‘Trump Bucks’ promise wealth for MAGA loyalty. Some lose thousands.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


Did I ever say such a thing?
No I did not.
But if someone was using my face to sell product I would most certainly want my cut or else I would ensure they can't use my image.
And no 4hat would most certainly not be cool.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Please tell me when I said something was misinformation?
You seem to be digging a hole for yourself.
You haven't provided any sound arguments.
Tbh it really seems like you have some buyers remorse mixed with some TDS.

My suggestion would be to take a night off.
This conversation isn't going anywhere.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Please tell me when I said something was misinformation?

You asked

Until he does I view him as complacent in this borderline criminal act.

So uh yeah
Textbook definition of misinformation

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Please tell me when I said something was misinformation?

You asked

Until he does I view him as complacent in this borderline criminal act.

So uh yeah
Textbook definition of misinformation

Umm no that is not misinformation.
That is my opinion and in no way am I trying to force my opinion on others.
I do not actively engage in spreading false narratives.
You should really know the definition of misinformation before you accuse others of spreading it.
That is actually misinformation.



Are you sure you want to continue?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

So it's Trump's job to be a prosecutor and chase after scammers? Maybe get the DNC to deputize him as a US Marshal? That would be really cool.

He's in an interesting and odd position - you, as a private citizen, can indeed sue people who are using your image without your permission, but the kicker is that you have to identify them and bring the lawsuit.

Trump is a public figure and by law, images of a public figure aren't protected under copyright law. This is why Trump can't take out all the political cartoonists who draw unflattering cartoons about him and his activities.

a reply to: Allaroundyou
When you indicate he has no legal responsibility, yet post his actions are complacent in borderline criminal activity, yeah that is misinformation.
President Trump has nothing to do with any of this activity.
The op knows this, the story makes a point to quote this.
The op conveniently left that quote out.
Intentional omission is misinformation.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
When you indicate he has no legal responsibility, yet post his actions are complacent in borderline criminal activity, yeah that is misinformation.

So you agree that I agreed with you and for some reason still feel the need to argue a point we both agree on.
Ok lol

a reply to: Allaroundyou
If only you wouldn’t post disinformation it wouldn’t be an issue.
Discussing the actual truth, president trump has nothing to do with this story, is in no way any type of argument.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I never said he was involved brah.
I only said he seems to be complacent.
Massive difference there my man.
You are just trying to start an argument.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Hmmm
Exactly what legal responsibility does president trump have here?
Thanks in advance for your answer.

Isn't using someone's likeness, without their permission (unless in the context of expressing an opinion under the protection of 1st Ammendment Free Speech guidelines), some sort of violation?


Trump has often referenced "his brand", and even refers to himself in the third person, as if to reiterate that his persona is an "entity" with a "market value" in excess of himself.


So, by allowing his "cache" to be used to mislead, or outright defraud, people, without so much as a single objection, goes to the devaluation of his trademark, his "brand" as it were.



Unless he is getting some kind of "kickback" from the sale (maybe some kind of undisclosed-to-the-public licensing agreement? ), he stands to see his image sullied by such activities as this.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I never said he was involved brah. I only said he seems to be complacent.

Complacency in a criminal act is involved.
Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Especially when the story the op provided states president trump nor his campaign is involved.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Hmmm
Exactly what legal responsibility does president trump have here?
Thanks in advance for your answer.

Isn't using someone's likeness, without their permission (unless in the context of expressing an opinion under the protection of 1st Ammendment Free Speech guidelines), some sort of violation?


Trump has often referenced "his brand", and even refers to himself in the third person, as if to reiterate that his persona is an "entity" with a "market value" in excess of himself.


So, by allowing his "cache" to be used to mislead, or outright defraud, people, without so much as a single objection, goes to the devaluation of his trademark, his "brand" as it were.



Unless he is getting some kind of "kickback" from the sale (maybe some kind of undisclosed-to-the-public licensing agreement? ), he stands to see his image sullied by such activities as this.

So president trump is responsible to monitor all sales activities to ensure no fraud occurs?
Is that the standard for everyone or just the former president?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Hmmm
Exactly what legal responsibility does president trump have here?
Thanks in advance for your answer.

Isn't using someone's likeness, without their permission (unless in the context of expressing an opinion under the protection of 1st Ammendment Free Speech guidelines), some sort of violation?


Trump has often referenced "his brand", and even refers to himself in the third person, as if to reiterate that his persona is an "entity" with a "market value" in excess of himself.


So, by allowing his "cache" to be used to mislead, or outright defraud, people, without so much as a single objection, goes to the devaluation of his trademark, his "brand" as it were.



