in companies that contracted with immigration enforcement agencies.
Chief among them: Palantir Technologies. Trump purchased at least $260,000 worth of Palantir stock during the first three months of 2026.
In January alone, Trump bought $65,000 to $150,000 of Palantir stock. In February, Trump sold between $1.1 million and roughly $5.3 million of his Palantir stock. In March, Trump’s Palantir stock purchases totaled between nearly $200,000 and $500,000.
In February, Palantir struck a billion-dollar agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to use the company’s software in the president’s deportation surge. Palantir also has a contract surpassing a billion dollars with the Pentagon to develop AI systems that help orchestrate attacks.
He bought Axon shares before Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracted Axon to produce Tasers. His departments control which companies get the contract and he can buy stocks before the contract is announced or approved.
A nice bipartisan bill that most Americans would support ought to restrict Congress AND the president from trading stocks in some way... blind trust? Index only? I don't know, but it's pretty wild as it stands now. And no doubt Congress restrictions would pass and somehow we would learn that the president cannot be restricted in this way as it would infringe on the executive somehow, even though past presidents did so voluntarily. But Trump is special.
Plus the pay for pardons
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/how-corrupt-is-trump-here-are-the-numbers-trades-chips-nvidia-pardons-settlement-fund
But 1.7B to himself and is supporters and pay for pardons is the swamp, the vast Dead Marshes, that Trump built from the mud puddle from before.
Just the newest version of sue and settle or other related techniques. Dems have been passing money out or changing rules using similar tactics for ages. Environmental activist orgs and the EPA in particular have done many dances like that over the years. A way to get what you want without changing the law and often biding your successors.
Oh come on, you can’t believe that equivalence here
The point is, collusion between two sides that really don't mind or actively want a particular outcome (monetary included) is not unusual but probably almost no one knows it happens. People just conveniently keep drawing the line right where Trump is. I'd take a few steps back. But there will always be excuses made instead.
By ‘conveniently’ you mean around an individual who is so brazenly corrupt that even people who accept a certain amount of corrupt churn think it’s a bit much?
Ridiculous deflection as per
See, it's the brazen nature not the act itself. Dems have been funneling money or intrest group rule changes to themselves for many many years using a similar strategy. But you didn't know that so this looks like "deflection." The next dem presidency will be interesting because all sorts of things will be justified by invoking the magic word "Trump." But what will be confused is that things will simply be more out in the open, not that the behavior will be nearly as different from former presidents as supposed.
Don’t you frequently argue over setting a bad precedent as your opponents may pick that ball up and run with?
As opposed to here where you just bat it away
People just don't want to acknowledge that the precedent already exists and are trying to put it into a category all its own. I said I would have stopped a few steps back. But my problem with the current climate is the feedback loop people get themselves into and this is part of that. Pretending this this is new instead of the natural progression of how things are already going is vital imo.
