Jump to content

Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How does this "$120MM net worth" story continue to have legs?  Decades as a venture capitalist -- $120MM is some big salacious windfall?

I believe much of his wealth comes from long term lease agreements from federal agencies. Anyone who thinks having a spouse with 35 plus years in Washington at the levels his wife has attained has not been financially beneficial to that type of business is willfully obtuse or downright gullible. 
 

It stinks, but is business as usual in the US. Probably not even top 10 in terms of abuses by politicians, and completely legal. 
 

Also has nothing to do with fomenting the crazies to try and assassinate her

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Imagine the day after Reagan was shot, we all argued about trickle down economics  and what a piece of shit he was to women and minorities, while he was still on the operating table, to deflect from the fact we supported Hinckley and wish he'd achieved his goal.

Yep. Our failed state status is showing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "legal" part that pisses me off when people assume there is something nefarious going on.  Don't like the law?  Change the law (and there is a push in Congress to do just that).

It's certainly nothing like overstating one's property value to secure bank loans and then understating that same property's value to secure insurance, but hey, shiny object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's the "legal" part that pisses me off when people assume there is something nefarious going on.  Don't like the law?  Change the law (and there is a push in Congress to do just that).

It's certainly nothing like overstating one's property value to secure bank loans and then understating that same property's value to secure insurance, but hey, shiny object.

Partisans like to spout “legal” to defend shitty actions by people on their side. Regular folks know right from wrong often has nothing to do with legal vs illegal. The Pelosi fortune is largely based on taking advantage of the system. Are they the worst example? Far from it, but I’d love to see them and all like them go away

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Partisans like to spout “legal” to defend shitty actions by people on their side. Regular folks know right from wrong often has nothing to do with legal vs illegal. The Pelosi fortune is largely based on taking advantage of the system. Are they the worst example? Far from it, but I’d love to see them and all like them go away

You really need to point to the accounting that shows this to be true.  I'm not "partisan", I'm not even a fucking Democrat, I'm simply saying the idea that Pelosi's wealth is the product of insider trading needs some evidence.  I'm sure as hell not taking your word for it.  Where are the audits, the fines, the jail time?  

Martha Stewart would probably have something to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this seems to be the topic now, I don’t see much of a difference in wealth acquisition by using your status in gvt to have information related to stocks and using your status in gvt to secure lucrative and sought after gvt contracts. 
 

should I?  Are both legal?  Are both illegal?  Illegal but with loopholes all over?

both seem like things that ought to not be allowed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trading activity certainly isn't a vehicle that amassed their wealth, but was a nice windfall along the way.  The trouble is, such trading activity is still above-board for Washington officials, and a bulk of their trades are not registered electronically, so the same-day audit trail is missing.  That's by design.  

It's disengenous to permit such activity when the SEC restricts trading activity from mere analysts within accounting firms, based on their audit clients.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/why-members-of-congress-should-not-trade-stocks

Quote

First, the conflict of interest with official duties is untenable. It is a crime, potentially a felony, for a federal officer who is not an elected official to participate in any government matter that has a direct and predictable effect of a financial interest of the official or a spouse of the official.

But Congress, when it passed this law, exempted itself, the president, and vice president. Hypocrisy to say the least.

Second, members of Congress have enormous amounts of inside nonpublic information that can be used to buy or sell stocks. Insider trading is a felony, but it is also difficult to prove. In 2012 Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) which confirmed that insider trading laws apply to members of Congress and their spouses; using nonpublic information learned in Congress to trade securities is illegal. But in the nearly 10 years since the STOCK Act’s passage, nobody in Congress has been prosecuted for insider trading based on congressional information.

One problem is the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution which specifically provides that ““for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” The reach of this prohibition is not entirely clear, but it is an impediment to federal investigators asking members about what they said to each other about pending legislation, investigations, and other matters before Congress.

Third, even if members of Congress did not allow stock holdings to influence their votes on legislation and did not use nonpublic information to trade stocks, the appearance of corruption undermines public confidence in government. They should invest in broadly diversified mutual funds, not individual stocks.

