But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
I did not make the original post or goalposts, so I moved nothing. My statement stood alone. Someone's wealth increasing several fold after being in congress for a few years is not the same as Trump going from 4.5 to 6.5 billion(~3% a year) from 2015 to today, when the VOO SP 500 index went from 184 to 681 (~12% a year)over the same time period, he underperformed the market by a heck of a lot.
I do not give a singular shit about OP. Pay attention. Not one singular crap about OP. My comment in reply to him was that his video was only tangentially related to his assertion, and did not contemplate it further on those grounds as I assumed him a grifting tweeter and do not defend him in any way.
I was a making standalone prediction that Trump would drop off the list if you based it on percentage, I did not make an assertion that he would, but a prediction, as I think my original verbage well implies. I made this in response to a piece(the quoted piece) of your comment and your comment alone, and not even the whole thing. I made the second claim, with data, as a second refutation that Trump's investing strategy is backed by significant insider trading, as if it was, he would be insanely terrible at it.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread and expect everyone to pretend it doesn't exist.
The OP was accusing members of Congress of effectively engaging in insider trading based on trading activity, access to information, and conflicts of interest.
My point was that if we're applying that standard consistently, people should at least consider whether similar questions could be asked elsewhere.
Since then you've changed the discussion from trading activity to percentage wealth growth, and now to whether Trump beat the S&P 500.
Those are different topics.
A person can underperform the market and still have a conflict of interest. A person can make bad trades and still have access to privileged information.
If your point is that Trump wasn't a particularly successful investor, that's fine. But that's not the issue I was discussing, and it's not the issue raised by the OP either. I'm interested jn discussing the topics in the OP, even if you aren't. So if you don't care about it, then you don't need to be involved in tje conversation.
But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
I did not make the original post or goalposts, so I moved nothing. My statement stood alone. Someone's wealth increasing several fold after being in congress for a few years is not the same as Trump going from 4.5 to 6.5 billion(~3% a year) from 2015 to today, when the VOO SP 500 index went from 184 to 681 (~12% a year)over the same time period, he underperformed the market by a heck of a lot.
That's twice now the subject has changed.
First it became "percentage increase in wealth."
Now it's "did he beat the market?"
The OP wasn't about either of those things.
The OP was claiming that active trading combined with access to inside government information is suspicious.
When I point out that the same question could be asked elsewhere, the conversation immediately becomes about something else.
Why keep changing the metrics instead of discussing the one the OP started with?
I do not give a singular shit about OP. Pay attention. Not one singular crap about OP. My comment in reply to him was that his video was only tangentially related to his assertion, and did not contemplate it further on those grounds as I assumed him a grifting tweeter and do not defend him in any way.
I was a making standalone prediction that Trump would drop off the list if you based it on percentage, I did not make an assertion that he would, but a prediction, as I think my original verbage well implies. I made this in response to a piece(the quoted piece) of your comment and your comment alone, and not even the whole thing. I made the second claim, with data, as a second refutation that Trump's investing strategy is backed by significant insider trading, as if it was, he would be insanely terrible at it.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread and expect everyone to pretend it doesn't exist.
The OP was accusing members of Congress of effectively engaging in insider trading based on trading activity, access to information, and conflicts of interest.
My point was that if we're applying that standard consistently, people should at least consider whether similar questions could be asked elsewhere.
Since then you've changed the discussion from trading activity to percentage wealth growth, and now to whether Trump beat the S&P 500.
Those are different topics.
A person can underperform the market and still have a conflict of interest. A person can make bad trades and still have access to privileged information.
If your point is that Trump wasn't a particularly successful investor, that's fine. But that's not the issue I was discussing, and it's not the issue raised by the OP either. I'm interested jn discussing the topics in the OP, even if you aren't. So if you don't care about it, then you don't need to be involved in tje conversation.