lookin

So it looks like he hit his bogey yesterday, keeping the stock price above $17.50 for twenty days, and he's been awarded another 36 million shares. If my math is right, that brings his total holdings to 115 million shares. As if on cue, yesterday Devin Nunes asked Congress to investigate the potential "unlawful manipulation of DJT stock." Now that Trump has pocketed his 'earnout' bonus, my prediction was - and is - that he'll start bellyaching that he's once again being 'treated unfairly'. It would be nice if, just this once, he'd step up and say, "I'm running this business, my name is on the door, and it's up to me to make it a success and deliver value to our shareholders. I, Donald J. Trump, will make sure my investors and supporters are not left holding the bag." If he can make America great again, why can't he make Trump Media great again?

Perhaps he'd have better luck during the holidays.

In addition to today's dilution, there's at least one other shoe ready to drop, and that's when Trump receives an additional 36 million shares. It's part of his original deal and all he has to do is keep the stock price above $17.50 for twenty of any thirty days during a ninety day period that started on March 25th. Don't ask me who came up with that bogey, but it's one that Trump is likely to hit by the end of April. I'm not sure if today's announcement has anything to do with Trump's extra 36 million shares. But it does help me understand why Trump is keeping his pie hole shut about Trump Media and DJT stock. I'm sure he wants to avoid any focus on the extra 36 million shares until they're safely in his pocket. It's so unlike Trump to keep quiet about anything. At first I thought he'd dummy up until he'd found somebody to blame for the lousy performance of yet another Trump 'business'. Based on his past performance, I'd be surprised if he doesn't already have somebody(s) in mind to take the blame. My guess is he'll stay quiet until he's got the additional 36 million shares. And then we'll hear that he's been running a 'perfect' business worth at least ten billion dollars and that somebody is out to get him and the stock is a bargain anywhere under a hundred bucks.

Looks like some folks came in this morning and unloaded a few million shares in the first hour of trading, knocking the price down another five bucks (12%). There were some buyers at that price and the stock clawed back two dollars and then headed south again. It occurred to me that Trump himself, along with his family members, have the ability to buy more shares and help support the stock price. Perhaps they were among the buyers at midmorning. It would be a nice thing to do to help his supporters stay afloat. I also remembered that Trump met with Elon Musk in early March. Ostensibly, it was to get Musk's support for Trump's candidacy. While that didn't happen, it makes me wonder if they also discussed Musk's possible purchase of Trump Media. Musk's purchase of Twitter indicated that he's not averse to pissing away his billions in search of some kind of media footprint. And, if Trump gets elected, he could sure help Musk keep the government contracts flowing toward SpaceX. Seems like there's the basis for a deal between Musk and Trump but, for now, it would seem to hinge on Trump's getting elected. So now I can see two paths forward for this struggling stock, but they both require Trump to get elected. On the one hand, I've got to appreciate the amount of risk that Trump is willing to take in his business dealings. On the other hand, I'm content to be among those who aren't along for the ride. 😳

I think you've got it right. I can't say exactly who the buyers are but it's been widely reported that institutional investors are giving the stock a wide berth, so it's mostly retail investors who are putting up the cash. And they can't be very sophisticated if they're counting on Devin Nunes to lead them to a pot of gold. His own auditors have expressed concern that the company may not be able to keep operating for much longer. As I posted upstream, I was toying with the idea of shorting the stock but there are so many others with the same idea that it's costing them 500% annual interest to 'borrow' the shares they plan to sell back at a lower price. So I'll continue to be just a bystander. The oddest thing I've come across is the decision by Forbes a couple days ago to increase Trump's net worth by $3.4 billion. I'm guessing that's based on his ownership of 79 million shares of DJT stock, which they appear to have valued at $43 a share. I'm sure he could sell a hundred shares at that price and maybe a thousand shares at that price but, if he ever tried selling 79 million shares at that price, the stock would crater. The only thing I can think of that would justify the current stock price is Trump's actually winning the election and siccing the FCC on his competitors. "But, Lookin", you say, "don't we have laws that would prevent him from driving other social media companies out of business?" Sure we do. For now.

That, and how many shares? This could be a fun thread if folks were willing to post their buys and sells, and at what prices. I've been toying with the idea of shorting the stock. Problem is, (a) I've never shorted a stock and (b) I read that this is one of the most expensive stocks to short, whatever that means. But, if I do figure out how and when to do it, I'll definitely post my numbers.

Funny, you don't look Canadian . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for the info. It seems strange that gay clubs can survive in a place where Pride earrings get you a jail sentence. But much of the world seems pretty strange these days. Honestly, every time I get ready to tell the Russians or Chinese what to do, I see our President slow-walking the Israeli destruction of Gaza. If I can't get my own country to help a disappearing population survive, I'm not sure how effective I can be in solving problems on the other side of the world. Haven't given up, that's for sure, but for me this is a time of focus on things closer to home.