The fact that they don’t leads the public to believe they are utilizing an inside advantage. This also makes it very hard for Congress to stand up to conflicts of interest in the executive branch.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re:  Senator Burr's activity as intelligence agencies were discovering the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html

Quote

The warnings from U.S. intelligence agencies increased in volume toward the end of January and into early February, said officials familiar with the reports. By then, a majority of the intelligence reporting included in daily briefing papers and digests from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA was about covid-19, said officials who have read the reports.

The surge in warnings coincided with a move by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to sell dozens of stocks worth between $628,033 and $1.72 million. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr was privy to virtually all of the highly classified reporting on the coronavirus. Burr issued a statement Friday defending his sell-off, saying he sold based entirely on publicly available information, and he called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gravy Train I won’t quote your long cat distraction.  Yes, members of Congress have been guilty of insider trading.  But as to Pelosi all you are posting are presumptions.  So if you are disappointed that she didn’t do enough to curtail things, fine.  But you are presuming Paul Pelosi amassed his wealth from his wife’s connections while in Congress which is simply wrong and GOP fan fiction.  But you do you.  
 

Hopefully Mr. Pelosi recovers fully. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

@Gravy Train I won’t quote your long cat distraction.  Yes, members of Congress have been guilty of insider trading.  But as to Pelosi all you are posting are presumptions.  So if you are disappointed that she didn’t do enough to curtail things, fine.  But you are presuming Paul Pelosi amassed his wealth from his wife’s connections while in Congress which is simply wrong and GOP fan fiction.  But you do you.  
 

Hopefully Mr. Pelosi recovers fully. 

1.) Presumptions are all they ever will be until legislation is enacted and/or prosecution is levied.  The Burr example above proves stalemate.

2.) Yes, I'm disappointed, circle-jerk back to my original opinion that Nancy's time in office is done and my support has waned.

3.) We already established that's not how Paul amassed his wealth, just that the couple seems to have enjoyed a nice windfall along the way. It feels like abuse of privilege to me.

4,) What the hell does the GOP have anything to do with it when their own members are documented with wider-reaching and worse allegations of the same activity?

5.) Agreed, hope Paul recovers swiftly, and we discover more of the attacker's true motives as his assault seems to have been intended for Nancy.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Anyone who thinks having a spouse with 35 plus years in Washington at the levels his wife has attained has not been financially  beneficial to that type of business is willfully obtuse or downright gullible

This is true. Again, they aren’t suspiciously wealthy, given Mr Pelosi’s occupation, age, and the economy during that same time oeriod.
 

 The salient point is whether the money was earned legally, or not. 
 

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

The Pelosi fortune is largely based on taking advantage of the system.

It appears your search skills are superior to mine. Can you help me see why you make that claim with a link?

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I know of nothing illegal that Paul Pelosi has done. Legal doesn’t make it right. I can have disdain for that behavior regardless of its legality. And not accusing anyone here of being partisan wrt this behavior; I simply pointed out it is common for partisans to justify shitty behavior based on whether it is legal. 

 

 https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 

 

I consider unethical , but legal, to  be on the dirty spectrum, too. The advantage DC folks have, it ought be said, is mitigated to some degree by the microscope under which they live.

I was thinking about Carter’s approach to his business when he took office. Requiring office holders to put their assets into blind trusts will take votes. Ultimately, that happens through pressure from citizens.

Carter was hamstrung by gas prices, so his legacy doesn’t carry the respect and moral force it should. Oil companies posted remarkable profits in ‘79, too.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squirrel 

No shit.

Great job, guys, in letting a bullshit obfuscation about “aLL pOliTiCIaNs aRe CorRUpt!!!!” derail discussion from the actual issue - a violent man fueled by right wing conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric from elected Republicans and their ubiquitous foreign owned media ecosystem beat an 80 year old man in the head with a hammer in an attempted assassination of the Speaker of the House.
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

For emphasis - here is the correction from the NBC reporter spreading the third person in the house misinformation today on Meet the Press:

 

Good on SFPD for clarifying. None of the people who need to be convinced will believe this, and in fact it will be twisted in support of the conspiracy theory.  And the misstep to begin with didn’t really matter, if it wasn’t that it would have been something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is like @washparkhorn ca. 2010 level concern trolling.  

