[cwerdna]

Talk about Elon, in general here.

Hilarious!

Elon Musk told his followers to 'use Signal,' leading to 1,100% surge in unrelated stock with similar name

The Signal messaging app is funded by donations and has nothing to do with a small company called Signal Advance.

www.cnbc.com

Shares of an obscure and unrelated company called Signal Advance, which trades over the counter, surged 527% on Thursday and another 91% on Friday, climbing from 60 cents to $7.19.

And, it happened again on Monday!

Elon Musk said 'use Signal' and confused investors sent the wrong stock up 438% on Monday

Signal Advance the component maker and Signal the encrypted messaging app are not related, despite their names.

www.cnbc.com

During Monday’s trading session, the stock rose 438% and reached a high of $70.85, up from a closing price of 60 cents on Jan. 6, a day before Musk’s tweet. The stock saw its highest trading volume since going public in 2014 on Monday; more than 2 million shares changed hands, while on Jan. 4, not a single share of the stock was traded. Signal Advance, which reported receiving no revenue in 2015 and 2016, is now worth more than $3 billion.

It closed at $38.70 on Monday. It was only 60 cents/share last week before surges.

 

[GJETSON]

Talk about Elon, in general here.

Hilarious!

It closed at $38.70 on Monday. It was only 60 cents/share last week before surges.

Just be glad he didn't tell them to march on the capital.

 

[EVmunkey]

It has a 52 week low of .03 . Yesterday hit a high of 41.76 after rising from .65 a week earlier.
Still at 10.00.
Huge short opportunity I would think.

 

[redpoint5]

Just be glad he didn't tell them to march on the capital.

What were the exact words of POTUS, in context? I don't watch the news, but then I don't think the news is interested in facts.

 

[GJETSON]

What were the exact words of POTUS, in context? I don't watch the news, but then I don't think the news is interested in facts.

Yeah. We get that you are too busy. Maybe when you stop for a potty break, you can check it out.

 

[redpoint5]

Yeah. We get that you are too busy. Maybe when you stop for a potty break, you can check it out.

Maybe when you've finished with the ad hominem, you can substantiate a claim you've made. Who is the one taking a potty break here?

This smells of the "fine people hoax" and the "drink bleach" hoax.

There's a difference between being inarticulate, moronic and pandering, and inciting violence and lawlessness. A very big difference.

This example sounds like incitement to me, and is the type of evidence I'm seeking to be convinced.

 

[GJETSON]

Maybe when you've finished with the ad hominem, you can substantiate a claim you've made. Who is the one taking a potty break here?

This smells of the "fine people hoax" and the "drink bleach" hoax.

There's a difference between being inarticulate, moronic and pandering, and inciting violence and lawlessness. A very big difference.

This example sounds like incitement to me, and is the type of evidence I'm seeking to be convinced.

I was making fun of you. It is that, or assume you actually believe some of the stuff you say. Do you think anybody on this forum seriously believes you have not seen the president's public pronouncements? You spend all your working hours in front of a computer, with the internet on split screen. You were just hoping I would post his disgusting vomit so you could see it again. You had that horse apple of a video already loaded in your slingshot when you asked me. I have no idea who that person is. I actually don't watch commercial news. BBC, CBC, NHK, PBS, RT. If I want state sponsored news, I will get it directly from the state without the commercials.

If I thought for a minute you didn't understand that the bleach speech, or the fine people speech were the worst kind of disinformation, and dog whistles coming from the highest official in the US, I would have seriously tried to change your mind.

 

[redpoint5]

I was making fun of you. It is that, or assume you actually believe some of the stuff you say. Do you think anybody on this forum seriously believes you have not seen the president's public pronouncements? You spend all your working hours in front of a computer, with the internet on split screen. You were just hoping I would post his disgusting vomit so you could see it again. You had that horse apple of a video already loaded in your slingshot when you asked me. I have no idea who that person is. I actually don't watch commercial news. BBC, CBC, NHK, PBS, RT. If I want state sponsored news, I will get it directly from the state without the commercials.

If I thought for a minute you didn't understand that the bleach speech, or the fine people speech were the worst kind of disinformation, and dog whistles coming from the highest official in the US, I would have seriously tried to change your mind.

