US Politics: A democratic election Prospect Theory and practice

[ThinkerX]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Either there are enough Trump fanatics to drive the price up or there are some wealthy people who have reached an arrangement with Trump with respect to what he will do should he win in November and overvaluing the company is part of that arrangement.

Said 'wealthy people' are certain to get badly burned as Trump has a long track record of betrayal. I'm thinking more along the lines of a short-term pump-and-dump scam.

[maarsen]

That was my exact thought last week.

[kissdbyfire]

30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Said 'wealthy people' are certain to get badly burned as Trump has a long track record of betrayal. I'm thinking more along the lines of a short-term pump-and-dump scam.

Should we look forward to an SEC investigation and subsequent charges? I may be wrong but I think he doesn’t have one of those yet? Is he trying to ace the criminal code like it’s a test or something? 

[maarsen]

14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Should we look forward to an SEC investigation and subsequent charges? I may be wrong but I think he doesn’t have one of those yet? Is he trying to ace the criminal code like it’s a test or something? 

I think the target of the scam is Trump. The easiest scammed person is a scammer.

[Zorral]

58 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Either there are enough Trump fanatics to drive the price up or there are some wealthy people who have reached an arrangement with Trump with respect to what he will do should he win in November and overvaluing the company is part of that arrangement.

Understanding Papa Don’s New Pump and Dump 8-K

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-papa-dons-new-pump-and-dump-8-k
 

Quote

 

 .... These data points are pretty good evidence that this company is a joke. And they make for good fun. But it’s not proof. A social network in its early stages can be bleeding lots of money and still be legitimately worth a ton of money. This isn’t just hypothetical. Facebook had already become a force of nature before Mark Zuckerberg turned his attention to monetizing the engine of value he created. So there was a time when Facebook was also spending way more money than it made and investors were dying to buy in. Those who did made tons of money.

So the revenue and expenses aren’t the proof. But the proof is there.

In the 8-K, if you go down to the fourth paragraph under Overview, and then later in the section on Key Operating Metrics, you find this sentence (and others) …

At this juncture in its development, TMTG believes that adhering to traditional key performance indicators, such as signups, average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts including monthly and daily active users, could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business.

A bit later it notes that not only will it not rely on these metrics but that it may cost too much to collect or report them …

TMTG may find it challenging or cost-prohibitive to implement such effective controls and procedures and may never collect, monitor, or report any or certain key operating metrics.

To sum it all up we get this …

TMTG does not currently, and may never, collect, monitor or report certain key operating metrics used by companies in similar industries

In other words, Truth Social doesn’t collect or report the key value metrics that the value of a social network is based on. And it probably never will.

With ad impressions and revenue per user that might make sense. Those are monetization metrics. It’s the last part: “active user accounts including monthly and daily active users.” Later on it says that it may never release these old fashioned metrics. What this means is that they are not going to release any information about how many people use Truth Social, how often they use it or how they use it. Those numbers are the essential metrics for how any social application or platform is valued. There’s no other way to put it. There are various other metrics that an over-emphasis on at the beginning could “divert” you from growing the business. But true growth and value, the things you don’t want to be diverted from, are those user metrics — i.e., the ones Truth Social is never going to release.

So the point is that it’s quite possible Truth Social could be losing money and still worth a ton. In fact, if you’re in your growth phase your VC backers are going to want to see that you’re losing money. If you’re not you’re almost certainly not investing enough in growing. But if that was what was happening they would be pointing to evidence of building a robust user base and one in which the user base showed strong signs of organic growth based on the unique characteristics, virality and popularity of the platform. Think of Mark Zuckberg in the mid-aughts riding the tiger of explosive network/platform growth and focusing on that rather than near-term monetization. Truth Social is saying it won’t be releasing any of that data.

The best case for this fairly absurd reasoning is that Truth Social is basically just at the prospectus stage. They’ve got a killer plan and they just haven’t executed it yet. But of course the platform debuted two years ago and has had totally crazy levels of publicity from the start.