Says the busker for Bruce Bartlett and the Peter G. Peterson in 2010. By the way, since Bartlett is now a progressive, perhaps he might provide some inspiration for your wheezy economic views. 
BAF0534C-D0D6-4226-804D-5B27B7A5D037.thumb.jpeg.328537aef75522e5b7f6df2351471c5d.jpeg

 

Spoiler

On a more serious note, I highly recommend Rana Foroohar’s Homecoming on where the post-globalization world is headed.  She presents the issues and some solutions as the CFR dominated world recognizes the dilemma posed by the West ending its reliance on China. Covid exposed the vulnerability of efficiency and the need for resilient supply chains centered on durable local and regional labor. 

94C0D257-CA5C-4C69-BC5B-FB2BF1EB1460.jpeg.3677308622f5ad0f5e57567f6057de83.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gravy Train said:


I addressed your request, but your position is woefully ignorant of the response as you clearly don't follow finance news and SEC regulations.

Read it again, nobody is justifying the attack. It's shameful and misguided. It's horrific and fucked. I just want Nancy out of office as her time is long overdue to GTFO.

FUCK anyone and everyone fighting Congressional term limits, wilfully supporting grift of elected officials because they represent your favorite crayon color.

If Nancy’s re-elections bother you, Grassley must make you absolutely dyspeptic. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


No shit.

Great job, guys, in letting a bullshit obfuscation about “aLL pOliTiCIaNs aRe CorRUpt!!!!” derail discussion from the actual issue - a violent man fueled by right wing conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric from elected Republicans and their ubiquitous foreign owned media ecosystem beat an 80 year old man in the head with a hammer in an attempted assassination of the Speaker of the House.

This thread is over 4 years old and 56 pages. I think we can discuss more than just the attack here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can discuss whatever you like.

And the age of the this thread has shit all to do with anything and this attack happened two fucking days ago.

But in the future when you and everyone else laments about Democratic messaging and letting Republicans control the message, remember to acknowledge that it’s not Democrats fault that Democratic voters can’t be bothered to focus on a violent attack for more than 48 hours without being distracted by a bullshit deflection that benefits the assholes responsible.

The condescension is noted.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

You can discuss whatever you like.

And the age of the this thread has shit all to do with anything and this attack happened two fucking days ago.

But in the future when you and everyone else laments about Democratic messaging and letting Republicans control the message, remember to acknowledge that it’s not Democrats fault that Democratic voters can’t be bothered to focus on a violent attack for more than 48 hours without being distracted by a bullshit deflection that benefits the assholes responsible.

The condescension is noted.

I didn’t get condescension in his post. And I do think it’s fair to have a discussion about term limits and legalized corruption in this thread. 
 

That said, Gravy’s timing sure felt like an Anastasis “both sides” effort. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Me for the foreseeable future of my voting life

 

image.gif.35b8d126d5c99404aa39ae46f717dc8e.gif
 

* except Beto. He’s actually good. Unfortunately I’m gerrymandered out of Allred’s district by one street or I’d add him too

Neighbor? (I’m actually gerrymandered into his district). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Again I know of nothing illegal that Paul Pelosi has done. Legal doesn’t make it right. I can have disdain for that behavior regardless of its legality. And not accusing anyone here of being partisan wrt this behavior; I simply pointed out it is common for partisans to justify shitty behavior based on whether it is legal. 

 

 https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3571790-paul-pelosis-questionable-wall-street-windfall-spurs-bipartisan-calls-for-stock-trading-ban/amp/
 

 

First, I’m not crazy about Congress critters using insider knowledge for stock trading but I think both sides do it equally. 

But Fox News pundit Joe Concha, author of Come On, Man!: The Truth About Joe Biden's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Presidency, a guy who said John Fetterman failed to make “one lucid response” in his debate with Dr. Oz, who said that Herschel Walker is in a pretty good position right now, he wrote an opinion piece suggesting that Paul Pelosi’s “questionable” profits on his investments mean he and Nancy are dirty? That guy?

The hell you say.

Oh and look, the bill was introduced by the traitor Josh Hawley with no cosponsors. How many Republicans support it? Is it possible that Hawley crafted it specifically to impugn the Pelosis?