I only know of the bleach and fine people hoaxes because they seem too incredible to be true (and were repeated so frequently), and then when I actually listen to what is said, I confirm they were too incredible to be true. In fact, just the opposite message is usually conveyed in such disinformation. The legacy media crafts a lie, disseminates to the people, and they don't think to simply listen to what was said, but instead rely completely on what someone else says they said.

I've not watched any speech or read any Tweet from Trump other than a few clips here and there to compare what was actually said to what people are saying was said. To that end, I haven't listened to anything Trump has said that encourage becoming violent or breaking the law at the capitol. I don't listen because I'm not a fan of Trump or politics. However, I am a fan of truth and interpreting people as faithfully as can be managed.

I'm willing to be convinced in an instant that Trump incited violence when the evidence is presented.

It's clear a Trump rally was pointless and stupid at this hour, and is detestable. Then again he's a prolific (now) politician, and like most of them, 85% of the things they say in public is detestable. If the public wanted polite and articulate representatives, they would have run the swine out long ago.

Regarding dog whistles, I don't hear 'em, do you?

 

[MisterJJ]

The legacy media crafts a lie

Reminded me of this:

 

[Sean Nelson]

I'm willing to be convinced in an instant that Trump incited violence when the evidence is presented.

Whether the claim meets the legal definition or not I'll leave for someone more qualified than I to judge.

But there should be no doubt that for 2 months he's been deliberately pushing false information to his followers and making louder and more desperate protestations about the election. He and his supporters have been relentlessly raising the temperature in the room and duping people into rage over a "stolen" election. What happened in the Capitol would never have happened without him. In that sense, there's no doubt in my mind that he's responsible for it.

Regarding dog whistles, I don't hear 'em, do you?

That's the whole point about dog whistles - you don't hear the message. When Trump says

Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.

and then later in a follow-up question tries to walk it back by saying

You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

...you may take the whole as one thing, but there are a lot of people who hear the first part and say "see, he's with us!".

That you don't hear the dog whistle doesn't mean the dog doesn't. Or that the whistler intended for the dog to hear it. It's the modern version of "plausible deniability".

 

[redpoint5]

Whether the claim meets the legal definition or not I'll leave for someone more qualified than I to judge.

But there should be no doubt that for 2 months he's been deliberately pushing false information to his followers and making louder and more desperate protestations about the election. He and his supporters have been relentlessly raising the temperature in the room and duping people into rage over a "stolen" election. What happened in the Capitol would never have happened without him. In that sense, there's no doubt in my mind that he's responsible for it.

It was inappropriate and unfortunately has become expected operating procedure in US politics. We had violence and protests and claims of a stolen election in 2016 too by Clinton. Is she responsible for the violence across most major cities in the US?

Politicians are partly culpable for accelerating division which leads to the violence and destruction that such division brings. The people are also culpable, because our politicians are a reflection on our values, and our values suck.

I have seen no evidence (yet) that Trump incited (urge or persuade to act in a violent or unlawful way) the events at the Capitol despite how foolish his appearance there was.

He has incited violence in other instances though, and it is despicable.

That's the whole point about dog whistles - you don't hear the message. When Trump says

and then later in a follow-up question tries to walk it back by saying

...you may take the whole as one thing, but there are a lot of people who hear the first part and say "see, he's with us!".

That you don't hear the dog whistle doesn't mean the dog doesn't. Or that the whistler intended for the dog to hear it. It's the modern version of "plausible deniability".

You missed my point. If someone hears the whistle, that implies they are the racist. I suppose the dog whistle is why Richard Spencer voted for Biden and a straight Democrat ticket.

It doesn't make any sense to take someone's comments out of context, a snippet, and then claim they said something else, especially when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People doing that aren't acting in good faith, should be ignored, and shunned from polite society. Purposely misrepresenting character or deed is among the most shameful behaviors. What I don't get is that there's a laundry list of detestable things Trump has said and done that it's pointless to fabricate the "fine people" lie, or the "drink bleach" lie. Why not just highlight some of the many things he's said and done that were reprehensible?

It's a tragedy so many mindless sheeple buy into these obviously blatant lies, on all sides. It's what leads to violence in BLM riots (26 dead, $2 billion cost), and it's what leads to riots in the capitol (5 dead, unknown cost).

 

[Sean Nelson]

You missed my point. If someone hears the whistle, that implies they are the racist.

