USA news & politics

[Welsh Exile]

As I mentioned before, I know my intellectual limits. Easier to understand post-war UK than 10,000 years of conflict in the Levant.

10,000 years? lol.

Israel isn’t even 80 years old and you only have to go back to the 1880s in terms of learning the history really. I mean, sure, you can learn about the ancient Jewish tribes and Judea and Sumaria as well as the Roman occupation etc but it’s not that important. History in the UK is also pretty extensive. More so even. But, if you don’t want to have an opinion on it that is of course your right just very strange considering you have a Jewish wife. Does she hav an opinion on it? I assume she’s a Zionist on some level?

 

[ChicagoKid]

10,000 years? lol.

Israel isn’t even 80 years old and you only have to go back to the 1880s in terms of learning the history really. I mean, sure, you can learn about the ancient Jewish tribes and Judea and Sumaria as well as the Roman occupation etc but it’s not that important. History in the UK is also pretty extensive. More so even. But, if you don’t want to have an opinion on it that is of course your right just very strange considering you have a Jewish wife. Does she hav an opinion on it? I assume she’s a Zionist on some level?

The Jews, Muslims, and Christians (both east & west) would say it’s very important.

My church - Catholic - teaches its 1.4 billion members how important the history of that region is in regards to its current politics. I’m unsure how the Coptic Christian’s or Eastern Orthodox exactly feel.

 

[Welsh Exile]

The Jews, Muslims, and Christians (both east & west) would say it’s very important.

My church - Catholic - teaches its 1.4 billion members how important the history of that region is in regards to its current politics. I’m unsure how the Coptic Christian’s or Eastern Orthodox exactly feel.

No doubt but 10,000 years? A lot of people in these groups think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

History is important, sure, but most countries have a pretty extensive history that can go back thousands of years. I mean, you chose a post war UK as a period that is easy to understand but we had Roman occupation here just as they occupied the Middle East.

Why not just look at Israel from 47 or when the Zionist movement started and Jews started purchasing land in the 1880s?

People say it’s super complicated and there are some complexities but it’s not that complex in my opinion. There’s only like 140 years of stuff worth knowing to get a good grip on it. And even then I don’t actually think knowing the history is the most important thing (though it helps obviously) it’s perfectly reasonable to know next to nothing about the history since King David around 1000 BC to modern day and still have an opinion on stuff since October 7 and what not.

 

[ChicagoKid]

No doubt but 10,000 years? A lot of people in these groups think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

History is important, sure, but most countries have a pretty extensive history that can go back thousands of years. I mean, you chose a post war UK as a period that is easy to understand but we had Roman occupation here just as they occupied the Middle East.

Why not just look at Israel from 47 or when the Zionist movement started and Jews started purchasing land in the 1880s?

People say it’s super complicated and there are some complexities but it’s not that complex in my opinion. There’s only like 140 years of stuff worth knowing to get a good grip on it. And even then I don’t actually think knowing the history is the most important thing (though it helps obviously) it’s perfectly reasonable to know next to nothing about the history since King David around 1000 BC to modern day and still have an opinion on stuff since October 7 and what not.

No one in the Catholic or Orthodox Church thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. You’re talking about a very small, but vocal group in the USA that emerged from the Anabaptist tradition.

Secondly, I explained myself previously on this matter. I lack the historical context AND these are two of the most sophisticated propagandist groups in the history of humankind.

You can say whatever you want about the Israeli government, but clearly their human intelligence is the best in the world.

And Hamas has manipulated the west for decades.

So again, I understand my limits. I don’t understand Ukraine. I don’t understand most of the Middle East. I don’t understand China. Nor India and Pakistan.

I understand some aspects of American culture/politics, but not all of it. We have 350 million people. How anyone can claim they understand America is beyond me.

As @Saintjay mentioned, housing costs are 10x salaries in his local area. If I’m the UK, I have no idea why people care about issues they can’t control or have minimal influence on when basic needs like housing is scarce/expensive.

Here in Chicago, they are like 3-4x and people are ****** off.

You asked what she thinks: She thinks the world is complex and gray. And to try to flatten it out to good versus bad is childish.