This 8-K tells you pretty clearly that this company is worthless. Or rather the only argument for its value is Donald Trump’s say-so.

 

 

[Makk]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Should we look forward to an SEC investigation and subsequent charges? I may be wrong but I think he doesn’t have one of those yet? Is he trying to ace the criminal code like it’s a test or something? 

There were already two and a half years of SEC investigations into Digital World (the company that merged with Truth Social) before the merger was allowed. There were a bunch of issues exposed (not disclosing fund was formed with single target acquisition in mind, undisclosed Chinese investors) which led to the ceo and major shareholder having to resign and some fines but the merger, and then public float, was allowed to go ahead.

The biggest single investor in digital world was a banker named Patrick Orlando (the guy who had to resign) with $420 million, but otherwise its reported all the other investors a significantly smaller. Even 420 million in the overall size of the fund isn't that big.

I don't particularly want to get into an argument over the definition of a "scam" but this has faced a lot of scrutiny. I don't think the share price will collapse instantly because there should be billions of real dollars in some sort of fund thanks to the merger sitting in the companies account. If there is something dodgy going on I think it likely to be around what happens to that cash, but otherwise the value is only inflated by dumb investors and people profiting off those dumb investors.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Not incredibly differently honestly. Either they have a majority to pass a law to repeal, or they don't. 

Well that assumes the law even matters anymore if Trump is in the White House and Republicans control Congress...because if we're believing what they're telling us, Congress passing laws isn't going to be needed in the coming autocracy...

If you want to believe in that sort of thing...

[DMC]

@Kalbear  The fact Bob Good is being challenged from the “moderate” wing of the party upset he voted to sack McCarthy isn’t my “thesis statement,” it’s explicitly stated in the article I cited:

Quote

Now, it’s the center-right striking back – including allies of McCarthy and a new GOP outside group beginning to attack Good as well.

Asked if Good’s vote to oust McCarthy prompted the House GOP effort to defeat him, Georgia Rep. Austin Scott said: “It has something to do with that. But more important than that, I think, we’ve got a guy who would be a good member of our team,” referring to McGuire.

The idea that the likes of Mike Rodgers would be backing his primary challenger because Good endorsed DeSantis instead of Trump only demonstrates your own ignorance on the subject.

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's typical of you to ignore what I wrote.

 Me pointing out your statement does not refute/is irrelevant to my argument is not “ignoring” what you wrote.  Especially considering you’ve subsequently agreed/acknowledged my point on the subject.  Anyway the site’s being screwy again and I have to post on my iPad which is really annoying so I’m just gonna move on…

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think Murkowski or Romney would withdraw as an example.

Should be noted Romney is retiring, but even so, there aren’t 50 votes to formally withdraw from NATO in the Senate.  There isn’t even a majority in the House unless MAGA wins, like, at least 20 more seats.

3 hours ago, Gorn said:

ETA: Actually, the 67% number is the support for recreational marijuana, the support for abortion rights is at 62%.

Should be noted that proposed amendments in Florida require 60 percent for approval.  Marijuana legalization should pass that threshold - albeit there was a poll commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce (so take it with a grain of salt) a few months ago that had support at 57%.  The abortion measure should indeed be much closer and will require persistent effort.

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

@Kalbear  The fact Bob Good is being challenged from the “moderate” wing of the party upset he voted to sack McCarthy isn’t my “thesis statement,” it’s explicitly stated in the article I cited:

The idea that the likes of Mike Rodgers would be backing his primary challenger because Good endorsed DeSantis instead of Trump only demonstrates your own ignorance on the subject.

