Quote:

---

Who made those trades and how are they related to the Trump admin? What information were they provided and when versus the public?

If you have receipts then post them. Should be easy.

---

I forgot. Not a serious person.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Who made those trades and how are they related to the Trump admin? What information were they provided and when versus the public?

If you have receipts then post them. Should be easy.

---

I forgot. Not a serious person.

---

Yea, unserious people ask for evidence.

Serious people say "Orange Man Bad, I hates him cause he has more than me and tweets mean things."

Posting a stock ticker of a stock you own is a pretty good indication. But we can agree to disagree, even though you don't.

resident liberal here:

Congress, The President, and Federal Judiciary (not just SCOTUS) should be prohibited from buy and selling stock as a condition of there employment. Upon being elected, their assets should be placed in a blind trust that they can then take over once they leave office. This should also apply to their immediate family.


I don't care what flavor of political persuasion they subscribe to. It is corrupt as hell to have information that is not accessible to the general public or have the power to influence law/policy and use that to profit via the stock market.

The idea that a congressperson needs to be able to trade stock because the $174K salary isn't enough is absurd. That puts them in something like the top 10%-15% of all incomes in the US and it's a big slap in the face to the majority of this country.

And as you know, Trump himself isn't making any trades. Glad that's settled.

nai06 said:

---

resident liberal here:

Congress, The President, and Federal Judiciary (not just SCOTUS) should be prohibited from buy and selling stock as a condition of there employment. Upon being elected, their assets should be placed in a blind trust that they can then take over once they leave office. This should also apply to their immediate family.


I don't care what flavor of political persuasion they subscribe to. It is corrupt as hell to have information that is not accessible to the general public or have the power to influence law/policy and use that to profit via the stock market.

The idea that a congressperson needs to be able to trade stock because the $174K salary isn't enough is absurd. That puts them in something like the top 10%-15% of all incomes in the US and it's a big slap in the face to the majority of this country.

---

I completely disagree. There should be lockout periods and disclosures for conflicts of interest just like executives at a public company. This is America, they should be free to buy and sell equities so long as there is proof they did not have insider knowledge.

What congress and other elected positions should go without is a salary. We need to reframe these positions back to one of service and not of career.

Ragoo said:

---

nai06 said:

---

resident liberal here:

Congress, The President, and Federal Judiciary (not just SCOTUS) should be prohibited from buy and selling stock as a condition of there employment. Upon being elected, their assets should be placed in a blind trust that they can then take over once they leave office. This should also apply to their immediate family.


I don't care what flavor of political persuasion they subscribe to. It is corrupt as hell to have information that is not accessible to the general public or have the power to influence law/policy and use that to profit via the stock market.

The idea that a congressperson needs to be able to trade stock because the $174K salary isn't enough is absurd. That puts them in something like the top 10%-15% of all incomes in the US and it's a big slap in the face to the majority of this country.

---

I completely disagree. There should be lockout periods and disclosures for conflicts of interest just like executives at a public company. This is America, they should be free to buy and sell equities so long as there is proof they did not have insider knowledge.

What congress and other elected positions should go without is a salary. We need to reframe these positions back to one of service and not of career.

---

Removing a salary of any kind means limiting who can actually do that job. I don't want congress to only be accessible to people who are already independently wealthy and can afford to just not work for 4-6 years.

nai06 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

nai06 said:

---

resident liberal here:

Congress, The President, and Federal Judiciary (not just SCOTUS) should be prohibited from buy and selling stock as a condition of there employment. Upon being elected, their assets should be placed in a blind trust that they can then take over once they leave office. This should also apply to their immediate family.


I don't care what flavor of political persuasion they subscribe to. It is corrupt as hell to have information that is not accessible to the general public or have the power to influence law/policy and use that to profit via the stock market.

The idea that a congressperson needs to be able to trade stock because the $174K salary isn't enough is absurd. That puts them in something like the top 10%-15% of all incomes in the US and it's a big slap in the face to the majority of this country.

---

I completely disagree. There should be lockout periods and disclosures for conflicts of interest just like executives at a public company. This is America, they should be free to buy and sell equities so long as there is proof they did not have insider knowledge.

What congress and other elected positions should go without is a salary. We need to reframe these positions back to one of service and not of career.

---

Removing a salary of any kind means limiting who can actually do that job. I don't want congress to only be accessible to people who are already independently wealthy and can afford to just not work for 4-6 years.

---

I think you are pretty naive if you think people in congress are surviving on their salary.

doubledog said:

---

New Flash. Trump is the first U.S. President in our life time to loose money while in office.

We should all invest in the nothing-burger fast food franchise, because there is a lot of those burgers these days.

---

This may have been true during his first term, but is decidedly not in his second. His wealth has increased by billions in his second term.

