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.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread
I can, and did. I made a tangential reply, it was not intended as an argument as you had apparently taken it.
The second reply was a bit of an argument as you seemed to want to argue. The third contained a statement to indicate that I agreed OP was full of crap on different grounds.
Those are different topics.
Indeed. I am not opposing you in court, a reply on a threaded forum is just that, a reply, in this case an admittedly tangential one, but I though the specific piece I quoted made that clear. If it wasn't clear the original claim wasn't an argument, I apologize.
Fair enough. It sounds like we were having different conversations.
I entered the thread because I was interested in the consistency of standards question raised by the OP. My point was simply that if certain trading patterns and potential conflicts of interest are enough to raise concerns about Congress, then people should at least ask whether similar concerns apply elsewhere.
The reason why I originlly commented, other than the basic fact that I believe in the same standards for everyone, is because if Anons reading this here try to use it to red pill normies or liberals about how corrupt Congress (especially Pelosi) is, then the likelihood is extremely high that the people who they're trying to redpill will bring the same up concerning Trump. And that type of thing actively works against us when it comes to redpilling normies, which, according to Q and the sidebar of this site, is our main job.
It sounds like you weren't really interested in that question and were making a separate observation about Trump's wealth and investment performance.
Nothing wrong with that, but those are different discussions, which is probably why we kept talking past each other.
So I think we can just put this entire conversation to rest now and I apologize for misreading what your purpose was. I hope the rest of your week goes well.
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.
I can, and did. I made a tangential reply, it was not intended as an argument as you had apparently taken it.
The second reply was a bit of an argument as you seemed to want to argue. The third contained a statement to indicate that I agreed OP was full of crap on different grounds.
Indeed. I am not opposing you in court, a reply on a threaded forum is just that, a reply, in this case an admittedly tangential one, but I though the specific piece I quoted made that clear. If it wasn't clear the original claim wasn't an argument, I apologize.
Fair enough. It sounds like we were having different conversations.
I entered the thread because I was interested in the consistency of standards question raised by the OP. My point was simply that if certain trading patterns and potential conflicts of interest are enough to raise concerns about Congress, then people should at least ask whether similar concerns apply elsewhere.
The reason why I originlly commented, other than the basic fact that I believe in the same standards for everyone, is because if Anons reading this here try to use it to red pill normies or liberals about how corrupt Congress (especially Pelosi) is, then the likelihood is extremely high that the people who they're trying to redpill will bring the same up concerning Trump. And that type of thing actively works against us when it comes to redpilling normies, which, according to Q and the sidebar of this site, is our main job.
It sounds like you weren't really interested in that question and were making a separate observation about Trump's wealth and investment performance.
Nothing wrong with that, but those are different discussions, which is probably why we kept talking past each other.
So I think we can just put this entire conversation to rest now and I apologize for misreading what your purpose was. I hope the rest of your week goes well.