Not correct. It looks like most SPACs as far as price. It is down 85%(the peak to trough) NOT 99.4%

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/official-trump/

https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/official-trump

Is Solyndra, which used 585M of tax payer dollars and went to 0 better than losing 85% of an individual investment of choice. I think not, even if $TRUMP goes to zero. As a taxpayer, I was forced to be a stakeholder in Solyndra, as an Individual I will lose nothing even if $TRUMP goes to 0.

Facts and all

that's a bingo

You don’t see a problem with the fact that TSA has more people doing full-time union work than performing screening functions at 86% of our airports? Is that productive? A good use of tax payer dollars?

That's hilarious!!!

Well, your selective editing and misrepresentation fits the definition of fake news. I acknowlwdged the bad performance of $TRUMP and gave another example that was more egregious(Solyndra)but yet you fail to understand.

Are you butt hurt because I pointed out your poor math skills and/or purposeful lies. If you have to embellish to prove your point you are already losing.

No, I am just amused how you don't get it. Too funny.

As I said, I’ve got plenty of issues with the scope & efficiency of the TSA, but that’s another conversation. The government’s ease in tearing up a union contract- & their general hostility to labor at large- should be concerning to all Americans, but most especially those of us represented by labor unions. ALPA represented pilots celebrating this move are a bit like a flock of sheep celebrating wolf conservation efforts.

I believe there’s a section in Flying the Line that talks about the risk to our union’s strength of pilots who make enough money to start thinking they have more in common with management than labor. Make no mistake we will always be grunts pulling levers to them & they dream of the day they can do the same thing to our contract & start paying us what they think we’re worth. (Spoiler: it’s less than we’re making now.)

Again, I’d ask my union brothers & sisters- which side of the negotiating table is feeling empowered by this move?

If you can’t see the difference between a poor government investment & the sitting POTUS creating a meme coin perfectly designed to embezzle money with no transparency, you’ve already lost. Plenty more at stake w/ these types of high level conflicts of interest than a few MAGA rubes losing their shirts buying Schrute Bucks.

Guys, TDSers and MAGA, we are hemorrhaging TRILLIONS of dollars every year. We can’t keep this up. Eventually lenders won’t lend the Government any money and we can only print so much before inflation goes insane.

I honestly don’t care if we go into a recession or not. We cannot sustain this level of spending. Governments have gone “bankrupt” before, the Weimar, Argentina, Greece. It can happen here too. A recession is temporary. Losing our position as the dollar being the worlds reserve currency would be devastating and take decades if ever before we could get it back.

There is more at stake than KCM and USAID and China is nipping at our heels.

Not that many pilots take the time to read about our own history, but in Flying The Line, author George Hopkins lamented (many years ago) about airline pilots' tendency to align themselves with the Republican Party to their own detriment. Many among us like to view themselves as something other than skilled, front line, hourly paid workers who rely on the ability to bargain collectively for their protection and prosperity. Too many of us look down on other organized labor groups and even cheer on their being "put in their rightful place." History gives us many examples of the right wing giving us our own slap down, or at least turning a blind eye to the likes of E.L. Cord and Frank Lorenzo doing the honors. If you're wondering, "Who dey?," you owe it to yourself and our profession to find out.

Hopkins also authored a lesser known piece titled, "Comeuppance." It's quite blunt, and a good read.

House budget bill adds $4.5B to debt, Musk chasing pennies and Trump says entitlements off the table so what's your point? Trump's foreign policy is by far the biggest threat to dollar's reserve currency status.

No, it’s the same conversation. If you don’t see how public sector unions decrease efficiency, you’re not paying attention.

Supporting union mechanics who are skilled tradesmen like we are is far more logical than supporting 'union' toothpaste hunters. Things seem to be going well for union autoworkers and looking up for union shipbuilders. This is a labor friendly administration as long as they do productive things for GDP.

Even Roosevelt (hardly a far-right demagogue) argued against public sector unions. It's apples and oranges.

News flash: Our union decreases effiency, to the QWL benefit of its membership.

True. A little ironic that a guy who ran the debt up as aggressively as Trump45 is suddenly the champion of fiscal responsibility but hey, if he’s gonna do it, great.

Problem is if you look at federal spending, it’s almost entirely SocSec, healthcare, & defense- with interest becoming a growing cost. So if you're at all realistic about making a difference, you’ve got to either go after those three, or increase your income (ie raise taxes) or more likely at this point, both.