 

[Welsh Exile]

No one in the Catholic or Orthodox Church thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. You’re talking about a very small, but vocal group in the USA that emerged from the Anabaptist tradition.

Secondly, I explained myself previously on this matter. I lack the historical context AND these are two of the most sophisticated propagandist groups in the history of humankind.

You can say whatever you want about the Israeli government, but clearly their human intelligence is the best in the world.

And Hamas has manipulated the west for decades.

So again, I understand my limits. I don’t understand Ukraine. I don’t understand most of the Middle East. I don’t understand China. Nor India and Pakistan.

I understand some aspects of American culture/politics, but not all of it. We have 350 million people. How anyone can claim they understand America is beyond me.

As @Saintjay mentioned, housing costs are 10x salaries in his local area. If I’m the UK, I have no idea why people care about issues they can’t control or have minimal influence on when basic needs like housing is scarce/expensive.

Here in Chicago, they are like 3-4x and people are ****** off.

You asked what she thinks: She thinks the world is complex and gray. And to try to flatten it out to good versus bad is childish.

I reckon, as a conservative guess, you’d have a few hundred million people, in total, from these 3 religions that believe the earth is around 6 thousand years old.

But yeah, certainly not the majority so we agree on that. I just thought it was weird you said 10,000 years of history as this is pre history. I mean, you’re talking Ice age recently ending and ****. But anyway, as I say, why do you not just take this approach with everything?

I would always say listen to experts. If you want your car fixed, go to a mechanic. If you want to learn about diseases and how they spread listen to epidemiologists and if you want to learn about history listen to historians. You can get propagandists as well but they’re pretty easy to spot as they don’t speak like normal historians.

I agree the world is complex and gray as well as sometimes being black and white.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Fox news were continuing in their role of shameless propagandists claiming that the Freedom 250 fair was absolutely packed, even as you could see it behind them and it was practically empty. It's 1984 levels of gaslighting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-american-state-fair-attendance-b3005462.html

Oh and the reflecting pool now has fencing around it with signs saying "Danger Explosives" because reasons.

 

[dirty harry]

Fox news were continuing in their role of shameless propagandists claiming that the Freedom 250 fair was absolutely packed, even as you could see it behind them and it was practically empty. It's 1984 levels of gaslighting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-american-state-fair-attendance-b3005462.html

Oh and the reflecting pool now has fencing around it with signs saying "Danger Explosives" because reasons.

Thank god your not prone to over react lol

 

[Kiwiwomble]

seems very strange there is more to do at normal state fairs than this one...and the idea that states didnt send representatives.....you would have thought they'd find some people from those states to do...anything

 

[Welsh Exile]

Thank god your not prone to over react lol

What was your reaction to the dominion lawsuit? Bet you didn’t even know about it til I mentioned it in here.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70yk07vq0po

Harry Truman left the White House without any income other than his Army pension of $113 (£85) per month. The 33rd US president later wrote that it was wrong to "commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency".

George W Bush put his investments in a blind trust before running for president, and said in his last week in office that he had no idea how the 2008 economic crisis affected his net worth.

Donald Trump, in contrast, made at least $2.2bn (£1.7bn) in his first year back in office, according to a new financial disclosure report - a sum historians said was unprecedented and shattered the norm of US presidents avoiding financial conflicts of interest in the White House.

"There's just no precedent for this," said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "It's beyond anything we've ever seen in the presidency."

Just reinforcing what everyone who isn't called Harry has been saying, Trump has been using his presidency to enrich himself at an unprecedented rate.

Meanwhile those called Harry: Hurr durr everyone does it. Didn't read past the first line the BBC is clearly hysterical.

 

[Welsh Exile]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70yk07vq0po


Just reinforcing what everyone who isn't called Harry has been saying, Trump has been using his presidency to enrich himself at an unprecedented rate.

Meanwhile those called Harry: Hurr durr everyone does it. Didn't read past the first line the BBC is clearly hysterical.

Don’t forget Obamas book, mate.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Don’t forget Obamas book, mate.

Absolutely outrageous, clearest corruption ever.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Absolutely outrageous, clearest corruption ever.

Also, presidents like Bush and Clinton do the university lecture circuit. Once they leave office mind but still, outrageous.

 

[dirty harry]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70yk07vq0po


Just reinforcing what everyone who isn't called Harry has been saying, Trump has been using his presidency to enrich himself at an unprecedented rate.

Meanwhile those called Harry: Hurr durr everyone does it. Didn't read past the first line the BBC is clearly hysterical.

Are you guys playing Schroedingers Trump again, the evil profiteering super villain enriching everyone around him, and staying on the toght side of the law, while slumped in the corner dribbling because hes so low IQ and an idiot?

 

[dirty harry]

Also, presidents like Bush and Clinton do the university lecture circuit. Once they leave office mind but still, outrageous.

Would you like a comparison of wealth from inaugeration day to inaugeration day of each of the last 5 presidents and see who increase their wealth while in office the most as a % of where they started?

I bet you dont!

 

[Welsh Exile]

Would you like a comparison of wealth from inaugeration day to inaugeration day of each of the last 5 presidents and see who increase their wealth while in office the most as a % of where they started?

I bet you dont!

I’d love to know your source but post away.

Any extra context like how the money was made would be good.

 

[dirty harry]

I’d love to know your source but post away.

Any extra context like how the money was made would be good.

Havnt even got to numbers and you deny them based on your hypothetical untrustworthy source lol? Thats cracking, fair play to you!

 

[Welsh Exile]

Havnt even got to numbers and you deny them based on your hypothetical untrustworthy source lol? Thats cracking, fair play to you!

Not at all. Hence why I asked for them. I mean leaving aside the fact this isn’t just about wealth going up or down it’s about how that wealth is being generated but still interested to see the billions that Biden, Clinton, Bush and Obama made

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Are you guys playing Schroedingers Trump again, the evil profiteering super villain enriching everyone around him, and staying on the toght side of the law, while slumped in the corner dribbling because hes so low IQ and an idiot?

He isn't staying on the right side of the law, he was literally in the middle of being prosecuted for fraud when he won he presidency, or have you forgotten that? That's just as a starter.

But let's test you, do you think the BCC is just being hysterical when they say this is unprecedented? You do love to throw that around when I say it.

 

[dirty harry]

He isn't staying on the right side of the law, he was literally in the middle of being prosecuted for fraud when he won he presidency, or have you forgotten that? That's just as a starter.

But let's test you, do you think the BCC is just being hysterical when they say this is unprecedented? You do love to throw that around when I say it.

Wait, we were discussing the context of profiteering no? Or i should say not profiteering because the article says
"Making money hand over fist in office, it's not illegal but it is unethical."

Of course his wealth increases are unprecedented, no president before him was anywhere near as financially successful as Trump, or had the ability to earn billions of dollars. But then so is Trump not taking the salary and donating it to charity in modern times, AND his losing money term 1, all 3 of these things are unprecedented to the same level no?

I would have prefered Trump to have ethically transferred ownerships at least temporary of his empire, but a blind trust would never have worked, so he did what he had to legally, put it in a trust for his son to control and he remained ownership.

What this article alludes to, without stating it outright because that would be asking for a law suit, is that Trump has illegally benefited through corruption or conflict, but if he hasnt, then his wealth increases put into proportion are not unprecedented... presidents regulary multiple X their wealth while in office, from what i can see Trump is once again down from Oct 2024 to current day, id have to go check, but id guess his wealth swing wildly because its so vast, and he has so much invested in such various sectors.

Look at Musk, swung into Trillionaire, and probably dropped right back out soon after (he must have, i invested before launch, then shorted the **** out of it and made some money).

Same with Trumps wealth, he made a fortune 2024, the media tech etc, then positioned himself in crypto, made a **** ton when he won the election, but that has dropped like a stone since.

Id hazard a guess that Trump is down from 20th Jan currently, despite the specific 2025 report.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Wait, we were discussing the context of profiteering no? Or i should say not profiteering because the article says
"Making money hand over fist in office, it's not illegal but it is unethical."

Of course his wealth increases are unprecedented, no president before him was anywhere near as financially successful as Trump, or had the ability to earn billions of dollars. But then so is Trump not taking the salary and donating it to charity in modern times, AND his losing money term 1, all 3 of these things are unprecedented to the same level no?

