2024 Presidential Race

#58,501
#58,501
Polymarket found to be a potential scam


fortune.com

Exclusive: Election betting site Polymarket is rife with fake ‘wash’ trading, researchers say

Blockchain evidence points to users carrying out market manipulation to inflate trading volumes on the popular political betting platform.
fortune.com fortune.com


www.tipranks.com

What Does the Polymarket Wash Trading Scandal Mean for Crypto Markets? - TipRanks.com

Yesterday, a report from Fortune revealed that two blockchain research firms have found evidence that Polymarket’s presidential election betting is full of illegal ...
www.tipranks.com www.tipranks.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and jmacvols1
#58,502
#58,502
lawgator1 said:
Not chiming on on the election so this doesn't count ...... BUT, there was a funny discussion of this on Daily Show the other day which was something along the lines of this:

Musk says he wants to buy Twitter. But he does not want to sell his Tesla shares because right now he does not "have" the money for those shares and so is not taxed on them. So he borrows money from others using the Tesla shares -- which he says he does not "have" in order to raise the money, which he then does have, to buy Twitter.

So he essentially converts something he claims never to have actually "had," into something he now "has," to buy shares in another company. Which he later claims he has never actually had.
Click to expand...

Point?
 
#58,504
#58,504
evillawyer said:
Well, this just happened. If you wanna know where investors think this is heading.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's profit taking before a major news event. The stock was at $12 6 weeks ago. If you had tripled your money in 6 weeks ahead of news event that could evaporate your gains, you'd probably sell too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Majors
#58,507
#58,507
Kristy* said:
Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation (and party). Suppression of opposition. Dictatorial leadership.
Click to expand...
That's a stretch for 5 reasons :

1) Most polls conducted at the time showed that a majority of registered Democrats were in favor of Joe Biden dropping out of the race.

2) Joe Biden wasn't forced out of office. He remained President. He was just replaced as the nominee of the Democratic Party.

3) Joe Biden was never the 2024 nominee of the Democratic Party for President to begin with. He was only the presumed nominee. He dropped out of the race over a month before the 2024 Democratic National Convention was held.

4) Joe Biden could not have been replaced without his consent. He announced that it was his decision to drop out of the race and upon doing so, he immediately endorsed Kamala Harris. You can say that he was pressured to step aside, but still, he could have resisted those pressures, and ultimately been the nominee of the Democratic Party.

5) The United States Constitution takes no position on how political parties nominate their candidates, and what was done, occurred within the scope of Federal Election laws.
 
#58,508
#58,508
marcusluvsvols said:
What a moron. Imagine being a grown man who doesnt know how the federal government works, doesnt know that abortion laws are decided state by state (as the Constitution says they should be) and actually wants to "protect" his daughters ability to murder his own unborn grandchildren.

Good grief man. Aside from the moral and logical failures with his reasoning...kids learn in elementary school what the 3 branches of the federal government are and what each of the 3 actually does. There is absolutely no excuse for this ignorance. None. Theres no excuse for a 10 year old with average aptitude and education to not know this. Is it ridiculous that the Harris campaign repeats the lie very loud and often that " We KNOW Trump will ban abortions natio wide given the opportunity!" ?? Yes. Yes it is ridiculous, and insulting to ones intelligence. However, as an adult, he should know that even if Trump tried to ban them nationwide (by XO only, since the executive branch doesnt actually make laws), that it would be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Immediately. Wouldnt even make it all the way to THE Supreme Court.

It is shameful that the Leftist tell blatant lie after blatant lie...but it is also embarrassing that a significant portion of adults are apparently so ignorant that they cannot immediately scoff at the nonsense they are being told constantly by the Democrats.
Click to expand...
We need someone who is able explain these kinds of ideas to the public. Vance may our best option for someone who can stay on topic and form logical sentences.
 
#58,511
#58,511
lawgator1 said:
Not chiming on on the election so this doesn't count ...... BUT, there was a funny discussion of this on Daily Show the other day which was something along the lines of this:

Musk says he wants to buy Twitter. But he does not want to sell his Tesla shares because right now he does not "have" the money for those shares and so is not taxed on them. So he borrows money from others using the Tesla shares -- which he says he does not "have" in order to raise the money, which he then does have, to buy Twitter.

So he essentially converts something he claims never to have actually "had," into something he now "has," to buy shares in another company. Which he later claims he has never actually had.
Click to expand...

Do you support people having to pay higher taxes to take out a home equity loan?

I am not totally opposed to changing the system a bit. But this notion that taxing billionaires is going to magically pay for anything is some pie in the sky BS. There are a little over 10k billionaires.

Suppose we could somehow pass a law that wasn't deemed unconstitutional to make all billionaires pay 1% of their total net worth in taxes each year. You are only talking about roughly 100 billion dollars added to the budget. That's less than 1% of annual spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#58,514
#58,514
lawgator1 said:
Not chiming on on the election so this doesn't count ...... BUT, there was a funny discussion of this on Daily Show the other day which was something along the lines of this:

Musk says he wants to buy Twitter. But he does not want to sell his Tesla shares because right now he does not "have" the money for those shares and so is not taxed on them. So he borrows money from others using the Tesla shares -- which he says he does not "have" in order to raise the money, which he then does have, to buy Twitter.

So he essentially converts something he claims never to have actually "had," into something he now "has," to buy shares in another company. Which he later claims he has never actually had.
Click to expand...
You must be the world's worst attorney if you don't realize that he meant that he wasn't going to sell his Tesla shares (which would be a taxable event). Using those shares as collateral for securing a loan (a non-taxable event) was smart.

He meant that he didn't have any cash from his Tesla shares because he hadn't sold them. That is the thing with a lot of wealthy people. Their wealth is tied up in non-cash assets. That is one of the big issues with trying to tax unrealized gains. These people aren't sitting on cash. They hold investments. In order to generate cash to pay taxes on unrealized gains, they may have to sell those assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#58,518
#58,518
hog88 said:
Point?
Click to expand...


Well, I think the point is that people in this economic strata argue that they do not "have" the capital gain and so cannot be taxed on it; yet, they use that gain, the very thing they claim not to "have" to in real terms leverage, buy, sell, finance, etc.

In other words, the "I don't actually have it" argument ignores the practical way in which the capital gain is nonetheless deployed and used to benefit him.
 
#58,521
#58,521
Carp said:
Do you support people having to pay higher taxes to take out a home equity loan?

I am not totally opposed to changing the system a bit. But this notion that taxing billionaires is going to magically pay for anything is some pie in the sky BS. There are a little over 10k billionaires.

Suppose we could somehow pass a law that wasn't deemed unconstitutional to make all billionaires pay 1% of their total net worth in taxes each year. You are only talking about roughly 100 billion dollars added to the budget. That's less than 1% of annual spending.
Click to expand...


No, I agree it has only some utility; it is used too much as an us-versus-them ploy.

So, you know, its like everything else these days, lol.
 
#58,522
#58,522
lawgator1 said:
Not chiming on on the election so this doesn't count ...... BUT, there was a funny discussion of this on Daily Show the other day which was something along the lines of this:

Musk says he wants to buy Twitter. But he does not want to sell his Tesla shares because right now he does not "have" the money for those shares and so is not taxed on them. So he borrows money from others using the Tesla shares -- which he says he does not "have" in order to raise the money, which he then does have, to buy Twitter.

So he essentially converts something he claims never to have actually "had," into something he now "has," to buy shares in another company. Which he later claims he has never actually had.
Click to expand...

Annnd where is the punchline??
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top