911
Do Something (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)

"I wrote a law that we're not going to enforce!"
- The lady who passes her husband insider info on deals being made in congress such that his stock trades are near-miraculous despite insider trading being horribly unethical for a senator and also illegal, too

Edit: ooppps. wrong senator. (Didn't pelosi say something similar?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    thats pelosi, warren is a saint compared to that crony

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    The political discourse here is horrible. There's 30 people agreeing with that person's incorrect statement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    This community is just perpetually disappointing. How the fuck are you someone interested in progressive politics and not know the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren? Especially on corruption and stocks. She's one of the main voices leading the effort to ban stock trading by electeds and their families. And this is the most upvoted comment in the entire post!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Yeah, I've heard this claim about pelosi repeated but I've yet to see any evidence of her husband's miraculous stock trades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Yeah sure, it's just a coincidence that her own personal stock index consistently outperforms the market of people doing it for a living full time and advanced computers calibrated to maximize gains 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    It’s worth noting that the lawmakers tracked by the fund also hold shares in many of the same stocks that are popular with hedge funds. This has led to the fund’s impressive performance, despite the ongoing scrutiny of lawmakers’ stock trades.

    If you can't even take the time to read your own article and make sure it actually supports your point, why should I take your position on anything as being informed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    That's the subjective spin of Business Insider. That's them trying to justify it because they're very much in favor of it.

    I don't have to agree with the subjective parts to share it for the factual parts.

    If you can't tell spin from relevant information, why should I take your position on anything as being informed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children)

    I'm not allowed to use the source you brought because it's not credible enough.
    ...
    ...
    Um, anyways:

    The Unusual Whales Democratic ETF (BATS:NANC), in a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has seen a 30% surge since its inception on Feb. 7, 2023. This growth surpasses the 24% gain of the S&P 500 during the same period, reported Business Insider.

    It's not even Pelosi's "own personal stock index", it's an independent index based off publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress, and it's done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence). It's not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you! Congress is openly corrupt! You just really, clearly, did not read your source. It directly refutes all the claims you're making here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Okay, sure, I'm not allowed to use the source you brought because it's not credible enough.

    Not what I said. Read my comment again.

    It's not even Pelosi's "own personal stock index"

    It's named after her for a reason. Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

    publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress

    Which is largely insider trading in the many cases where they pass or even get told in advance of legislation that affects stocks. It's technically legal because Congress is above the law when it comes to insider trading, but it shouldn't be.

    done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence

    Pelosi and other congressional insiders have been "doing well" for DECADES before that index existed.

    It's not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you!

    So you're just wasting both of our time to teach me a lesson about source selection?

    I hadn't had my coffee yet, ok? I promise to be more thorough next time, Mr Ombudsman.

    your source. It directly refutes all the claims you're making here.

    Nope. Just because it makes invalid arguments to try and explain it away doesn't mean that it succeeds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Do... you want to drink some more coffee and maybe try this again?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    No. Fuck off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    God, how many times have you told me to fuck off now, five? Six? Enough that my partner recognizes your username. Just... start reading your damn sources. You're better than this, and even if you don't know that, I do. You're a decent person, you screwed up your source on a topic that's more complex than most of the reporting on it tells you, and I called you out on it. Take a deep breath, take the L, move on. Neither of us are going to survive the next four years if we let rational discourse devolve to this state. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I was a dick in calling out your credibility because of one dud link. That was petty of me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •