1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump made nearly 28,700 stock trades in 17 months. more than all of Congress combined
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:33 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:33 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Show me a tax code that requires the trustee be an independent third party. I can show you those rules for irrevocable trusts and estate tax issues….show me the rules for blind trust issues.
LINK
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:34 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Is Trump's stock trading against the law? I think it should be but until the DC Uniparty passes legislation banning elected politicians in DC from trading stocks I guess Trump's just doing what the majority of DC insiders do.
Is it illegal? No.
Is it every bit as dirty and corrupt as what Pelosi has been doing? Absolutely.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:36 pm to slackster
Swing and a miss. That isn’t a section of trust code. The is a committee of government ethics interpreting what the house and senate ethics committees have approved.
If I create an irrevocable trust and name someone as trustee that I have influence or control over, the IRS can say that means I have an incidence of ownership in the trust and pull the value of those assets back into my estate for estate tax purposes. It does not, however, negate the fact that those assets are indeed inside of an irrevocable trust.
If I create an irrevocable trust and name someone as trustee that I have influence or control over, the IRS can say that means I have an incidence of ownership in the trust and pull the value of those assets back into my estate for estate tax purposes. It does not, however, negate the fact that those assets are indeed inside of an irrevocable trust.
This post was edited on 9/19/26 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:38 pm to tide06
quote:
Is it every bit as dirty and corrupt as what Pelosi has been doing? Absolutely.
7% growth on average since he was elected in 2016? He could have hundred it in the S&P and made 14.5%. He isn’t very good at being corrupt.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:39 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You mean real-time trading disclosures? Those rules were put in place by the house or senate ethics committees which govern their own bodies.
The STOCK Act of 2012 covers the president and vice president.
They must file an OGE 278-T on stock trades (not required if assets are in a qualified blind trust). The reason we know about all of these trades in 47 term is because the assets aren’t in a blind trust.
He is not required to have a blind trust. I’ve never insinuated or stated otherwise.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:43 pm to slackster
quote:
They must file an OGE 278-T on stock trades (not required if assets are in a qualified blind trust). The reason we know about all of these trades in 47 term is because the assets aren’t in a blind trust.
I realize I’m arguing semantics. But violating a rule of some other government entity or not being Qualified in that entities eyes does not change the nature of the trust. I’m just trying to win a bet here…
This post was edited on 9/19/26 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
If I create an irrevocable trust and name someone as trustee that I have influence or control over, the IRS can say that means I have an incidence of ownership in the trust and pull the value of those assets back into my estate for estate tax purposes. It does not, however, negate the fact that those assets are indeed inside of an irrevocable trust.
Brother wtf are you talking about?
Trump’s assets are in a revocable trust. He is the grantor. He can change the terms at will.
Trump Trust document
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:48 pm to slackster
quote:
Brother wtf are you talking about? Trump’s assets are in a revocable trust. He is the grantor. He can change the terms at will.
You missed the point. Just because some other governmental agency may disallow the purpose for which you place assets into a trust (ie. the irs disallowing assets being outside of the estate for estate tax purposes)…it does not mean the trust is not irrevocable. It is still an irrevocable trust. It just doesn’t accomplish the goal of mitigating estate tax.
So….
If a state allows a blind trust it can be for any of several reasons. Not just because of someone being a politician. In some instances a child can also be considered an independent trustee of those trusts. Until the state in which the trust is sitused rules it is not a blind trust, it is a blind trust. Even if it violates what the governmental ethics committee says. The purpose of the trust may not be satisfied, but it’s still a blind trust.
Does that make sense?
Again…just winning a bet.
ETA: what you posted is a certificate of trust. Not the trust document. At least we know it’s now a New York sitused trust.
This post was edited on 9/19/26 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:50 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’m just trying to win a bet here…
Then tell me what a blind trust IS? They’re not in the Uniform Trust Code. They’re exclusively an ethics and disclosure vehicle.
How can you possibly win that bet?
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
It is still an irrevocable trust.
But it isn’t. Idk why this is so difficult.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:52 pm to slackster
quote:
How can you possibly win that bet?
Look up.
This post was edited on 9/19/26 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:54 pm to Jersey Shore
quote:
People don't make 28,700 trades in under 2 years for no reason.
Now do Warren Buffet, Soros, Elon Musk...shite...Ro Khanna did almost 20,000 trades in the same time period. Some rep in Texas did 43,000, freaking almost $2 billion in volume.
The reason is to make money.
Sorry to tell you...it's legal.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:56 pm to Jersey Shore
Obama?
Pelosi?
Crickets right? Of course
Pelosi?
Crickets right? Of course
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:57 pm to slackster
quote:
But it isn’t. Idk why this is so difficult.
I agree it isn’t difficult. I agree DJTs trust is revocable. The point which is sailing waaaaaay over your head is that just because a government agency says your trust doesn’t accomplish its purpose it doesn’t change the nature of the trust.
