1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

That isn't what ABC 6 said. Call them. Say nothing Trump does ever works it triggers me and you need to retract it immediately.

The lines are 4 hours again. What the F are you talking about?

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Well Paul you are just on the opposite side of that I guess then.

What does this even mean?

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

The lines are 4 hours again. What the F are you talking about?

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

What do you mean "Fund ICE as well"? ICE is fully funded through 2029. So what exactly are you talking about?

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is a sentence that's been spoken to him on a daily basis for his entire adult life, sadly.

Just now, Paul852 said:

What does this even mean?

Nobody knows what it means but it's provocative. It's gets the people going.

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

wait wait wait you mean to tell me that security lines at airports ebb and flow throughout the day? And that sometimes they're long and sometimes they're short. And that the brief time in the afternoon when they were short yesterday wasn't due to ICE standing around in the waiting area?

Who knew.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Nobody knows what it means but it's provocative. It's gets the people going.

Watching DieHard devolve in real time makes you understand Lynched a bit more. They just back themselves so far into a corner that their only go-to is incoherent freestyle poetry.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That isn't what ABC 6 said. Call them. Say nothing Trump does ever works it triggers me and you need to retract it immediately.

ABC claimed that ICE agents standing around the terminals at airports is what caused the security lines to shorten?

If ICE agents standing around the terminals at airports were the cause of the shortened lines, then why were there long wait times again today at airports where ICE agents were at?

Why are representatives of congress claiming that short lines at airports where ICE isn't even at are a result of ICE being there?

Man it's almost as if Trumpers are just trying to praise Trump for doing "something" even if it didn't actually do anything. This is the LA wildfires all over again when the Trumpers praised Trump for opening up a dam that released water to a lake 50 miles away from LA and claimed that this was solving the problem.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

ABC claimed that ICE agents standing around the terminals at airports is what caused the security lines to shorten?

If ICE agents standing around the terminals at airports were the cause of the shortened lines, then why were there long wait times again today at airports where ICE agents were at?

Why are representatives of congress claiming that short lines at airports where ICE isn't even at are a result of ICE being there?

Man it's almost as if Trumpers are just trying to praise Trump for doing "something" even if it didn't actually do anything. This is the LA wildfires all over again when the Trumpers praised Trump for opening up a dam that released water to a lake 50 miles away from LA and claimed that this was solving the problem.

Scroll back dude

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Watching DieHard devolve in real time makes you understand Lynched a bit more. They just back themselves so far into a corner that their only go-to is incoherent freestyle poetry.

The herd mentally of you deranged people is quite enjoyable

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

The herd mentally of you deranged people is quite enjoyable

We're not picking on you because you're not part of the herd. We're picking on you because you're dumb.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Scroll back dude

why were there long lines at some airports again today where ICE agents were at? If ICE agents being there were the cause of the short lines, how did they get long again? Maybe those short lines in the afternoon at some airports yesterday was just a correlation, and not a causation as it relates to ICE. FWIW I also think the media was overblowing the security line stories as it makes for good theatre. Watching the stories they'd have you thinking this was happening at all the big airports at every terminal all day long.

2 hours ago, Bill said:

@vikas83

What's the likelihood that those large moves 5 min before the announcements are coming from inside? Who's one making those moves, in your opinion?

They are obviously trades by someone with information about the President's statements. Now, it's debatable whether that is in fact insider trading. Insider trading requires someone to trade on information that (i) is non-public, (ii) is material, and (ii) is received from someone who has a duty not to disclose such information. The issue here is, did someone receive that information in breach of a duty? Does the President have a duty to keep his announcement confidential? I don't know the answer to that.

Using the obvious example - if Trump told Barron about his upcoming tweet, and then Barron traded off it, is it illegal? While common sense says yes, the actual law will ask "was this information received in breach of a duty" not to disclose. In the most typical insider trading cases, you get inside info from a company executive who has a duty to the company to not disclose the info. Does a politician have that duty? Does a President, when talking about his own actions?

