Well I'd say the argument needs to be sound and based on evidence and facts if it's being called blatant since blatant means obvious.The manipulation was blatant, the reasoning doesn't need to be.
Well I'd say the argument needs to be sound and based on evidence and facts if it's being called blatant since blatant means obvious.The manipulation was blatant, the reasoning doesn't need to be.
which is why the SEC brought a suit based on evidence and blatantly obvious facts.Well I'd say the argument needs to be sound and based on evidence and facts if it's being called blatant since blatant means obvious.
Such awesome facts and evidence they let it go with a no contest plea and a laughable fine? Strong case.which is why the SEC brought a suit based on evidence and blatantly obvious facts.
Such awesome facts and evidence they let it go with a no contest plea and a laughable fine? Strong case.![]()
Nah, the reason is because the SEC is toothless made even more so on the last admin, just like the IRS & CIA
we can actually count the cases and policy changes by the SEC over the years. I didn't "back it" w/facts because that's not the point of the thread & google existsYou're pulling that out of thin air to support your narrative. It's not actually backed by anything other than you saying it.
It's still based on nothing. You're simply stating the SEC is weak now based on some sort of anecdotal argument. Suddenly they cant prosecute a violation of federal law just because. Sure. Honestly, I think we're both exhausted of this conversation where neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. Can we agree on that point?we can actually count the cases and policy changes by the SEC over the years. I didn't "back it" w/facts because that's not the point of the thread & google exists
I can agree you won't be convinced by facts, yes.It's still based on nothing. You're simply stating the SEC is weak now based on some sort of anecdotal argument. Suddenly they cant prosecute a violation of federal law just because. Sure. Honestly, I think we're both exhausted of this conversation where neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. Can we agree on that point?