Unless he is getting some kind of "kickback" from the sale (maybe some kind of undisclosed-to-the-public licensing agreement? ), he stands to see his image sullied by such activities as this.

So president trump is responsible to monitor all sales activities to ensure no fraud occurs?
Is that the standard for everyone or just the former president?

What would Disney do?

Seems like a great opportunity for Trump. I mean we do know he posts random rants on his social media up to 50x a day. If he was smart he would post about these scammers and then directly link to merchandise only he makes money from.

Seems like it would be more beneficial to him than constantly calling out "meatball Ron" and "Peekaboo James".

I mean I'm sorry people were scammed, but heck info about Trump's own "funds" where money was not even used for reasons he told his supporters but instead he gave millions to his friends has already been known. Plus we had the whole "build the wall" scam by Bannon. So really, anyone should already be leary when donating and only give if they don't care what happens to their money. And yes I'll say that goes for any candidate.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Hmmm
Exactly what legal responsibility does president trump have here?
Thanks in advance for your answer.

Isn't using someone's likeness, without their permission (unless in the context of expressing an opinion under the protection of 1st Ammendment Free Speech guidelines), some sort of violation?


Trump has often referenced "his brand", and even refers to himself in the third person, as if to reiterate that his persona is an "entity" with a "market value" in excess of himself.


So, by allowing his "cache" to be used to mislead, or outright defraud, people, without so much as a single objection, goes to the devaluation of his trademark, his "brand" as it were.



Unless he is getting some kind of "kickback" from the sale (maybe some kind of undisclosed-to-the-public licensing agreement? ), he stands to see his image sullied by such activities as this.

So president trump is responsible to monitor all sales activities to ensure no fraud occurs?
Is that the standard for everyone or just the former president?

What would Disney do?

Find out where the kids were and give them some transgender training.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Allaroundyou
Hmmm
Exactly what legal responsibility does president trump have here?
Thanks in advance for your answer.

Isn't using someone's likeness, without their permission (unless in the context of expressing an opinion under the protection of 1st Ammendment Free Speech guidelines), some sort of violation?


Trump has often referenced "his brand", and even refers to himself in the third person, as if to reiterate that his persona is an "entity" with a "market value" in excess of himself.


So, by allowing his "cache" to be used to mislead, or outright defraud, people, without so much as a single objection, goes to the devaluation of his trademark, his "brand" as it were.



Unless he is getting some kind of "kickback" from the sale (maybe some kind of undisclosed-to-the-public licensing agreement? ), he stands to see his image sullied by such activities as this.

So president trump is responsible to monitor all sales activities to ensure no fraud occurs?
Is that the standard for everyone or just the former president?

What would Disney do?

they have copyrights
on everything.

Boomers gonna boom!

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: shooterbrody

He doesn't have any legal responsibility.
Are you happy now?

I guess I'll just start printing whatever with your name on it.
Do ya see the issue here?
Are you defending this clear as day scam?
I really don't see why you are even in this thread?
You have provided absolutely nothing to the OP.
It seems you are just here to go after me.
To which i am flattered.
We haven't even gone on a date and you are already upset.
Generally that takes at the very least two dates.

Haha “are you happy now ?”
Typically adults don’t say this when forced to tell the truth.
Throw in a “why are you even in this thread (when I don’t want you to tell the truth)”…….
And hooo boy, what sublime embarrassment for all of us.

originally posted by: frogs453
Seems like a great opportunity for Trump. I mean we do know he posts random rants on his social media up to 50x a day. If he was smart he would post about these scammers and then directly link to merchandise only he makes money from.

Seems like it would be more beneficial to him than constantly calling out "meatball Ron" and "Peekaboo James".

I mean I'm sorry people were scammed, but heck info about Trump's own "funds" where money was not even used for reasons he told his supporters but instead he gave millions to his friends has already been known. Plus we had the whole "build the wall" scam by Bannon. So really, anyone should already be leary when donating and only give if they don't care what happens to their money. And yes I'll say that goes for any candidate.

So, Trump has absolutely nothing to do with the whole topic of the OP.
But he’s still at fault somehow, some magical way.
And you really wish he would jump in on it, so you would really have something to complain about.
And your fellow TDS pal really, really, really wishes the pizz dossier was true.
What a special little crew.

a reply to: Byrd

Funny....so Trump isn't even connected to these scams except the scammers use his name, but somehow it's Trunps fault?

Which political figures and donors are buying Hunters art for hundreds of thousands? Nobody knows, because the Big Guy blocked that....

Seriously....this is laughable.