I would have prefered Trump to have ethically transferred ownerships at least temporary of his empire, but a blind trust would never have worked, so he did what he had to legally, put it in a trust for his son to control and he remained ownership.

What this article alludes to, without stating it outright because that would be asking for a law suit, is that Trump has illegally benefited through corruption or conflict, but if he hasnt, then his wealth increases put into proportion are not unprecedented... presidents regulary multiple X their wealth while in office, from what i can see Trump is once again down from Oct 2024 to current day, id have to go check, but id guess his wealth swing wildly because its so vast, and he has so much invested in such various sectors.

Look at Musk, swung into Trillionaire, and probably dropped right back out soon after (he must have, i invested before launch, then shorted the **** out of it and made some money).

Same with Trumps wealth, he made a fortune 2024, the media tech etc, then positioned himself in crypto, made a **** ton when he won the election, but that has dropped like a stone since.

Id hazard a guess that Trump is down from 20th Jan currently, despite the specific 2025 report.

Do you think Trump Crypto coin, Truth social etc make any money if Trump didn't use his position as president to push them? Do you think people have "invested" in these because they genuinely think they can make a good return or do you think they invested for other reasons?

 

[dirty harry]

Do you think Trump Crypto coin, Truth social etc make any money if Trump didn't use his position as president to push them? Do you think people have "invested" in these because they genuinely think they can make a good return or do you think they invested for other reasons?

Yes, I think Trump the cultural icon from the 90s and 2000s makes money on social media and crypto had he never become president, probably not to the same degree.

But crucially, like becoming a paid speaker, writing books and other avenues capitolising off presidential popularity, these things were created after term 1, i believe Truth social was 2021, his first daliance into cypto 2022 (at a guess) So this would fall in line with your stance on others profitting from speaking arrangements?

I would absolutely entertain the argument that Trump coin is a far more dodgy investment, rumours of its conception being around election time, you could make the argument it was created specifically to profit from his upcoming presidency, being released a few days before inaugeration. But im not sure your capable of that specific discussion, your too radically anti Trump no matter what.

My stance is that its unethical, but sits in a legal grey area, foreign investment doesnt apply, and the US allows too many privilages to president and vice, maybe these are lessons learned for US governance, i doubt it though.

 

[Seeker]

As Trump reports $2.2 billion in 2025 income, ethics experts raise alarms​

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-reports-2-2-billion-232324833.html

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes, I think Trump the cultural icon from the 90s and 2000s makes money on social media and crypto had he never become president, probably not to the same degree.

But crucially, like becoming a paid speaker, writing books and other avenues capitolising off presidential popularity, these things were created after term 1, i believe Truth social was 2021, his first daliance into cypto 2022 (at a guess) So this would fall in line with your stance on others profitting from speaking arrangements?

I would absolutely entertain the argument that Trump coin is a far more dodgy investment, rumours of its conception being around election time, you could make the argument it was created specifically to profit from his upcoming presidency, being released a few days before inaugeration. But im not sure your capable of that specific discussion, your too radically anti Trump no matter what.

My stance is that its unethical, but sits in a legal grey area, foreign investment doesnt apply, and the US allows too many privilages to president and vice, maybe these are lessons learned for US governance, i doubt it though.

Really? You think without him being president he actually would have made money off these things, despite none of the business financials actually stacking up?

Do you know why these things make money? Clue, it's not because they are actually good products. In the same way as money launderers will pay ridiculous amounts for things like artwork, people wanting influence with Trump will pay ridiculous amounts for his social media platform and crypto currency when neither offer anything of worth except access to him. You think people would care about that access to him without him being president?

It's not called being radically anti Trump, it's called pointing out the very real things Trump does, things you consistently ignore. Call a spade a spade, his crypto scheme is straight up bribery.

And he could be in line for yet another defamation case against E Jean Carroll after he repeated the claim he had never met her and she was making it up AGAIN after the supreme court refused to listen to his case.

So, is the BBC hysterical?

 

[dirty harry]

Really? You think without him being president he actually would have made money off these things, despite none of the business financials actually stacking up?

Do you know why these things make money? Clue, it's not because they are actually good products. In the same way as money launderers will pay ridiculous amounts for things like artwork, people wanting influence with Trump will pay ridiculous amounts for his social media platform and crypto currency when neither offer anything of worth except access to him. You think people would care about that access to him without him being president?