The most selfless President we've ever had.

Thank God for Donald God Trump.

Jealousy.

Claude! said:

---

Quote:

---

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization earlier said that the president's holdings are independently managed by third-party financial institutions who have control over all investment decisions, with trades executed through automated processes. Trump, his family members and his company play no role in making transactions, the spokesperson said. They receive no advance notice of trading activity and provide no input, she added.

---

---

Well, if the spokesman from the Trump organization says so! They would certainly never lie.

Ragoo said:

---

nai06 said:

---

resident liberal here:

Congress, The President, and Federal Judiciary (not just SCOTUS) should be prohibited from buy and selling stock as a condition of there employment. Upon being elected, their assets should be placed in a blind trust that they can then take over once they leave office. This should also apply to their immediate family.


I don't care what flavor of political persuasion they subscribe to. It is corrupt as hell to have information that is not accessible to the general public or have the power to influence law/policy and use that to profit via the stock market.

The idea that a congressperson needs to be able to trade stock because the $174K salary isn't enough is absurd. That puts them in something like the top 10%-15% of all incomes in the US and it's a big slap in the face to the majority of this country.

---

I completely disagree. There should be lockout periods and disclosures for conflicts of interest just like executives at a public company. This is America, they should be free to buy and sell equities so long as there is proof they did not have insider knowledge.

What congress and other elected positions should go without is a salary. We need to reframe these positions back to one of service and not of career.

---

No.

We should raise their salaries to 400k, and allow zero outside income. If we catch them taking kickbacks from giant corporations, the penalty is the death penalty.

Anything less and corruption will only continue to grow.

Nancy Pelosi thinks those are rookie numbers.

And Hillary wants to know if he's made any significant coin in cattle futures.

Biz Ag said:

---

Nancy Pelosi thinks those are rookie numbers.

---

the number of trades? Cause that's all that was provided.

You forgot to deflect to Biden and Obama as well

Or you could explain what law was broken in the OP.

But nah, Orange Man Bad works.

ETFan said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So Trump makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this is Trump doing insider trading or similar?

Your hate for those who have more than you is truly bizarre.

---

So Pelosi makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this it Pelosi insider trading or similar?

All investments should be in broad index funds with no trading allowed once they are set (they could add to them at a preset date each month) for all members of Congress, executive branch leadership and Federal Justices including the Supremes.

---

With Pelosi there is a whole mountain of data indicating inside information.

With Trump, it's that the algorithm his advisers used bought a bunch of muni bonds with zero indication Trumps investments were outperforming others.

Or… Trump is a scumbag manipulating markets and enriching himself through his office. That's much more plausible cause he knows he will get away with it.

---

Your original statement was there is no sign with Trump because he filed with the compliance officer so there can be no insider trading. Don't forget Trump has the ability to move the market as President way more than any other person in the world. If he knows what he holds, he can influence how it performs with a simple post on Truth. This is an optics issue that highlights why there should be no holding of individual stocks.

As for Pelosi, she is joined by a bipartisan group of Congress people with a lot of questionable trades. She and her husband don't even have close to the best track record on trading in Congress. Last year, Republicans topped the list of best investment performance.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.): +52%
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): +50%
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.): +37%
Rep. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.): +37%
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.): +35%
Rep. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): +35%
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.): +33%
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.): +29%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): +29%
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): +29%

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-pelosi-congress-member-233111954.html

---

You're wasting your breath. Regardless of this instance being insider or not, he can do no wrong. The end.

I mean, there are people claiming he has LOST wealth as POTUS. Mass psychosis, absolutely incredible.

---

im up 43% over the last year but im not in congress. What's your point besides jealousy?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Or you could explain what law was broken in the OP.

But nah, Orange Man Bad works.

---

Learn to read.

Ragoo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So Trump makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this is Trump doing insider trading or similar?

Your hate for those who have more than you is truly bizarre.

---

So Pelosi makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this it Pelosi insider trading or similar?

All investments should be in broad index funds with no trading allowed once they are set (they could add to them at a preset date each month) for all members of Congress, executive branch leadership and Federal Justices including the Supremes.

---

With Pelosi there is a whole mountain of data indicating inside information.

With Trump, it's that the algorithm his advisers used bought a bunch of muni bonds with zero indication Trumps investments were outperforming others.

Or… Trump is a scumbag manipulating markets and enriching himself through his office. That's much more plausible cause he knows he will get away with it.

---

Your original statement was there is no sign with Trump because he filed with the compliance officer so there can be no insider trading. Don't forget Trump has the ability to move the market as President way more than any other person in the world. If he knows what he holds, he can influence how it performs with a simple post on Truth. This is an optics issue that highlights why there should be no holding of individual stocks.