The federal workforce- where EM seems to be focused- makes up about 4% of spending so even if you make huge cuts in that area (which he seems intent on doing) it simply won’t be felt. Unlike the 6x bankrupt Trump, Musk is no dummy so it’s literally impossible he doesn’t understand this. Rather than affecting the bottom line, he seems to be more motivated by a general contempt for labor, which is pretty much in keeping with his conduct at Tesla & Twitter/X.

Show me a real budget plan than makes meaningful changes (not nebulous claims of having saved nebulous billions that always seem to be proven false) toward fiscal sustainability & I’m listening. Until then all I see is the most aggressively anti-labor administration of my lifetime marching under the banner of “getting spending under control”.

Thanks for the good laugh.

Exactly. Non military discretionary spending is less than a trillion of the almost 7 trillion dollar federal budget. FBI, DHS, CBP, all of it is in that trillion dollar sliver of the pie chart. Making a big stink with a chain saw talking about firing a couple billion dollars worth of government payroll worker bees is entirely performative. If you want to balance the budget you can:

1. cut SS/medicare/medicaid (no happening)
2. Drastically cut the military budget (not happening)
3. Raise taxes (not happening)

And your point is? Is your TDS preventing you from reading? There need to be cuts EVERYWHERE. DOD, FBI, DHS, Department of Education, EVERYWHERE. There are over 420 government departments. There are so many departments that the government itself doesn’t know how many there are!

His foreign policy is the problem? He is getting Ukraine and Russia to come the negotiating table for the first time in 3 years! Hopefully it will save us another 120 BILLION that we already spent. More than any other country combined!

You guys are so worried about “Orange Man Bad!” that you can’t see we are spending ourselves into a huge hole that we may not be able to get out of as it is!

If they want to fix the deficit why did they start with pennies? Why is the House budget $4.5T in the red from the start?

Start with finding out why the $ is the reserve currency then ask yourself if starting fights with our allies and cozying up to our enemies will help with keeping it that way. Germany and Poland considering nuclear weapons ought to be a clue.

Yes it does. Thanks for reinforcing the point.

Each state should have its own Air Traffic Control. Freedom!

The RLA has always favored management by a LOT so whatever administration is in office is almost irrelevant for our negotiating cycles.

It was a Democrat president who shut down the short-lived AA strike several years back with a PEB, after all.

You know what, you’re absolutely right! We are already 4.5T in the whole so who cares about 120B to Ukraine. Who cares about billions to Israel or USAID. Who cares right? We just keep printing money like there’s no tomorrow. There will be absolutely no repercussions at all! (Sarcasm intended). EVERYWHERE!

[QUOTE\]Start with finding out why the $ is the reserve currency then ask yourself if starting fights with our allies and cozying up to our enemies will help with keeping it that way. Germany and Poland considering nuclear weapons ought to be a clue.[/QUOTE]

So Canada already imposing a 25% tariff on US goods going into Canada is okay? But we can’t impose the exact same tariff? Yea right.

Umm Do you believe everything CNN tells you? Poland doesn’t even have Nuclear weapons…..

You know what, you’re absolutely right. Its only pennies to the dollar so we should just give Ukraine another 120B. While we’re at it let’s give a few more Billion to Israel and USAID. While we’re at it, why don’t we give more money to NATO too and continue giving more than any other country. Who cares, it’s just pennies right? Sarcasm intended. EVERYWHERE.

So Canada can keep imposing a 25% or more tariff on goods going into Canada? That’s really fair! Yea we should just let them take advantage of us!

Iran is considering Nuclear weapons too? What’s your point?

The U.S. dollar became the world's primary reserve currency for several reasons, with historical, economic, and geopolitical factors playing a significant role. Here are some of the key reasons:

1. Bretton Woods Agreement (1944)

• After World War II, the global economic system needed rebuilding, and the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 established the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. The agreement pegged other currencies to the dollar, which was in turn pegged to gold at $35 per ounce.
• The U.S. had the largest gold reserves at the time, making the dollar a safe and stable choice for international transactions.

2. Economic Strength of the United States

• After WWII, the U.S. emerged as the world's largest and most powerful economy. It had the most developed infrastructure, the largest industrial base, and a strong financial system.
• The U.S. also had a relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio at the time, which gave international investors confidence in the stability of the dollar.

3. Global Trade and Finance

• The U.S. became a hub for international trade and finance. Most global trade, especially in commodities like oil, is priced in U.S. dollars.
• International businesses and governments hold dollar-denominated assets (like U.S. Treasury bonds) as a form of insurance against currency volatility and economic instability.