It's not called being radically anti Trump, it's called pointing out the very real things Trump does, things you consistently ignore. Call a spade a spade, his crypto scheme is straight up bribery.

And he could be in line for yet another defamation case against E Jean Carroll after he repeated the claim he had never met her and she was making it up AGAIN after the supreme court refused to listen to his case.

So, is the BBC hysterical?

See, youve proved your not capable.

You just made the claim Trumps entire wealth increases of businesses and investment he made when he left office, that came to fruition when he returned to office, is straight up corruption... the article literally called it legal but unethical, so your being more radical than the BBC article, and taking its inference as factual evidence.

Look at you rant ,your not providing any detail or evidence, there is no nuance, its 'Trump is corrupt fact lalala i dont want to hear anything else'. Thats not the stance of a rational person

Im not sure if youve ever run businesses of invested, you lose gambles sometimes, the aim isnt to make every venture hit, its to mitigate the losses of those that dont, and optimise the ones that do. In your hypothetical where Trump never became president, and still created a crypto and media company, the likelyhood is that they would make money, especially in Crypto as everyone with an ounce of sense has made money, even me im 190% up over the last 4 to 5 years. That doesnt make me a corrupt Trump puopet lol. Now im not saying there iant the avenue for corruption, of course there is, i hate politicians more than the average and am happy to watch closely, like i said the Trump coin is super borderline disgraceful, but as i said its a grey area that Trump and Billionaires live in.
To what degree the 2 companies were sucdessful i dont know, Trump without the presidency would be far popular than he is today, a cultural icon, the icon of the American dream, and that popularity always helps with ventures like these.

With regards to defemation, who cares, let him settle 50 a year, didnt he receive 100m in 2025 from cases like this also? Didnt the report state that, so these defemation cases are American *** for tats, theyre all at it, crucially, and i need you to read this carefully DEFEMATION DOESNT PROVE CORRUPTION!

just look at it without the emotion, Trump is a scumbag billionaire, his sons run his companies while in office, but as there is no avenue to make his monstrous business dealings blind, or eradicate the potential for corruption then hes complied with law and the minimalist level...

We can agree its unethical and not the spirit of the presidency, but no other president has had to deal with this, so its not fair to infer corruption based on success of companies he isnt running and he isnt doing anything illegal (according to the BBC and outraged ethical experts).

How many times do you post thinking your making a difference by pushing 'gotcha' articles that dont hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny to an idiot lile me? Your like Rachel Maddox proudly proclaiming 'we got him' 3 times a week lol.

Take a breath, analyse, and focus on whats important... Fiji v Wales.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

See, youve proved your not capable.

You just made the claim Trumps entire wealth increases of businesses and investment he made when he left office, that came to fruition when he returned to office, is straight up corruption... the article literally called it legal but unethical, so your being more radical than the BBC article, and taking its inference as factual evidence.

Look at you rant ,your not providing any detail or evidence, there is no nuance, its 'Trump is corrupt fact lalala i dont want to hear anything else'. Thats not the stance of a rational person

Im not sure if youve ever run businesses of invested, you lose gambles sometimes, the aim isnt to make every venture hit, its to mitigate the losses of those that dont, and optimise the ones that do. In your hypothetical where Trump never became president, and still created a crypto and media company, the likelyhood is that they would make money, especially in Crypto as everyone with an ounce of sense has made money, even me im 190% up over the last 4 to 5 years. That doesnt make me a corrupt Trump puopet lol. Now im not saying there iant the avenue for corruption, of course there is, i hate politicians more than the average and am happy to watch closely, like i said the Trump coin is super borderline disgraceful, but as i said its a grey area that Trump and Billionaires live in.
To what degree the 2 companies were sucdessful i dont know, Trump without the presidency would be far popular than he is today, a cultural icon, the icon of the American dream, and that popularity always helps with ventures like these.