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/following-pelosi-trades-hawley-calls-hearing-banning-insider-trading-congress
 

Quote

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) Chairman Gary Peters (D-Mich.) calling for a hearing to consider bipartisan proposals to ban insider stock trading by members of Congress and their spouses. The letter follows recent revelations that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband invested millions of dollars in computer-chip stocks as Congress was preparing to vote on legislation to subsidize the chip-manufacturing industry.

“It has been more than six months since members of this Committee proposed measures to put an end to inappropriate financial transactions. Despite these efforts, Speaker Pelosi and her husband remain undeterred from cashing in,” wrote Senator Hawley. “More than 70% of Americans agree that this is unacceptable and that Congress shouldn’t be trading stocks at all.  After all, clean government in Washington begins with Members of Congress putting the American people first—and not lining their own pockets.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

First, I’m not crazy about Congress critters using insider knowledge for stock trading but I think both sides do it equally. 

But Fox News pundit Joe Concha, author of Come On, Man!: The Truth About Joe Biden's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Presidency, a guy who said John Fetterman failed to make “one lucid response” in his debate with Dr. Oz, who said that Herschel Walker is in a pretty good position right now, he wrote an opinion piece suggesting that Paul Pelosi’s “questionable” profits on his investments mean he and Nancy are dirty? That guy?

The hell you say.

Oh and look, the bill was introduced by the traitor Josh Hawley with no cosponsors. How many Republicans support it? Is it possible that Hawley crafted it specifically to impugn the Pelosis?

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/following-pelosi-trades-hawley-calls-hearing-banning-insider-trading-congress
 

 

Frankly I don’t care what Traitor Hawley’s motivations might have been. Sometimes bad people can do good things. 

Let’s get rid of loopholes that give unfair advantages to those who set the rules for the rest of us. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Frankly I don’t care what Traitor Hawley’s motivations might have been. Sometimes bad people can do good things. 

Let’s get rid of loopholes that give unfair advantages to those who set the rules for the rest of us. 

How many Republican votes do you think it would get? Do you think it will ever come to a vote? If the Republicans take back the Senate, do you think McConnell would bring it to the floor? Do you think Hawley really means for it to ever get passed? Or is he just mudslinging?

I’m going with zero, no, no, no, no, and yes.

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

You can discuss whatever you like.

And the age of the this thread has shit all to do with anything and this attack happened two fucking days ago.

But in the future when you and everyone else laments about Democratic messaging and letting Republicans control the message, remember to acknowledge that it’s not Democrats fault that Democratic voters can’t be bothered to focus on a violent attack for more than 48 hours without being distracted by a bullshit deflection that benefits the assholes responsible.

The condescension is noted.

No condescension, it was a ripe opportunity to voice the opinion that perhaps it's time Pelosi steps down, though criminal acts threatening personal safety shouldn't be the motive, unless pitchforks truly are amok.  There's enough media fueling this theme, did you need any more evidence after the Capitol Insurrection?

"Both sides," because I'm disgruntled with partisan politics and performance of Congress, among supporters who rarely lift the cover and examine inward.

"Bullshit deflection that benefits the assholes responsible?"  Go ahead and say GOP, then realize their own messaging opportunities were completely lost in this attack:

The weirdest part is for years we've heard that San Francisco is falling apart to "the crazies, radicals, antifa, and curb-shitters."

When the evidence finally proves that even the rich can't insulate themselves from the mental health crisis, the right utterly fails to miss the point. They're so hung up on gay shit they miss obviously by-line that this could be painted as a "failure of liberal policies" because they're so interested in old-man-gay-stuff.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

First, I’m not crazy about Congress critters using insider knowledge for stock trading but I think both sides do it equally. 

But Fox News pundit Joe Concha, author of Come On, Man!: The Truth About Joe Biden's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Presidency, a guy who said John Fetterman failed to make “one lucid response” in his debate with Dr. Oz, who said that Herschel Walker is in a pretty good position right now, he wrote an opinion piece suggesting that Paul Pelosi’s “questionable” profits on his investments mean he and Nancy are dirty? That guy?

The hell you say.

Oh and look, the bill was introduced by the traitor Josh Hawley with no cosponsors. How many Republicans support it? Is it possible that Hawley crafted it specifically to impugn the Pelosis?