As for Pelosi, she is joined by a bipartisan group of Congress people with a lot of questionable trades. She and her husband don't even have close to the best track record on trading in Congress. Last year, Republicans topped the list of best investment performance.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.): +52%
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): +50%
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.): +37%
Rep. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.): +37%
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.): +35%
Rep. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): +35%
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.): +33%
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.): +29%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): +29%
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): +29%

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-pelosi-congress-member-233111954.html

---

You're wasting your breath. Regardless of this instance being insider or not, he can do no wrong. The end.

I mean, there are people claiming he has LOST wealth as POTUS. Mass psychosis, absolutely incredible.

---

im up 43% over the last year but im not in congress. What's your point besides jealousy?

---

What a weird take? Completely unrelated to what I said. Why are you mad at me?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

And as you know, Trump himself isn't making any trades. Glad that's settled.

---

Exactly. And, VP Vance did a great job handling this pathetic propagandist yesterday on this fake news issue. I dare you to listen to this without laughing.

Your periodic reminder that @AndrewFeinberg is a Democrat activist and talentless loser cosplaying as a reporter.@VP dismantles him with ease. pic.twitter.com/ZgBuBnalwJ

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 19, 2026

Exactly right, too.

Shame on you for dollar cost averaging in this case…

Also, you are assuming he wouldn't have already owned AAPL directly or through index or mutual funds, which is highly unlikely.

For this type of scenario to occur for the President to always make money there would need to be just as many sell orders primed before he takes an adverse stance on virtually any topic to mitigate his downside, otherwise the following gains would just be a wash.

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Or you could explain what law was broken in the OP.

But nah, Orange Man Bad works.

---

Learn to read past the headlines.

---

There, how about you do this and I will come back and see what update phrasin you have.

ETFan said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So Trump makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this is Trump doing insider trading or similar?

Your hate for those who have more than you is truly bizarre.

---

So Pelosi makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this it Pelosi insider trading or similar?

All investments should be in broad index funds with no trading allowed once they are set (they could add to them at a preset date each month) for all members of Congress, executive branch leadership and Federal Justices including the Supremes.

---

With Pelosi there is a whole mountain of data indicating inside information.

With Trump, it's that the algorithm his advisers used bought a bunch of muni bonds with zero indication Trumps investments were outperforming others.

Or… Trump is a scumbag manipulating markets and enriching himself through his office. That's much more plausible cause he knows he will get away with it.

---

Your original statement was there is no sign with Trump because he filed with the compliance officer so there can be no insider trading. Don't forget Trump has the ability to move the market as President way more than any other person in the world. If he knows what he holds, he can influence how it performs with a simple post on Truth. This is an optics issue that highlights why there should be no holding of individual stocks.

As for Pelosi, she is joined by a bipartisan group of Congress people with a lot of questionable trades. She and her husband don't even have close to the best track record on trading in Congress. Last year, Republicans topped the list of best investment performance.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.): +52%
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): +50%
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.): +37%
Rep. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.): +37%
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.): +35%
Rep. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): +35%
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.): +33%
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.): +29%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): +29%
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): +29%

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-pelosi-congress-member-233111954.html

---

You're wasting your breath. Regardless of this instance being insider or not, he can do no wrong. The end.

I mean, there are people claiming he has LOST wealth as POTUS. Mass psychosis, absolutely incredible.

---

im up 43% over the last year but im not in congress. What's your point besides jealousy?

---

What a weird take? Completely unrelated to what I said. Why are you mad at me?

---

I think they were trying to comprehend the irony of you posting "mass psychosis, absolutely incredible" when its those deranged at Trump that start a "gotchya" thread on Trump making a normal filing of investment activity.

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So Trump makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this is Trump doing insider trading or similar?

Your hate for those who have more than you is truly bizarre.

---

So Pelosi makes a filing with the ethics office overseeing this stuff and fully discloses it and it's public information but somehow this it Pelosi insider trading or similar?

All investments should be in broad index funds with no trading allowed once they are set (they could add to them at a preset date each month) for all members of Congress, executive branch leadership and Federal Justices including the Supremes.

---

With Pelosi there is a whole mountain of data indicating inside information.

With Trump, it's that the algorithm his advisers used bought a bunch of muni bonds with zero indication Trumps investments were outperforming others.

Or… Trump is a scumbag manipulating markets and enriching himself through his office. That's much more plausible cause he knows he will get away with it.

---

Your original statement was there is no sign with Trump because he filed with the compliance officer so there can be no insider trading. Don't forget Trump has the ability to move the market as President way more than any other person in the world. If he knows what he holds, he can influence how it performs with a simple post on Truth. This is an optics issue that highlights why there should be no holding of individual stocks.