With regards to defemation, who cares, let him settle 50 a year, didnt he receive 100m in 2025 from cases like this also? Didnt the report state that, so these defemation cases are American *** for tats, theyre all at it, crucially, and i need you to read this carefully DEFEMATION DOESNT PROVE CORRUPTION!

just look at it without the emotion, Trump is a scumbag billionaire, his sons run his companies while in office, but as there is no avenue to make his monstrous business dealings blind, or eradicate the potential for corruption then hes complied with law and the minimalist level...

We can agree its unethical and not the spirit of the presidency, but no other president has had to deal with this, so its not fair to infer corruption based on success of companies he isnt running and he isnt doing anything illegal (according to the BBC and outraged ethical experts).

How many times do you post thinking your making a difference by pushing 'gotcha' articles that dont hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny to an idiot lile me? Your like Rachel Maddox proudly proclaiming 'we got him' 3 times a week lol.

Take a breath, analyse, and focus on whats important... Fiji v Wales.

Congratulations on proving you don't have the mental capacity to work out why it can be corrupt and legal. Spend a few minutes trying to work it out.

"there is no nuance"

And there it is! Captain Nuance accusing others of not having nuance you're a caricature of yourself at this point. You realise literally every accusation you make of anyone else applies to you? Nah you don't because you're a Dunning-Kruger case.

I'm 550% up in 9 months on an investment, that doesn't make me an investing guru and I'd never claim to be. Also amazing how Mr Nuance can't tell the difference between someone making 190% over 5 years in small level crypto trading and someone making 1.5 billion on a new crypto coin that they are attempting to pull the rug on. Oh that's right, just as stealing a chocolate bar is the same as stealing $1billion, Harry here on his Crypto trades is no different to what Trump is doing. Thank you Captain Nuance.

To use your own words: I need you to read this carefully I KNOW DEFAMATION DOESN'T PROVE CORRUPTION. Amazing irony isn't it that you demand I read carefully when you are too thick to realise the point about defamation had NOTHING to do with corruption and everything to do with his lack of intelligence, and apparently yours. You make out Trump is this great genius, in which case why does this genius keep doing stuff to open him up to further defamation lawsuits?

Trump is a scumbag billionaire, do you really want to claim otherwise?

Again try to work out why it may not be illegal, have all the time to think about it.

Again you ignore he WAS being prosecuted for fraud when he took the presidency. You seem determined to ignore this fact. But I guess the BBC are hysterical and Harry here knows it all. At least we've finally been able to drag you kicking and screaming into admitting something involving Trump is unprecedented.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Harry admitted that Trump coin is “super borderline disgraceful”, then immediately brushed it off as “just the grey area billionaires live in.” You couldn’t make it up.

And saying you’ve made money from crypto completely misses the point. (I suspect deliberately as you’re not that stupid) Nobody is saying crypto can’t make money. The issue is can people, including foreign nationals or anyone seeking influence, buy your crypto to financially benefit someone who holds the highest office in government? That’s the ethical concern. It’s not about whether crypto is profitable, it’s about who is able to enrich the sitting president and why they might choose to do so. But I suspect you know that is the point. I also suspect that had Biden done this you’d be taking a lot stronger of a position than you are now.

 

[dirty harry]

Congratulations on proving you don't have the mental capacity to work out why it can be corrupt and legal. Spend a few minutes trying to work it out.

"there is no nuance"

And there it is! Captain Nuance accusing others of having nuance you're a caricature of yourself at this point. You realise literally every accusation you make of anyone else applies to you? Nah you don't because you're a Dunning-Kruger case.

I'm 550% up in 9 months on an investment, that doesn't make me an investing guru and I'd never claim to be. Also amazing how Mr Nuance can't tell the difference between someone making 190% over 5 years in small level crypto trading and someone making 1.5 billion on a new crypto coin that they are attempting to pull the rug on. Oh that's right, just as stealing a chocolate bar is the same as stealing $1billion, Harry here on his Crypto trades is no different to what Trump is doing. Thank you Captain Nuance.

To use your own words: I need you to read this carefully I KNOW DEFAMATION DOESN'T PROVE CORRUPTION. Amazing irony isn't it that you demand I read carefully when you are too thick to realise the point about defamation had NOTHING to do with corruption and everything to do with his lack of intelligence, and apparently yours. You make out Trump is this great genius, in which case why does this genius keep doing stuff to open him up to further defamation lawsuits?

