By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump’s recent reversal on his ultimatum to Iran raises questions about his decision-making process, particularly as his announcements often align with financial market hours. This pattern suggests a potential influence of market sentiment on his foreign policy pronouncements. The timing of key statements, from tariff announcements to military escalations and de-escalations, frequently occurs before market opens or after market closes, seemingly designed to impact investor confidence and economic stability. This strategic timing, whether intentional or coincidental, has been observed across numerous instances, impacting global economic responses and market performance.
Read the original article here
The timing of certain announcements, particularly those concerning Iran, has been a recurring point of contention, sparking widespread suspicion of market manipulation. It’s not merely a matter of a few cookies missing from the jar; the situation is far more evident, akin to finding a toddler with their face smeared in chocolate and crumbs, clearly implicated in a transgression. The depth of concern suggests a lack of confidence in federal agencies to investigate what many perceive as obvious insider trading linked to these announcements.
This administration has been described as the most corrupt in US history, with a prevailing sentiment that anyone familiar with the market understands the colossal scale of insider trading occurring under Trump. From cryptocurrencies to Iran policy and tariffs, many announcements appear to be well-timed “pump and dump” schemes designed to enrich a select few. This isn’t a new phenomenon; what’s particularly disheartening is the human cost, with American military members and innocent civilians around the world reportedly killed in the process. This is viewed by many as the biggest grift in American history, with a plea to follow the money, suggesting that Republican members of Congress, who are now almost all billionaires, have remained silent because they too are beneficiaries.
The contrast between how traditional media and the general public perceive these events is stark. While media outlets might cautiously observe that “something strange is here,” the broader public immediately recognizes it as market manipulation. The discourse often shifts from media observation of “Trump acting funny” to the undeniable conclusion of market manipulation, with an increasing frustration that this reality is not being openly acknowledged and called what it is: “market fucking manipulation.”
There’s a suspicion that specific market events, like those occurring outside regular trading hours, are orchestrated to benefit certain individuals. For instance, a stock market dip during trading hours that reverses only after the market closes raises questions about who could have predicted and profited from such a move, especially if made by newly created accounts. The intention is believed to be to manipulate the market in a direction that maximizes personal financial gain for those involved, making the entire system seem like a joke with a con man at the helm. The question of whether the “swamp has been drained” is met with a resounding no, as many believe the blatant corruption has surpassed that of developing nations, even within the first year of what some have termed the “Trump syndicate.”
The notion that Trump has lost all credibility is frequently expressed, with the belief that he will do whatever it takes to enrich himself and his associates, who are often characterized as parasites. The effectiveness of his actions in this regard is undeniable, and the lack of consequence is particularly galling. The idea of insider trading laws applying only to “peasants” is a common refrain, underscoring a perception of a two-tiered justice system.
The lack of action following these perceived transgressions is a source of deep frustration. The suggestion that investigations will begin “any minute” is met with cynicism, especially given the history of perceived inaction. It’s not just Iran; similar patterns are observed with other geopolitical events, leading to the conclusion that market manipulation for friends and cronies is a consistent strategy.
The concept of “Trump Always Chickens Out” (TACO) has been raised as a critical label, but many question who these critics are and why anyone would want him to “not chicken out” with a war. The focus shifts back to the financial gains reaped by Trump and his associates, who allegedly make significant amounts in mere minutes through insider trading privileges, while ordinary citizens work hard, save, and struggle with inflation, never having the opportunity to play the same game by the same rules. The frustration extends to the perception that the wealthy elite leach off the productive workforce without providing genuine value.
There’s a profound uncertainty surrounding the true extent of Trump’s wealth and the amount of illegal cash he might be receiving, contrasted with the public scrutiny faced by others, like Hunter Biden, for alleged business improprieties. The lack of transparency regarding Trump’s debts and pre-presidency wealth is noted, with the expectation that his earnings from the presidency will only be fully understood decades later. This situation is described as a sign of the USA’s mental state, leading to feelings of depression and confusion.
A theory suggests that Trump understands the average person’s inability to comprehend such blatant corruption, so he “floods the zone” with it, making it seem acceptable because it’s so open. This leads to a segment of the population being unconcerned, either because they are aligned with his rhetoric or are simply ignorant and disinclined to learn or act. The frustration among others is palpable, coupled with a sense of helplessness about what to do.
The limited checks on a president committing crimes, as alarming as it sounds, is a significant concern. The targeting of individuals who speak out creates an environment where silence is encouraged, leading to what some describe as a “banality of evil.” The idea that a significant portion of the population chooses what they see, even if it contradicts reality, is a sobering observation.
The notion of “immunity” from federal agencies investigating insider trading is presented with a sarcastic laugh. The historical precedent of Trump bragging about the financial benefits to CEOs after tariff reversals is recalled, leading to a realization that those in power are insulated from accountability. The argument for a lack of investigation is often rooted in the desire to avoid lawsuits, suggesting a legalistic loophole rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. The sentiment of a “stinky swamp water” flooding Washington is a powerful metaphor for the perceived pervasive corruption.
The idea that Trump never had genuine credibility and has always been a “charlatan” whose “superpower” is his ability to evade containment is a strong assessment. The control Trump allegedly wields over certain financial entities, coupled with substantial entry fees, suggests a net worth significantly higher than publicly reported. The contrast between the transparency of other billionaires’ net worths and the perceived opacity surrounding Trump’s financial dealings is a recurring point of criticism.