As for Pelosi, she is joined by a bipartisan group of Congress people with a lot of questionable trades. She and her husband don't even have close to the best track record on trading in Congress. Last year, Republicans topped the list of best investment performance.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.): +52%
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): +50%
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.): +37%
Rep. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.): +37%
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.): +35%
Rep. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): +35%
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.): +33%
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.): +29%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): +29%
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): +29%

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/move-over-pelosi-congress-member-233111954.html

---

You're wasting your breath. Regardless of this instance being insider or not, he can do no wrong. The end.

I mean, there are people claiming he has LOST wealth as POTUS. Mass psychosis, absolutely incredible.

---

im up 43% over the last year but im not in congress. What's your point besides jealousy?

---

What a weird take? Completely unrelated to what I said. Why are you mad at me?

---

I think they were trying to comprehend the irony of you posting "mass psychosis, absolutely incredible" when its those deranged at Trump that start a "gotchya" thread on Trump making a normal filing of investment activity.

---

the thought is that only congress and the president can achieve perceived outside returns, and then irony is that those returns are available to anyone.

Very clearly pumping a stock after buying it. Maybe not illegal but then our laws are crap as you can tell from H1Bs overrunning Texas "legally".

The Daily Show
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1484209117056271

The Daily show? You libs and your media. lol.
PS: you don't got him. Again.

infinity ag said:

---

Very clearly pumping a stock after buying it. Maybe not illegal but then our laws are crap as you can tell from H1Bs overrunning Texas "legally".

The Daily Show
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1484209117056271

---

Left: gets inside information, buys stock right before it hits the news.
Left. gets inside information and sells stock right before it hits.

Medai: LOOK AT TRUMP!!

Trump: continuously buys top traded stock
Trump: continuously promotes US companies, including the stock he as well as most of the country owns

Media: LOOK AT TRUMP!!!!

Hmm what's the most interesting thing in this thread is how the Trump boot-lickers expose themselves so easily and have been smoked out while trying their best to defend him.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Now I voted for Trump all 3 times. But Trump ain't God, he makes mistakes too. We should call it out. Ultimately it all connects to money. The folks defending Trump's financial wishy washiness are also doing it themselves.

Rockdoc said:

---

The Daily show? You libs and your media. lol.
PS: you don't got him. Again.

---

I got called a commie on a different thread, and someone else is convinced I am a socialist. Now I am a lib too.


However I consider myself an American and an Aggie.

infinity ag said:

---

Hmm what's the most interesting thing in this thread is how the Trump boot-lickers expose themselves so easily and have been smoked out while trying their best to defend him.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Now I voted for Trump all 3 times. But Trump ain't God, he makes mistakes too. We should call it out. Ultimately it all connects to money. The folks defending Trump's financial wishy washiness are also doing it themselves.

---

You violated company policy because you didn't like it.

And you now call people bootlickers for saying there is actually no fraud here when you blatantly, per your own admissions, defrauded your employer and per your plethora of posts on the topic would gladly do it again if it sticks if to a CEO or H1B.

I dont think you should be the one to judge others on following the rules.

Irony is ironic

Defrauding your employer and blatantly violating policy is "lying, cheating or stealing".

At some point, you have to pick a lane.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Irony is ironic

Defrauding your employer and blatantly violating policy is "lying, cheating or stealing".

At some point, you have to pick a lane.

---

Defrauding my employer? How?

flown-the-coop said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Hmm what's the most interesting thing in this thread is how the Trump boot-lickers expose themselves so easily and have been smoked out while trying their best to defend him.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Now I voted for Trump all 3 times. But Trump ain't God, he makes mistakes too. We should call it out. Ultimately it all connects to money. The folks defending Trump's financial wishy washiness are also doing it themselves.

---

You violated company policy because you didn't like it.

And you now call people bootlickers for saying there is actually no fraud here when you blatantly, per your own admissions, defrauded your employer and per your plethora of posts on the topic would gladly do it again if it sticks if to a CEO or H1B.

I dont think you should be the one to judge others on following the rules.

---

Oh that violation. Yes, I did it. I have no regrets. It was victimless. You are being a woman and overreacting if you say it was "defrauding". No one lost money or their lives because of my trades. I just made a LOT of money (AAPL stock kicked butt) and I was able to pay a 20% downpayment on my 500k house because of that.

Profit.

Companies pay me for my skills. They don't get to tell me what to do in my personal life. CEOs and Politicians inside-trade all the time. Why? Because that is how they get rich. I didn't do any of those, I just bought a bunch of Apple stock.

For Trump there is a conflict of interest as he is a MARKET MAKER. I am a nobody, I don't make no markets.
I can judge Trump because he is my President and I voted for him 3 times.

I hope I made that easy enough for you to understand. Really very simple.