Iran War Update

[DCT]

10 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

everything I posted was facts - you post opinions

What makes it fact? You have a seat on the board?

[DCT]

10 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

everything I posted was facts - you post opinions

Trump repeatedly promised that private donors would fully pay for his White House ballroom project.  The estimated construction grew from $200 million to nearly $400 million. Why tear down a historic building that wasn't broken for supposedly security reasons and then have a UFC fight on the front lawn?

2.5 million to 3 million Epstein documents remain unreleased. The Donald was in the files. The Attorney General failed to fully comply with the Transparency Act and effectively conceded to violating the law.

Trump controlling the house and senate is known as a governing trifecta. Fall of 2025, Johnson kept the house away for weeks during prolonged gov. funding fights and partial shutdowns. June 2026, MAGA Mike sent the House home early ahead of July 4th holiday after hard-line conservatives blocked procedural votes and defense spending.

Feb.28,2026, Epstein War without seeking prior authorization or a formal declaration of war from the MAGA Congress. Trump bypassed the traditional oversight mechanisms outlined in the War Powers Resolution.

Can you debunk any of these opinions from your facts?

[DCT]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I guess this would be another opinion.

[UT alum]

8 hours ago, baddog said:

America has always been a military supplier. If you realized that fact, you wouldn’t make statements such as this. Of course, Biden simply gives away $billions in military hardware because he’s an imbecile. Does that make you feel better?

You do realize how foolish it is to continue blaming Biden. Why do you keep doing it?  I can’t recall a President or his children who personally profited from weapons sales in any war. War profiteers have funded presidents, but I can’t think of another president who was a war profiteer. Blame that on Biden.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

You do realize how foolish it is to continue blaming Biden. Why do you keep doing it?  I can’t recall a President or his children who personally profited from weapons sales in any war. War profiteers have funded presidents, but I can’t think of another president who was a war profiteer. Blame that on Biden.

Being that you’re a liberal, I can see why you take that stance. You are too far gone to expect you to see another side, but here it is……

‘Google search:

Under U.S. law, it is not illegal or a formal legal conflict of interest for a president to own stock in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin, but ethics watchdogs argue it creates a severe appearance of a conflict. [

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

]

 

The Legal Reality

• Exemption from Statutes: The primary federal criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) bars executive branch employees from participating personally in government matters that affect their financial interests. However, the president and vice president are explicitly exempt from this law. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

• No Direct Ban: Presidents are not legally prohibited from holding individual stocks, managing portfolios, or having trades executed through third-party accounts or family trusts while in office. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

 

The Ethical Debate

• The Appearance of Profiteering: Critics and ethics experts point out that a president commands the military, shapes defense budgets, and makes public statements or policy decisions that can directly drive up the stock prices of major military contractors during a conflict. Holding millions in these specific companies while overseeing a war creates an inherent conflict between public duty and potential personal financial gain. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

• The Defense: Administrations typically defend these holdings by asserting that the president's assets are handled by independent managers or trusts, meaning the leader has no direct input, control, or foreknowledge over individual daily stock buys and sales

[UT alum]

25 minutes ago, baddog said:

Being that you’re a liberal, I can see why you take that stance. You are too far gone to expect you to see another side, but here it is……

‘Google search:

 

Under U.S. law, it is not illegal or a formal legal conflict of interest for a president to own stock in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin, but ethics watchdogs argue it creates a severe appearance of a conflict. [

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

]

 

The Legal Reality

• Exemption from Statutes: The primary federal criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) bars executive branch employees from participating personally in government matters that affect their financial interests. However, the president and vice president are explicitly exempt from this law. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

• No Direct Ban: Presidents are not legally prohibited from holding individual stocks, managing portfolios, or having trades executed through third-party accounts or family trusts while in office. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

 

The Ethical Debate

• The Appearance of Profiteering: Critics and ethics experts point out that a president commands the military, shapes defense budgets, and makes public statements or policy decisions that can directly drive up the stock prices of major military contractors during a conflict. Holding millions in these specific companies while overseeing a war creates an inherent conflict between public duty and potential personal financial gain. [
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  , 
  This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  ]

• The Defense: Administrations typically defend these holdings by asserting that the president's assets are handled by independent managers or trusts, meaning the leader has no direct input, control, or foreknowledge over individual daily stock buys and sales

Only one problem with your google search. 
Read “No Direct Ban”. Specifically:  “…have trades executed through third party accounts or family trusts while in office”. Trump has consistently refused to place his holdings in such accounts or trusts. A definite corruption hazard. 
Now read  “The Defense”. Trump does nothing listed as defense of a president owning defense contractors’ securities. Again, a massive corruption hazard. 
 

I see the other side. It’s wrong.

[baddog]

1 minute ago, UT alum said:

Only one problem with your google search. 
Read “No Direct Ban”. Specifically:  “…have trades executed through third party accounts or family trusts while in office”. Trump has consistently refused to place his holdings in such accounts or trusts. A definite corruption hazard. 
Now read  “The Defense”. Trump does nothing listed as defense of a president owning defense contractors’ securities. Again, a massive corruption hazard. 
 

I see the other side. It’s wrong.

Whatever dude. Tell me something Trump has done that you do agree with. That says it all. Trump has done nothing illegal. Of course, when one judges by feelings instead of going by the laws, there will always be a conflict.

[UT alum]

23 minutes ago, baddog said:

Whatever dude. Tell me something Trump has done that you do agree with. That says it all. Trump has done nothing illegal. Of course, when one judges by feelings instead of going by the laws, there will always be a conflict.

He extended the Jones Act exemption.
 

Maybe nothing illegal. The reason past presidents have used blind trusts is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. To greatly reduce the moral hazard represented by direct ownership of securities while holding office. I’m using “moral hazard” in the fidelity bond underwriting sense. If Trump is violating a basic underwriting principle, what does that say about his morals? Simple logic, dude.