Trump is a scumbag billionaire, do you really want to claim otherwise?

Again try to work out why it may not be illegal, have all the time to think about it.

Again you ignore he WAS being prosecuted for fraud when he took the presidency. You seem determined to ignore this fact. But I guess the BBC are hysterical and Harry here knows it all. At least we've finally been able to drag you kicking and screaming into admitting something involving Trump is unprecedented.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Hahahahahaha

On a serious note, none of this makes sense, im not sure you are reading what i am saying!

For example, in response to my quote "just look at it without the emotion, Trump is a scumbag billionaire," you have responded with "Trump is a scumbag billionaire, do you really want to claim otherwise?" - can you qualify how this question makes any sense?

Then in response to me using the BBC article and ethical experts asertion that what Trump is doing is unethical but legal, and me making the argument that the Trump coin is 'disgracefull' you still want to argue that the crypto investment company is bad, mate are you reading what you are wtiting?
Just say yes we are aligned that the Trump coin is ropy as ****, but in a legal grey area so there is nothing anyone can do up until now?

Then theres all the personal stuff that just makes you look small andnpetty, drop the ego and emotion and just go over the evidence of what we know.

Trump is the most financially successful president of all time.

According to the BBC article Trumps wealth increase in the specific year of 2025 is unethical but legal.

Making money doesnt automatically equal corruption, especially if youve taken legal steps to minimise the potential to it, as required.

There are things we can agree on, lets try:

1. Presidents and Vices arent, but should be held to the same standards as other officials when it comes to legal requirements to avoid corruption and profiteering? Yes?

2. Trump media company, and crypto interests are currently legal? Yes?

3. Trump term 1 is thebfirst ever time a president has taken a financial hit while in office to serve his country?

4. Eric Trump is a better presidents son than Hunter Biden? Hahahaha

Mate just read what i said, make sense of it, wipe your eyes and respond in context, and without the petty attacks, and pivoting, once you can do that we could actually scrutinise the Trump coin issue, the clarity act merits etc...

 

[dirty harry]

Harry admitted that Trump coin is “super borderline disgraceful”, then immediately brushed it off as “just the grey area billionaires live in.” You couldn’t make it up.

And saying you’ve made money from crypto completely misses the point. (I suspect deliberately as you’re not that stupid) Nobody is saying crypto can’t make money. The issue is can people, including foreign nationals or anyone seeking influence, buy your crypto to financially benefit someone who holds the highest office in government? That’s the ethical concern. It’s not about whether crypto is profitable, it’s about who is able to enrich the sitting president and why they might choose to do so. But I suspect you know that is the point. I also suspect that had Biden done this you’d be taking a lot stronger of a position than you are now.

Did you just purposefully misquote me? Hahahahaha christ thats desperate!

But thankfully youve contributed, and your absolutely right, as ive commented above numerous times the possibility of corruption in Crypto is an issue, the Clarity Act might help (again as stated above) AND as you beautifully hammer home my and the BBCs (and their ethical experts) point, that making 2.2b in office while not in control of the companies is legal.

Your seemingly trying to pivot on Rageys behalf, but you dont need to, his point is clear that unprecedented wealth increase = corruption, my point is that it doesnt, but before we can scrutinise parts, we need to establish that fact!

 

[Welsh Exile]

Did you just purposefully misquote me? Hahahahaha christ thats desperate!

But thankfully youve contributed, and your absolutely right, as ive commented above numerous times the possibility of corruption in Crypto is an issue, the Clarity Act might help (again as stated above) AND as you beautifully hammer home my and the BBCs (and their ethical experts) point, that making 2.2b in office while not in control of the companies is legal.

Your seemingly trying to pivot on Rageys behalf, but you dont need to, his point is clear that unprecedented wealth increase = corruption, my point is that it doesnt, but before we can scrutinise parts, we need to establish that fact!

Where did I misquote you? Did you not say those 2 things?

Either way, my point is that a sitting president owning financial assets that anyone, including foreign nationals, can buy into creates an obvious avenue for influence.

Whether that amounts to criminal corruption is a separate question. But saying “it’s legal” doesn’t answer the ethical concern. Plenty of things can be legal and still create serious conflicts of interest.