What? I'm not saying that he's being primaried because he backed DeSantis. I'm saying that IF he loses, it's going to be because he backed DeSantis and Trump doesn't like him. Him being primaried doesn't really make that much of a difference to me nor do I think it represents some incredible sea change. My point, simply, is that if he wins or loses has little to do with his extremism. I thought you were trying to say something like because he's extremist he is less likely to win a challenge. And normally I'd agree with that, but these ain't normal times. In a primary the only thing that seems to really matter to the increasingly Trumpy base of the GOP is how much Trump likes a person. 

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Should be noted Romney is retiring, but even so, there aren’t 50 votes to formally withdraw from NATO in the Senate.  There isn’t even a majority in the House unless MAGA wins, like, at least 20 more seats.

As I pointed out it wouldn't require 50 votes, it'd require 67 per the law. But that assumes that law exists - as I said, they could revoke the law with a simple majority. It's very unlikely that that would happen, mind you, at least with anything like what the existing Senate has. Which is why I think it's more likely that Trump just does end-arounds and essentially reneges on the promises of NATO, or tries to challenge it in court (which honestly? the law is kind of unconstitutional) and does it that way. The law actually functioning either as a bulwark or as a safety net is something I'd hope you'd be seeing as less and less common. 

52 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Well that assumes the law even matters anymore if Trump is in the White House and Republicans control Congress...because if we're believing what they're telling us, Congress passing laws isn't going to be needed in the coming autocracy...

If you want to believe in that sort of thing...

Laws will matter at first, because that's the easiest way to get funding flowing to what they want. Beyond that the laws only exist as a justification to punish the people they want; as long as they can do so with the existing laws they'll be fine doing exactly that. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

What? I'm not saying that he's being primaried because he backed DeSantis. I'm saying that IF he loses, it's going to be because he backed DeSantis and Trump doesn't like him.

Yeah that’s not what you said and what I was responding to, which was the following:

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Furthermore your thesis statement was that Good was going to get primaried because he was too extreme, when we both know what the story is - that Good will likely get primaried because of insufficient loyalty to Trump. 

He’s already “getting primaried,” and it’s plainly not due to insufficient loyalty to Trump.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

As I pointed out it wouldn't require 50 votes, it'd require 67 per the law. But that assumes that law exists - as I said, they could revoke the law with a simple majority.

Right.  I’m agreeing with you and operating under that assumption in this hypothetical.

ETA:  There’s also, of course, passing cloture in the Senate.  Repealing that law ain’t going to pass the Byrd bath for reconciliation, so it’d practically require 60 votes unless the filibuster is abolished.

Edited April 2 by DMC

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah that’s not what you said and what I was responding to, which was the following:

He’s already “getting primaried,” and it’s plainly not due to insufficient loyalty to Trump.

I was using getting primaried to mean that he was going to lose his race. Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right.  I’m agreeing with you and operating under that assumption in this hypothetical.

ETA:  There’s also, of course, passing cloture in the Senate.  Repealing that law ain’t going to pass the Byrd bath for reconciliation, so it’d practically require 60 votes unless the filibuster is abolished.

Nah, they'll get around it via Byrd. Wouldn't even be that hard to do - simply say that as part of reconciliation they're getting rid of their treaty requirements, and thus saving a bunch of money in various NATO appointees and specific offices. 

[Darzin]

I think the chance of Trump leaving NATO is overstated he didn't in his first term he may not in his second. Also the Europeans could pretty easily keep Trump in NATO by making some deal. Trump dislikes NATO because he feels like it's the Europeans taking America for a ride. If the EU made a deal to increase defense spending or pay US troop costs in Germany or Estonia Trump wouldn't be inclined to do it. Trump wants a grand bargain where the Europeans "pay there fair share" if they offer him that I think he'd be inclined to accept. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nah, they'll get around it via Byrd. Wouldn't even be that hard to do - simply say that as part of reconciliation they're getting rid of their treaty requirements, and thus saving a bunch of money in various NATO appointees and specific offices. 