4. Liquidity and Depth of U.S. Financial Markets

• The U.S. has the deepest and most liquid financial markets, especially in Treasury bonds, which are considered one of the safest investments in the world. This makes the dollar a preferred currency for central banks and investors around the world.
• The U.S. financial system is vast, open, and highly integrated into global markets, allowing for easy trade and investment in dollars.

5. Geopolitical Power

• The U.S. has been the dominant global military and political power for decades, which reinforces the use of the dollar in international relations. Countries are often more willing to hold and trade in a currency issued by a stable, powerful nation.
• The U.S. also uses its control over the dollar to exert influence, such as through sanctions, which have led many countries to keep large reserves in dollars to avoid potential financial disruptions.

6. Confidence in U.S. Institutions

• The U.S. government, Federal Reserve, and other institutions have established strong credibility over time. Their policies have generally been seen as stable, which encourages other nations to trust the U.S. dollar for international transactions and reserves.

7. Network Effects

• The more countries that use the dollar, the more beneficial it becomes for others to use it as well. As international transactions are conducted in dollars, businesses and governments are incentivized to hold dollars and use them in trade, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

While the U.S. dollar is the dominant global reserve currency, there has been growing discussion about diversifying reserve currencies, especially as China and other emerging markets seek alternatives to the dollar. However, the dollar remains deeply embedded in global finance due to these historical and institutional factors.

So you are opposed to a mulit-trillion dollar tax cut aimed mostly at the richest in the country?

Guess what other eastern block country used to have nukes? Ukraine. That’s another reason the USA is there. Fortunately, not our standing Army. Yet.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, pulling it outta me ole' arse but I read this somewhere. Ukraine gave up those nuke's and the other side of the provision prevented NATO from expanding their eastward expansion. Since Ukraine relinquished their nukes, as part of that agreement, NATO has expanded it's eastern expansion with the inclusion of maybe 8 extra countries. Some of them even contiguous to Russia.

Not trying to spead disinformation if incorrect, but I don't care enough to GoogleFu it.

But if true, or partially true, I could see where Russia is pizzed. Doesn't warrant invasion by Russia of Ukraine from a Westerners viewpoint, but then again, they have a different perspective.

Cuban missile crisis anybody?

The Budapest Memorandum.

Russia’s distrust of NATO stems from the Cold War. Now, NATO is a blockade for any Russian/Putin attempts to reconstitute the USSR. I guess honoring sovereign borders is becoming a thing of the past. Even our Dear Leader is disputing the Canadian border.

It’s true management holds more cards but I’d counter that the president is a “can do little good but great harm” type of player. Wait until he puts Tucker Carlson on the NMB & tell me he’s irrelevant.

Look, I don’t know he’s gonna be bad for us, I’m just saying the administration’s attitude toward labor gives very little indication that they have any intention of being good & I don’t see that as a reason to celebrate, even if we are saving a couple bucks on TSA salaries.

It is not true at all. In fact, Russia completely violated it. It is very short and simple. Please read it for yourself.

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/...f?m=1645824948

Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994

The following is the text of the Memorandum on Secu-
rity Assurances, known as the Budapest Memorandum,
in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed Dec.
5, 1994.

The United States of America, the Russian Federa-
tion, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-
nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to
eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a
specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situ-
ation, including the end of the Cold War, which have
brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear
forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE
[Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty
and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain
from the threat or use of force against the territorial in-
tegrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that
none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine
except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE
Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed
to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by
Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and
thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek
immediate United Nations Security Council action to
provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon
State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim
of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggres-
sion in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine,
their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against
any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in
the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or
dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies,
by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear
weapon state.

6.The United States of America, the Russian Fed-
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation
arises which raises a question concerning these com-
mitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon
signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the
English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

I found this in the LA times from 2016 pertaining to 1990 info( so not like current revisionist history even though it's an op/ed). Info predates your Budapest memo of 1994 by 4 years ...

a teaser from article...

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open."


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

So, 35 years later maybe a few ???

If you don't believe the transcript notes, ask Trump to release them. He has been more open to questions and openess than anybody else that I can remember. At least he will take an unscripted question, which is novel after the last 4 years.

Exactly, no formal deal was struck unlike the Budapest Memo that was at least in writing. At one point Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but as he grew more powerful, authoritarian and delusional he wanted to be the 2nd coming of Peter the Great. Russian propaganda.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-in-his-rule

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

This article is more than 3 years oldGeorge Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’Jennifer Rankin in BrusselsThu 4 Nov 2021 01.00 EDTVladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

Thank you for making my point with your AI generated response.

