Not when we are talking about legal definitions of terms, there is no place for opinions. This is a distinction which, if a person fails, shows that they are usually full of nonsense and false opinions. You need to know where the difference between what is factual, what is definite and what is an opinion. The claims that this is insider information is false, it does not fit the legal definition of that. Then I demonstrated to you that these things already exist, and are widely used. Furthermore, I argued how this kind of setup is the exact opposite of insider information -- and it would never work as insider information. Someone who is reasonable and willing to listen would then accept that they were wrong, and say something like "that sounds correct, it is not insider information but it is still unethical or I still don't like it for whatever reason". If you just refuse or ignore information that factually disproves your claims or just shove it under "it is your opinion" that can only show two things:
1. You are not arguing in good faith, OR
2. You are stupid (like many users here).
Therefore, think and act properly. This is not a subjective question such as "is the U.S. a good country" which can be argued subjectively using objective data from both perspectives.
What Trump is doing here, does not fit the definition of insider information as it is legally defined.
As far as the "bigger picture" is concerned: First, it still does not change anything about this being perfectly legal. Second, what about it? Do you think that I do not agree with that? Do you think that other presidents have not done this, I mean almost all of them? If you do think that this is a rare thing, then you are just naive. Trump is just a ruthless, direct, transparent person compared to what came before him.
You are supposed to see this as a lesson of what almost all of them doing all the time, instead many weaklings especially in recent times the Iranian goat-fuckers get upset at him like little children. When someone says look at all the money Trump is earning with crypto or some shit like ethics rules in the CLARITY ACT, you forget that Pelosi and her colleagues made much more collectively and in many cases there are no ethics rules for them of any kind. If you can easily be manipulated to be hyperfocused on a single symptom of the system especially a single person,
then YOU are missing the big picture.
I don't agree with everything satofan44 is saying, but I think this is neither his goal to convince everyone nor does it make any sense to always agree on everything.
I would like to add a few things to the discussion though. satofan44 is right that by legal definition, selling early access to most of the things the president has to say, doesn't automatically constitute insider information abuse. But in my opinion satofan44 can't predict whether there will be such an abuse in the future. However, it will be very easy for Trump to keep dancing on that fine line between insider information abuse and expression of opinion as he is absolutely entitled to express his "opinion". I get that many here don't understand this fine distinction because they assume that whatever the president says and grants early access to, must be insider information, and that is just wrong as, how satofan44 explained, what really counts is the legal definition.
For example, if Trump says "after this weekend I think I am going to blow up Iran", gives early access and banks go long on oil, and then on Tuesday says "I heard they reached out to us, not gonna blow them up", it doesn't matter whether his words have the power to move markets, there is literally no way to legally attack him for that regardless of granting paid early access to that piece of information. He also does probably not give early access selectively to what he posts, but to every post he makes. That makes it even harder to attack him. It is just that he sells a time advantage to Social Truth users. Pretty strong business move if you think about it. A massive pull factor to generate new signups for his platform besides pushing his revenue through the roof. And that entails many more opportunities for him in many other areas.
Now satofan44 also mentioned that other presidents have done the same and I am surprised that a lot of people seem to have missed one of the most questionable pardons ever granted that just happened not too long ago and is a big topic in congress right now: Dr. Fauci was granted a preemptive pardon by Biden for 2014 till 2025. Everyone who saw Fauci answering questions in the congressional hearing, knows what a shit show it was when he invoked fifth amendment a few hundred times. Pardons are standard. Using insider information without getting caught is standard. Abusing presidential power or former presidential status to increase income is standard. There are many standards that apply to all of them equally, but indeed, Trump is taking transparency about it to a whole different level. He just doesn't hide what others (if possible) preferred to be hidden.