There were (at least) a couple things about this case I didn't understand until recently. First is the way the fines were set. I thought they were really high and meant to be more punitive than reflective of actual damages. As Trump says, "Nobody lost any money and there are no victims and they were all perfect deals." But looking at the way the damages were calculated, it's a pretty conservative approach and one that seems unlikely to be reversed on appeal. The way I now understand the 'fines', they're not so much fines as they are calculations of how much money Trump saved by lying about his assets and therefore his risk profile. In one case, he 'saved' over a hundred million in interest charges that the banks were entitled to had they actually known his assets were worth much less than he swore to. Those 'savings' went right into his pocket, and now the court is telling him he has to give them back. In the other case, he made another hundred million or so by getting a deal on the old Post Office, turning it into a hotel, and selling it for a profit - which, again, went right into his pocket. If he had been honest about his assets from the beginning, he wouldn't have got the Post Office deal in the first place. And now the court is telling him he has to give those profits back. In both cases, he will be left exactly as he was before these deals began. He is merely being asked to return the gains he made by misrepresenting his financial condition. If a bank robber was punished by merely having to give back the money he stole, he'd consider it his lucky day. When I look at the 'penalties' that way, they seem more than reasonable to me. Disgorgement of fraudulent 'profits' is about the most lenient remedy I can think of and I'd be surprised if an appeals court concludes that Trump was treated 'unfairly'. The second thing I realized comes from Trump's own statements that 'Everybody does what I did.' If that's true, it makes perfect sense that the government would want to make a very public example of what happens when somebody lies in order to pocket 'profits' that they have no legal right to. Again, I'd be surprised if an appeals court reversed this message and said it's fine to break the law and, if you get caught, the worst that will happen is that you've got to give the money back. Plus a little interest. The one thing that does make Trump an outlier in a case like this is that he's got a bunch of 'followers' who he thinks will be happy to reimburse him for the ill-gotten gains the courts are taking away. If he's right, every collared bank robber in the country will have a GoFundMe page.

Personally, I don't do sneakers. It takes a lot of practice to be able to mince in sneakers - they keep catching in the shag carpet. And forget flouncing! I'm pretty much limited to low-heel pumps and slingbacks for more formal occasions. But I am tempted to try one of the essences. For 99 bucks, I could get the cologne with a 'crisp opening of citrus blends into a cedar heart, underpinned by a rich base of leather and amber, crafting a commanding presence.' According to the website, the cologne is for 'the movers, the shakers, and the history makers.' But there's the problem. What if I attend the Palm Springs Weekend, or Totally Oz's Arabian Nights Extravaganza, and there's another Forum member who's also there moving and shaking and history making with Trump cologne oozing out of every pore? So I'm leaning toward a giant economy-size bottle of the Trump perfume. According to the website, it's 'Infused with a blend of light floral notes, hints of citrus zest, and a whisper of spice.' It also says 'This scent is for the woman who embraces her victories with grace and allure.' The one snag is that I don't get all that many victories to embrace, and my grace and allure are long past their sell-by date. I want to show some kind of pecuniary support though. Perhaps I should just hang back until he starts hawking a nice Trump Wrinkle Creme, or Trump Suppositories, or Trump Hair Spray with PFAS and a methane Power Burst®. Lots to think about and it couldn't hurt to start with a little pick-me-up.

Now there's a hat going back on the shelf.

Nah, just a bad batch of Spray Net®

Thank you, Nevada! I came in second to no one.

Although it's not surprising, the thing that distresses me is the willingness of so many to put millions of folks in one basket, labelled the 'other', and treat them as objects rather than human beings. We say 'Palestinians' and don't distinguish between zealots who murder Israelis indiscriminately and fathers who are searching for their children in the rubble. We say Israelis and don't distinguish between IDF forces who drop bombs on apartment buildings and protesters who are out in the streets calling for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. A few weeks ago, I was filled with admiration for the Israeli citizens who were protesting Netanyahu's anti-democratic actions. Many of them are still there, but their voices have been lessened and confused with other Israelis who want to see Gaza obliterated by Israeli hawks. I hope the compassionate Israelis survive this terrible time and grow even stronger. Across many parts of the world, I think we're watching authoritarian followers in action as they let their fear of the 'other' take over their lives and cause them to see other human beings as worthless. Never mind that all major religions, including the ones they follow, are based on love and compassion. About the only generalization I'll make is that people who kill civilians are murderers. I don't care where they live, what religion they follow, or what their genetic heritage is. They're murderers and I won't support them.

Some lectern! 😳 She says she's not going to use it though, as it could become a distraction. And we wouldn't want that!

Worth remembering that Hitler and a handful of his cronies went to jail after their unsuccessful Munich putsch in 1923. Hitler served eight months of his five-year sentence and, while in prison, wrote Mein Kampf. Within a decade, he was appointed Chancellor and a few months later he was der Führer. As I've posted elsewhere, it is very difficult to detach authoritarian followers from their 'leader'. They latched on to Hitler as they have latched onto Trump. Germany was nearly destroyed before Hitler's base would abandon him. I expect that any punishment Trump receives will make some folks feel better but I doubt that his base will abandon him. If you're not an authoritarian follower, it's not easy to understand what makes them tick. But, until we do, and until they have a less divisive and destructive leader, my expectation is that our society will continue to unravel. Punishing Trump, in my opinion, will not be enough.