I disagree, although I understand. It caught me by surprise that a lot of black people are offended when someone says to them "you are very articulate". To them, it's followed by an unspoken "...for a black person". But I know it now, and when I hear it I understand how it can be taken at more than its face value.

You don't have to be racist to understand racist dog whistles. "Very good people on both sides" isn't all that hard to parse.

 

[Sean Nelson]

It was inappropriate and unfortunately has become expected operating procedure in US politics. We had violence and protests and claims of a stolen election in 2016 too by Clinton. Is she responsible for the violence across most major cities in the US?

Not in the way Trump was. She didn't spend months fomenting unrest with outright lies. IMHO trying to draw a parallel between these is, itself, an act of propaganda.

 

[redpoint5]

I disagree, although I understand. It caught me by surprise that a lot of black people are offended when someone says to them "you are very articulate". To them, it's followed by an unspoken "...for a black person". But I know it now, and when I hear it I understand how it can be taken at more than its face value.

You don't have to be racist to understand racist dog whistles. "Very good people on both sides" isn't all that hard to parse.

You're very intelligent and logical, so I don't know why you persist in arguing the opposite of the message that was given.

Trump explained who the "good people" were.

I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. So -- excuse me. And you take a look at some of the groups and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not, but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all -- you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

...and he was right. We saw all those statues torn down this summer.

It amazes me that people take what was probably the best dialogue Trump has ever had and hold it as the opposite. They could have criticized nearly anything else, but yet they insist on believing the lies fed to them by Big Corporate Media.

 

[Sean Nelson]

You're very intelligent and logical, so I don't know why you persist in arguing the opposite of the message that was given.

It's because Trump has a long history of speaking the truth and then trying to walk it back. When someone says "X..." and then "Oh, I didn't really mean X" the first few times, you give them the benefit of the doubt. But after 4 years of it you slowly start to understand that, no, he really does mean "X".

This is especially glaring when he asserts something off the cuff with vigour and energy, and then does one of his classic low-energy, disinterested walk-backs from a teleprompter.

If you're not reading beyond the literal words, you're missing all the important stuff.

 

[redpoint5]

Not in the way Trump was. She didn't spend months fomenting unrest with outright lies. IMHO trying to draw a parallel between these is, itself, an act of propaganda.

Hillary is still claiming a stolen election to this day, in public. This from October;

"“I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,”

Your tribalism is showing, because while I'm saying this behavior is detestable wherever it is found, you're attempting to split hairs as to who I should hate more. I will not hate anyone, and it isn't a problem with politicians, because politics is downstream of culture.

It's because Trump has a long history of speaking the truth and then trying to walk it back. When someone says "X..." and then "Oh, I didn't really mean X" the first few times, you give them the benefit of the doubt. But after 4 years of it you slowly start to understand that, no, he really does mean "X".

This is especially glaring when he asserts something off the cuff with vigour and energy, and then does one of his classic low-energy, disinterested walk-backs from a teleprompter.

If you're not reading beyond the literal words, you're missing all the important stuff.

Agree completely with this. I'm not a Trump apologist. People need to be represented and interpreted as honestly as possible.

Why not point to these instances as evidence of Trump's moral failings rather than invent new ones?

It's like claiming Hitler was responsible for the Titanic tragedy. TIf you don't agree that Hitler caused the Titanic to sink, then you love HItler and don't care about the lives lost on the Titanic.

You'll be glad to know I'm getting flak in a conservative leaning forum for ruffling their feathers too.

Just now this was said in response to my comment. "Never mind. Socialist-Dem- Sheeple aren't worth explaining anything to."

My comment was, "I'm of the camp that in absence of proof (which is different than evidence) that enough fraud happened to change the results, then we have to go with the score as it is. Besides all that, Biden won the popular vote. I'm not advocating for switching to a popular vote, but pointing out that the majority got what they wanted."

 

[Sean Nelson]

Hillary is still claiming a stolen election to this day, in public. This from October;

"“I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,”

Your tribalism is showing, because while I'm saying this behavior is detestable wherever it is found, you're attempting to split hairs as to who I should hate more. I will not hate anyone, and it isn't a problem with politicians, because politics is downstream of culture.

Really? You're trying to equate a few quotes like "basically stole an election", a hedged statement if there ever was one, with Trump's months-long crusade filled with lies, dozens of failed lawsuits, "Stop the Steal" fundraising, and exhortations?