Let me use an analogy. To be clear. I AM NOT REFERRING TO DJTs Trust. I’m simply making what should be a very understandable point.
I (again not DJT)….I create an irrevocable trust with the intention of mitigating my estate tax. I name someone as trustee of that trust that the IRS says I have control over. I even litigate against the IRS but they win. Dang it….those assets I put into trust will be included in my estate. However, THE TRUST REMAINS AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST). The trust in my analogy. The one I hypothetically set up. Not DJTs.
So….i set the trust up to achieve a goal. Another governmental body disagrees. Damn it. I didn’t meet my goal…but frick if my assets aren’t still in an irrevocable trust.
Can you make the connections yet?
This post was edited on 9/19/26 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:57 pm to BBONDS25
I don’t even know if he’s trading on insider info with his stocks, I’d have to investigate what the transactions are for.
But when you look at what the kids are up to it’s impossible to defend.
The deal in Albania or whatever with the island, the wedding donations from Russian oligarchs, the truth social premium access for tradable info…
Even if you don’t care it looks awful and it’s impossible to pretend like we should be cleaning up the swamp when he’s out there running wild with stuff we would’ve crucified Obama or Biden for.
But when you look at what the kids are up to it’s impossible to defend.
The deal in Albania or whatever with the island, the wedding donations from Russian oligarchs, the truth social premium access for tradable info…
Even if you don’t care it looks awful and it’s impossible to pretend like we should be cleaning up the swamp when he’s out there running wild with stuff we would’ve crucified Obama or Biden for.
Posted on 9/19/26 at 2:58 pm to Jersey Shore
Like I said before. He may not have been a politician the first time around but he damn sure is now!!! 
Posted on 9/19/26 at 3:01 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The point which is sailing waaaaaay over your head is that just because a government agency says your trust doesn’t accomplish its purpose it doesn’t change the nature of the trust.
What is the nature or goal of the DJT Revocable Trust? The bet was whether or not it is a blind trust
Posted on 9/19/26 at 3:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
7% growth on average since he was elected in 2016? He could have hundred it in the S&P and made 14.5%. He isn’t very good at being corrupt.
lol is this accurate? And these sniveling fricking fagots are crying about the number of trades....
Now do Pelosi's returns ya retards
Posted on 9/19/26 at 3:16 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:“And from AI” means nothing unless you can show the source the AI relied on. AI is not a primary source, and in this case the strongest support for that claim is the White House saying Trump’s portfolio is managed independently by third-party institutions without his input.
And from AI: Neither Trump nor his family direct specific trades.
That's an administration assertion, not an independently established fact.
So if your AI told you flatly, “Neither Trump nor his family direct specific trades,” it overstated the evidence. The accurate version is: “According to the White House, neither Trump nor his family directs specific trades.”
And since you trust AI so much:
quote:
His claim is:
“And from AI: Neither Trump nor his family direct specific trades.”
That statement is too categorical based on the publicly available evidence. It has not been independently verified that Trump and his family exercise no influence over individual trades. Reuters reported the claim as a statement from the White House. The independently documented facts in the article are the financial disclosure itself, the individual transactions reported on that disclosure, and the timing and value ranges of those transactions. The explanation for who actually made the investment decisions comes from the administration.
If the AI told him flatly, “Neither Trump nor his family direct specific trades,” whatever or however he asked it converted an attributed White House assertion into an unqualified statement of fact.
Your response handles that distinction correctly:
“And from AI” means nothing unless you can show the source the AI relied on. AI is not a primary source..."
Correct. An AI response is not evidence for the underlying proposition. The relevant question is what source supports the statement and what that source actually establishes.
“...the strongest support for that claim is the White House saying Trump’s portfolio is managed independently by third-party institutions without his input.”
Correct. Reuters’ source for the no-input claim is White House spokesman Davis Ingle. Reuters does not say its reporters independently established that Trump or his family lack the ability to direct trades.
“That's an administration assertion, not an independently established fact.”
Correct.
That sentence does not claim that the White House statement is false. It identifies its evidentiary status accurately. Reuters had documentary evidence establishing that the transactions occurred because Trump reported them on his financial disclosure. But Reuters presents the claim about who selected those investments separately and attributes it directly to the White House spokesman.
That is exactly why attribution cannot simply be removed. There is a substantive difference between: “Neither Trump nor his family directs specific trades.” and: According to the White House, neither Trump nor his family directs specific trades.”
The first tells the reader that this has been established as fact. The second accurately tells the reader where the information comes from.
Your final sentence:
“So if your AI told you flatly, ‘Neither Trump nor his family direct specific trades,’ it overstated the evidence. The accurate version is: ‘According to the White House, neither Trump nor his family directs specific trades.’”
is correct.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News