The other day I watched a biography of Al Capone. 📺 👀 He had roughly the same respect for state and federal law as Trump has, and there was no shortage of folks trying to get him in front of a jury. What I found interesting is that Capone never once hollered 'Witch Hunt' nor did he accuse anyone of 'weaponizing' the judicial system against him. He just played a straight-up game of 'Catch-me-if-you-can.' Which they could and which they did. Early on, he did time at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, where he had a pretty sweet setup. The warden would come to his cell and listen to the radio. Eventually the Feds got hold of him on tax evasion and figured it would be good PR to send him to their new federal prison on Alcatraz. He didn't do so well there, as they soon diagnosed a long-untreated case of syphilis which had begun to rot his brain and left him confused and delusional. After a long stay in the prison's hospital wing, he got an early parole to go home and be with his family in Miami Beach. I don't know why I bring all this up in a thread about Donald Trump. I guess their lifelong devotion to skirting the law is one thing that binds them together. And the years of mayhem they left in their wake. But Capone never spent all day every day bellyaching about being treated 'unfairly', and Trump never managed to find a good haberdasher. Not so far anyway.

Personally, a change of venue doesn't worry me. There may be places where it would be more difficult to select an impartial jury but I have faith in the selection process itself. Once both parties have agreed to a jury, I trust the jury to consider the evidence. For me, what's important is to finally get Trump's actions under close examination and let the evidence speak for itself. Should he be found guilty, I expect him to follow form and attack the jury itself. But, if it's a jury he himself has called for, that will make his theatrics even less credible than usual.

Ze Theory of Relativity vas a good idea. Indicting Drumpf iss cheenius!

It won't be news to anyone here that gay folks are not all cut from the same cloth. Even in our small world here in the Politics forum, there's diversity and difference of opinion in every thread. In my opinion, 'the gays' is commonly used to create divisiveness much as 'the Jews' was used to create warring segments of German society. I know it wasn't the intent of the OP to put us into a silo but there are, in fact, people who do have the intention of creating silos within an otherwise collaborative society. And it's something to be keenly aware of. Falling into that trap means a steep descent for all of us. Trump demonstrated that dividing society into warring factions is a good fundraising tactic, a way to assemble street gangs, a path to get back in the White House and perhaps one day to bring an end to democracy in the US. He's shown a few others how to use these tactics. Although he's still the most accomplished in this country, that could easily change. As far as I can tell, 'the gays' is not yet the wedge group that will divide our society into dysfunction. There are a number of groups who have been given trial runs: 'the Muslims', 'the Chinese', 'the Blacks', 'the Mexicans', 'Antifa', 'the Leftists', 'the Deep State', 'the Woke', 'the Coastal Elite', 'the Democrats' - and whoever else will be the next group that will energize enough followers to bring in the money and swing an election. Fighting these tactics from within a silo is not, at least in my opinion, the way to go. Rather, the fight has to be in resisting silos in the first place. Pastor Niemöller had it right nearly a century ago. So, no, I don't think 'the Gays' have gone too far. To the extent we consent to inhabit a silo, we haven't gone nearly far enough. When we join with other siloed groups and pulverize those walls, even then we'll just be moseying up to the starting line.

I've been indicted And I just can't hide it I'm about to lose control And I do not like it

Party favorites - Pirozhki Putinoff - one bite is enough

You mean I got made up and brushed out for nothing?

Maria Lvova-Belova Took off in an old Chevy Nova She really hauled ass Till she ran out of gas Just across from the White Cliffs of Dover

If that's true, and you sure know a lot more of the history than I do, a ceasefire makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense just to stop the destruction of communities and whole cities. No one should have to live with bombs going off around them all day. And I sure can't say that sending weapons to Ukraine is doing anything to stop this destruction. Unless one day Putin decides to call everyone back home and let Ukraine start to rebuild. I guess that's the only hope and, as of today, it seems pretty much of a long shot. Im my opinion, I think the U. S. had a better standing in the world when it was begged to intervene rather than when it waded in uninvited and certainly when it waded in to gain more power. Power, in my opinion, is something to be avoided and handled judiciously when it can't be avoided. I guess it's possible to stop sending arms to Ukraine and ask our allies to do the same. It would also be possible to look the other way if Putin starts bombing every other country that he sees as part of Mother Russia. We could just wait to see what happens. We could even further that approach and become neutral, isolationist and uninvolved anywhere outside our borders. That was the position of the US throughout much of its history, and it could be again. We could also stop funding the military and start dismantling our nuclear arsenal. We could keep our fingers crossed that no other country would walk, float and fly in to help themselves to whatever they like. Personally, I wouldn't kill anybody over ownership of a laptop or even a house. I expect most of my fellow humans feel the same way. Here at home, I can vote and support leaders who share my values. But I can't vote Putin out, no matter how many lives he destroys. It seems my only tool, besides denial, is to support those who want to get rid of him. Not a good option, and I'm sure I'm missing some better ones.