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/following-pelosi-trades-hawley-calls-hearing-banning-insider-trading-congress
 

 

Point out the factual inaccuracies in the article if there are any. Is it the worst example in Congress? Of course not. Is it wrong and should it be called out? Definitely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2022 at 3:41 PM, lemonlime said:

Imagine the day after Reagan was shot, we all argued about trickle down economics  and what a piece of shit he was to women and minorities, while he was still on the operating table, to deflect from the fact we supported Hinckley and wish he'd achieved his goal.

 

Pretty wild that somehow the conversations have already moved on beyond a failed political assasination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

That said, Gravy’s timing sure felt like an Anastasis “both sides” effort. 

I would have played it straighter to the cut and probably just rolled out the guy that travelled cross country to off a SCOTUS member but turned himself in at the finish line.  And then rolled out a soft reference to the metaphorical reflection of that on the left as contrasted with the lunatics on the right, topped it off with a death spiral reference.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never really understand, I don't think. I think R's have been so contrarian and trying to be the opposite of the D's for so long they can't even get the basics right anymore. the easy play would be have been to rally the party and condemn this is and all violence. you sure as shit know they would have if it was Mrs. Chao who was attacked and they would have eviscerated any D who even looked sideways at the issue. I don't get how not doing that seems like any kind of advantage. like I said, will likely never understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Point out the factual inaccuracies in the article if there are any. Is it the worst example in Congress? Of course not. Is it wrong and should it be called out? Definitely 

I’d start with the word “questionable” in the headline and the lack of any concrete evidence provided against the Pelosis. There’s also the conspicuous absence of any other Congressperson named in the article as participating in suspicious profits, Hawley’s bill calling out the Pelosis specifically, and the obvious partisan nature of both the author of the bill and the author of the opinion piece. Why didn’t he cite responses about the bill from anyone else in Congress other than Nancy Pelosi? Seems to me a reputable reporter without an agenda would do that.

What other members of Congress made similar stock purchases at that time? Do you suppose Pelosi was the only one? Do you suppose Concha ever bothered to look? I’d bet against it. Hell, let’s have a look at Hawley’s investments. I think it’s a little too much of a coincidence that the one person cited by Hawley for suspicion just happens to be married to a favorite political enemy of the right, who is mentioned in hundreds of political ads all over the country by Republican candidates who pledge to go fight her “liberal agenda,” who Trump constantly attacks, and who oversaw his impeachment...twice. All these constant attacks from the MAGA wing of the party and some MAGAt shows up at her house with the intent to kill her. Mission accomplished.

I’ll stick to my guess that this is all for show, that Hawley has no intention for it to ever get voted on let alone passed, and that no Republican senators would vote for it if it ever did come to a vote, except maybe Hawley who would do so just for appearances knowing it was destined to fail.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'll never really understand, I don't think. I think R's have been so contrarian and trying to be the opposite of the D's for so long they can't even get the basics right anymore. the easy play would be have been to rally the party and condemn this is and all violence. you sure as shit know they would have if it was Mrs. Chao who was attacked and they would have eviscerated any D who even looked sideways at the issue. I don't get how not doing that seems like any kind of advantage. like I said, will likely never understand.

Trump wouldn’t like it if they did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d start with the word “questionable” in the headline and the lack of any concrete evidence provided against the Pelosis. There’s also the conspicuous absence of any other Congressperson named in the article as participating in suspicious profits, Hawley’s bill calling out the Pelosis specifically, and the obvious partisan nature of both the author of the bill and the author of the opinion piece. Why didn’t he cite responses about the bill from anyone else in Congress other than Nancy Pelosi? Seems to me a reputable reporter without an agenda would do that.
What other members of Congress made similar stock purchases at that time? Do you suppose Pelosi was the only one? Do you suppose Concha ever bothered to look? I’d bet against it. Hell, let’s have a look at Hawley’s investments. I think it’s a little too much of a coincidence that the one person cited by Hawley for suspicion just happens to be married to a favorite political enemy of the right, who is mentioned in hundreds of political ads all over the country by Republican candidates who pledge to go fight her “liberal agenda,” who Trump constantly attacks, and who oversaw his impeachment...twice. All these constant attacks from the MAGA wing of the party and some MAGAt shows up at her house with the intent to kill her. Mission accomplished.
I’ll stick to my guess that this is all for show, that Hawley has no intention for it to ever get voted on let alone passed, and that no Republican senators would vote for it if it ever did come to a vote, except maybe Hawley who would do so just for appearances knowing it was destined to fail.