#2. Kinda hard to have economic strength when your economy is “bankrupt” and in the crapper

#3. As mentioned at the end of your AI generated response there are other players like BRICS who is actively trying to over turn the Dollar and make their countries the hub of global finance.

#4. Again, not much depth in the financial markets if our economy is in the crapper.

#5. Geopolitical power. We have a great Military now but if our economy is in the toilet there won’t be any money to fund military spending.

#6. Yea that confidence would be gone in a heartbeat if we go “bankrupt”.

Look I know I was being kinda harsh earlier with my responses. But what I said still holds true. We cannot keep spending money like there is no tomorrow because I guarantee if nothing changes that rooster will come home to roost and none of us will like what happens. A little recession that lasts a few years will be the least of our problems. Republicans and Democrats need to come together and realize this is unsustainable. But I’m afraid Dems won’t be able to get over their TDS and Republicans won’t get over their MAGA.

And here are the NATO members from 1990 and after from Notre Dame Security Center

1999

At this point, we must mention the Warsaw Pact—the Soviet Union’s response to and equivalent of NATO. In total, there were 8 members of the Warsaw Pact. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, so did the Warsaw Pact, and the Cold War ended.

Also noteworthy: Yugoslavia (in southeast Europe) collapsed in 1992—dissolving into 6 successor states; some of which would also be interested in joining NATO. Yugoslavia was not aligned with NATO nor the Warsaw Pact, hence acting as a “buffer” between the alliances.



No longer obliged to the Warsaw Pact, former Soviet allies turned their eyes toward NATO. Three former Warsaw Pact members were admitted into NATO:

1. The Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia)
   

1. Hungary
   

1. Poland
   

2004

2004 brought the largest increase in NATO members since the Alliance’s foundation. Perhaps even more notable, though, is republics formerly of the Soviet Union were now joining (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).

1. Bulgaria (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Estonia
   

1. Latvia
   

1. Lithuania
   

1. Romania (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Slovakia
   

1. Slovenia (successor to Yugoslavia)
   

2009

In 2009, NATO’s foothold in East Europe grew firmer:

1. Albania (formerly of the Warsaw Pact)
   

1. Croatia (successor to Yugoslavia)
   

2017 and 2020

These additions to NATO are both successor states to Yugoslavia:

1. Montenegro (in 2017)
   

1. North Macedonia (in 2020)
   

2023 and 2024

The Russo-Ukrainian War, and the escalation of which beginning on February 24, 2022, brought NATO’s growth into the foreground of foreign policy debates at the time. Russia’s full-scale invasion also prompted Finland and Sweden to officially apply and were eventually accepted into the alliance.

1. Finland (in 2023)
   
2. Sweden (in 2024)

https://ndisc.nd.edu/news-media/news...ime-1949-2023/

"

Where has the addition of NATO members led us?

With NATO recognizing Bosnia and Herzegovina (successor to Yugoslavia), Georgia, and Ukraine (both former Soviet Republics) as aspiring members, does Russia’s leadership feel a pressure of NATO coming right up to their western doorstep?

Did NATO’s eastward expansion directly lead to President Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine? If Russia’s goal was, in fact, to ensure a buffer between NATO and Russia, does the Finnish addition to NATO defeat the goal? What role may Serbia—another Yugoslav successor state: one closely aligned with Russia—play in the future? Does NATO’s expansion serve U.S. national security interests?

To investigate these questions study at NDISC. We provide a place for national security scholars to explore these pressing issues. If you’re interested in these topics and making a difference in the future of foreign policy, consider studying with us at the Notre Dame International Security Center.


It seems as if a least some people have questions by these two articles. Too many on APC are "head stuck in the sand" and don't even ask legitimate questions....reminds me of MSM. They didn't even question if Biden had dementia.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.... You conveniently left out the main thrust of the article. Let me help you..

According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.


This will not be decided on APC but at least acknowledge there might be a little more to the 35 year story.

all you seem to do is post stuff to stir the political pot.. you post nothing of a actual value. Go crawl into a cave with your tin foil hat.

Again, Trump was a massive debt queen the first go round (which is kind of in keeping w/ his 6 bankruptcies) so I remain skeptical that he’s actually come to Jesus on balancing the books. When I see actual reforms to the tax structure &/or cutbacks in defense/SS/healthcare I’ll perk up, because siccing Elon on foreign aid & the TSA is just noise.

He won't miss the salary. He will easily grift 1000 times that much.