They’d have to fire MacDonough to get a parliamentarian to agree to that.  At which point might as well just cut the shit and abolish the filibuster.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I was using getting primaried to mean that he was going to lose his race. Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

K.  Anyway I never was asserting any “thesis” on the race - I literally said I don’t know enough about the district to even speculate on the outcome - just thought it was worth sharing as an example of the establishment GOP striking back against those that ousted McCarthy.  And, clearly, many members think there’s a chance and worth the effort.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think the chance of Trump leaving NATO is overstated he didn't in his first term he may not in his second. Also the Europeans could pretty easily keep Trump in NATO by making some deal. Trump dislikes NATO because he feels like it's the Europeans taking America for a ride. If the EU made a deal to increase defense spending or pay US troop costs in Germany or Estonia Trump wouldn't be inclined to do it. Trump wants a grand bargain where the Europeans "pay there fair share" if they offer him that I think he'd be inclined to accept. 

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump. 

Trump wants out of NATO because he does not want to be required to go to war with someone that could kill Trump. He says a bunch about NATO not paying their fair share - which honestly was accurate for a while - but his primary goal is to avoid nuclear war. This is one of the reasons he's so incredibly cozy with Putin - because he hopes that with enough appeasement he can avoid that.

I also think that the notion that Trump in his second term will be somehow MORE constrained is ludicrous fantasy. 

[DMC]

BTW, relevant to the current discussion - McConnell: I’ll stay in the Senate and fight the GOP ‘isolationist movement’:

Quote

“I’m particularly involved in actually fighting back against the isolationist movement in my own party. And some in the other as well. And the symbol of that lately is: Are we going to help Ukraine or not?” McConnell said. “I’ve got this sort of on my mind for the next couple years as something I’m going to focus on.” […]

“What’s made it more troublesome is, it seems to me, others are heading in that direction, making arguments that are easily refuted. We’re not losing any of our troops, the Ukrainians are the ones doing the fighting,” McConnell said. “If the Russians take Ukraine, some NATO country would be next and then we will be right in the middle of it.”

Also should be emphasized the two Senators currently running to replace him as leader - Thune and Cornyn - are not going to vote to withdraw from NATO either.  The GOP Senate thoroughly demonstrated Trump’s limitations during his presidency.  The idea it’s going to be different the second time around is decidedly an exercise in dark fantasy navel-gazing.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hum, unless I missed it you still haven'T really addressed kal's main point.

Can the legislature force Trump to honour the US's Article 5 obligation?

What happens if he just says, Nah, I don't feel like deploying US troops.

 

Edited April 2 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

but his primary goal is to avoid nuclear war.

Can you unpack that? I have a hard time believing that Trump would have such a serious and forward-looking concern motivating him. As opposed to something simpler, like interpreting US obligations to ally nations as being "for pussies."

[DMC]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hum, unless I missed it you still haven'T really addressed kal's main point.

Can the legislature force Trump to honour the US's Article 5 obligation?

Fez addressed what Congress can do and I agree.  My point was never about Article 5, btw, which was intentionally written to be vague so as to not directly compel any state into action.  Indeed, the US insisted on this latitude even back then. See here.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

If the paranoia I expressed yesterday seemed too far fetched, at least keep this one in mind:

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/start-the-steal-trump-november-2024

At this point, there may be only one real protection against a steal in key swing states: make sure Biden wins by such a big margin that there is no room for debate. Not to say that would absolutely deter rogue legislatures, but a close election gives them the perfect condition to implement an authoritarian grab.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

41 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Can you unpack that? I have a hard time believing that Trump would have such a serious and forward-looking concern motivating him. As opposed to something simpler, like interpreting US obligations to ally nations as being "for pussies."

I've heard speculation that Trump is incredibly afraid of nuclear war, like it's an actual fear that he articulates pretty frequently.  

Something along the lines of his biggest concerns in life are golfing, being afraid of dying (specifically by nuclear war), and attending Andrew Lloyd Webber productions.