So it's clearly someone with knowledge of the announcement - the trading activity is blatant. But is it illegal? It should be, but it might not technically be.

4 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

The herd mentally of you deranged people is quite enjoyable

Dude, ICE didn't do squat to help with the lines yesterday. The reports are all out there. All you have to do is actually look for them. Yes, some airports had lighter lines AT TIMES yesterday and that was JUST LIKE the days before yesterday. I even double checked this with both ChatGPT and your fav Grok for you. "No measurable effect", sorry dude.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

They are obviously trades by someone with information about the President's statements. Now, it's debatable whether that is in fact insider trading. Insider trading requires someone to trade on information that (i) is non-public, (ii) is material, and (ii) is received from someone who has a duty not to disclose such information. The issue here is, did someone receive that information in breach of a duty? Does the President have a duty to keep his announcement confidential? I don't know the answer to that.

Using the obvious example - if Trump told Barron about his upcoming tweet, and then Barron traded off it, is it illegal? While common sense says yes, the actual law will ask "was this information received in breach of a duty" not to disclose. In the most typical insider trading cases, you get inside info from a company executive who has a duty to the company to not disclose the info. Does a politician have that duty? Does a President, when talking about his own actions?

So it's clearly someone with knowledge of the announcement - the trading activity is blatant. But is it illegal? It should be, but it might not technically be.

Luckily we know Trump wouldn't do something illegal.

15 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

We're not picking on you because you're not part of the herd. We're picking on you because you're dumb.

Not about me 🤣

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Dude, ICE didn't do squat to help with the lines yesterday. The reports are all out there. All you have to do is actually look for them. Yes, some airports had lighter lines AT TIMES yesterday and that was JUST LIKE the days before yesterday. I even double checked this with both ChatGPT and your fav Grok for you. "No measurable effect", sorry dude.

"But CNN said...."

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Dude, ICE didn't do squat to help with the lines yesterday. The reports are all out there. All you have to do is actually look for them. Yes, some airports had lighter lines AT TIMES yesterday and that was JUST LIKE the days before yesterday. I even double checked this with both ChatGPT and your fav Grok for you. "No measurable effect", sorry dude.

"Gunther Eagleman" has far worse accuracy in reporting than CNN. it's laughable the sources you idiots use.

Dunning-Kruger went into overdrive when people could select their own "news" sources that tell them what they want to hear.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

"Gunther Eagleman" has far worse accuracy in reporting than CNN. it's laughable the sources you idiots use.

Dunning-Kruger went into overdrive when people could select their own "news" sources that tell them what they want to hear.

Good thing he wasn't the source vs sharing the video of Wolf. Damn you all are desperate

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Good thing he wasn't the source vs sharing the video of Wolf. Damn you all are desperate

DieHard when someone says something mean about Gunther Eagleman

Tremendous

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

They are obviously trades by someone with information about the President's statements. Now, it's debatable whether that is in fact insider trading. Insider trading requires someone to trade on information that (i) is non-public, (ii) is material, and (ii) is received from someone who has a duty not to disclose such information. The issue here is, did someone receive that information in breach of a duty? Does the President have a duty to keep his announcement confidential? I don't know the answer to that.

Using the obvious example - if Trump told Barron about his upcoming tweet, and then Barron traded off it, is it illegal? While common sense says yes, the actual law will ask "was this information received in breach of a duty" not to disclose. In the most typical insider trading cases, you get inside info from a company executive who has a duty to the company to not disclose the info. Does a politician have that duty? Does a President, when talking about his own actions?

So it's clearly someone with knowledge of the announcement - the trading activity is blatant. But is it illegal? It should be, but it might not technically be.

Wouldn't it technically be classified info of planning a military attack? That would be nonpublic and definitely a duty to not disclose. Though I guess trump would just say he declassified it as soon as he told the person

They probably discussed it through the signal chat too

45 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Good thing he wasn't the source vs sharing the video of Wolf. Damn you all are desperate

The CVON celebration when they think theyve owned a Trumper