It's like saying a Cessna 172 and a Boeing jumbo jet are both airplanes. Yes it's true, but it completely misses the important distinction between them, which is one of degree. It's a form of "what aboutism" that attempts to sidestep the issue.

It's not a matter of hate. It's a matter of recognizing "this is wrong, and should not be tolerated". It's about acknowledging that baseless attacks on democratic elections are fundamentally at odds with the American ideal.

 

[redpoint5]

Really? You're trying to equate a few quotes like "basically stole an election", a hedged statement if there ever was one, with Trump's months-long crusade filled with lies, dozens of failed lawsuits, "Stop the Steal" fundraising, and exhortations?

Let's back up to what the implied claims were, and my response;

Claim- Trump incited violence at the capitol
Me- Show me the evidence (none provided)
Claim- There's some culpability politicians have for raising the temperature
Me- Agree
Claim- "Fine people" speech was racist
Me- It was the exact opposite. I provided the overwhelming evidence with quotation and context.
Claim- Hillary's proclamation of an unfair election is not as bad as Trump's proclamation of an unfair election.
Me- Who cares?

The overarching point I'm making is that;

a. Big "News" is deceitful beyond belief and no longer reports the facts, but fabricates the narratives either through taking things out of context, or outright lies.
b. Politics aren't so important because they reflect society. If there's a problem with our leaders, there's way bigger problems with our culture. The blame is us, not them.
c. Moral failings cut across all people, because it is a flaw in the human condition, and not associated with political parties.
d. Allegiance to a party makes one a sheeple. It's understandable that nature has selected the trait of fitting in (tribalism) for protection, but it leaves us all dumber and more apt to fight than to collaborate.

I'll point out yet again that I rarely (ever?) initiate the political/philosophical discussion, I merely respond to it. You'll notice I have not contributed to the "Very bad stuff at the US Capitol " thread because it doesn't much interest me.

 

[Sean Nelson]

The overarching point I'm making is that...

I agree with your points, except for this one:

b. Politics aren't so important because they reflect society. If there's a problem with our leaders, there's way bigger problems with our culture. The blame is us, not them.

Trumpism has reached a point where a substantial number of federally elected senators and representative are quite literally trying their best to overthrow an election. And they're backed by a pretty significant proportion of electorate, who have been fed a consistent stream of propagandic lies which has hoodwinked them into believing that the election was fraudulent. That propaganda is not representative of the culture, rather it uses the culture as a lever to take advantage of it.

If those efforts were to succeed, politics would suddenly be out the window and you'd find yourself living under authoritarian rule. At that point, society bends to the will of the leader and not the other way around.

Yes, American society is badly fractured, those divisions will not go away with Trump's departure, and the mess will be very difficult to repair. But you ignore the current political climate at your peril.

 

[redpoint5]

I agree with your points, except for this one:
Trumpism has reached a point where a substantial number of federally elected senators and representative are quite literally trying their best to overthrow an election. And they're backed by a pretty significant proportion of electorate, who have been fed a consistent stream of propagandic lies which has hoodwinked them into believing that the election was fraudulent. That propaganda is not representative of the culture, rather it uses the culture as a lever to take advantage of it.

If those efforts were to succeed, politics would suddenly be out the window and you'd find yourself living under authoritarian rule. At that point, society bends to the will of the leader and not the other way around.

Yes, American society is badly fractured, those divisions will not go away with Trump's departure, and the mess will be very difficult to repair. But you ignore the current political climate at your peril.

If Biden had narrowly lost, we'd have seen the same investigations into voter fraud, and he had an equivalent number of lawyers lined up to do just that. Had we adopted better voting procedures, we'd have more confidence in the system, which would make attempts to cast doubt mostly pointless. I don't follow politics, so I don't know the specifics, but my understanding is that many (most?) of the politicians have been calling for an audit of the system to reveal to the highest degree possible the lawful vote count. That seems like a bipartisan agenda; to give voters the highest confidence the votes were legal and the system worked as intended.

Trump's rhetoric on the matter is appalling. The Big "news" narrative that he's an evil dictator is more appalling, because Trump will be gone, and we'll still have a manipulative evil news empire feeding their propaganda.

I've seen no evidence that any politicians intended to ignore the lawfully obtained results of the election process.

Does this look familiar?

2016 United States presidential election recounts - Wikipedia