Hawley doesn’t do anything that’s not performative fascism. Because he is nothing but a piece of dick. He’s one of the worst Americans to ever live.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’d start with the word “questionable” in the headline and the lack of any concrete evidence provided against the Pelosis. There’s also the conspicuous absence of any other Congressperson named in the article as participating in suspicious profits, Hawley’s bill calling out the Pelosis specifically, and the obvious partisan nature of both the author of the bill and the author of the opinion piece. Why didn’t he cite responses about the bill from anyone else in Congress other than Nancy Pelosi? Seems to me a reputable reporter without an agenda would do that.

What other members of Congress made similar stock purchases at that time? Do you suppose Pelosi was the only one? Do you suppose Concha ever bothered to look? I’d bet against it. Hell, let’s have a look at Hawley’s investments. I think it’s a little too much of a coincidence that the one person cited by Hawley for suspicion just happens to be married to a favorite political enemy of the right, who is mentioned in hundreds of political ads all over the country by Republican candidates who pledge to go fight her “liberal agenda,” who Trump constantly attacks, and who oversaw his impeachment...twice. All these constant attacks from the MAGA wing of the party and some MAGAt shows up at her house with the intent to kill her. Mission accomplished.

I’ll stick to my guess that this is all for show, that Hawley has no intention for it to ever get voted on let alone passed, and that no Republican senators would vote for it if it ever did come to a vote, except maybe Hawley who would do so just for appearances knowing it was destined to fail.

I was referring to the trades mentioned. Do you have evidence those trades did not take place?  I’m not sure how “opinion” comes into play there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I was referring to the trades mentioned. Do you have evidence those trades did not take place?  I’m not sure how “opinion” comes into play there

I’m not saying they didn’t take place. The Pelosis reported it. Do you think he was the only person who purchased Nvidia stock that week? Can anyone prove he used inside information? Did anyone else in Congress or their family purchase it at the same time? Why isn’t that a subject for reporting? Did the public know ahead of time that the vote was coming? (Yes, they did, and it was expected to pass.)

The article suggests the appearance of impropriety against a solitary political target without providing any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It’s not investigative journalism, it’s engineering a narrative with an obvious political goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not saying they didn’t take place. The Pelosis reported it. Do you think he was the only person who purchased Nvidia stock that week? Can anyone prove he used inside information? Did anyone else in Congress or their family purchase it at the same time? Why isn’t that a subject for reporting? Did the public know ahead of time that the vote was coming? (Yes, they did, and it was expected to pass.)

The article suggests the appearance of impropriety against a solitary political target without providing any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It’s not investigative journalism, it’s engineering a narrative with an obvious political goal.

Again I’m not talking about insider trading or other illegal activities. They clearly benefit from her position. As do many in the house and senate. You seem to think unless the author points out every instance of it happening it negates the pelosis’ doing it. It’s ok to admit they are getting over. We all know they are. Some want it stopped regardless of who is doing it. Some want to whatabout it

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I read that a right-wing, election-denying extremist broke into the location of a prominent political leader of our country for an assassination attempt.  Reportedly both men were discovered by police in their undergarments, with tools, and possibly connected in a love tryst?  

I just assumed they were talking about Mike Pence?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'll never really understand, I don't think. I think R's have been so contrarian and trying to be the opposite of the D's for so long they can't even get the basics right anymore. the easy play would be have been to rally the party and condemn this is and all violence. you sure as shit know they would have if it was Mrs. Chao who was attacked and they would have eviscerated any D who even looked sideways at the issue. I don't get how not doing that seems like any kind of advantage. like I said, will likely never understand.

They WANT this to happen, they want the next time to be successful, hell they wanted this time to be successful. 

The banner on the CPAC stage was "We are domestic terrorists" I don't understand how the republican party still operates as it is a terrorist organization. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...