Page 1941 of 1985 FirstFirst ... 9411441184118911931193919401941194219431951 ... LastLast
Results 19,401 to 19,410 of 19844

Thread: Politics

  1. #19401
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,523
    I think it's fine for them to buy and sell stocks, but I didn't say they have zero access to insider information. I said there are already laws against insider trading, and as far as I know those apply to congresspeople too. If there's evidence of insider trading, it should be investigated. I don't know if they had access to inside information or not, and that's very different than me saying they have zero access to insider information.

    That article has a lot of talk about "appearances" and "might be's". Part of it looks bad, though I still argue the "exercising options" part doesn't. It wouldn't matter if the exercise happened before or after the news, the result would be the same, there would be literally no advantage to exercising them before the news came out. Nevertheless, there's no actual evidence of anything cited in there, just a lot of "hmm....". They also keep mentioning the Roblox part - that's not even remotely related to the defense deal Microsoft got. They bought the shares the day the company IPO'd. What's unusual about that? It's just as possible that they thought Roblox would be the next Minecraft and, like Minecraft, Microsoft might acquire Roblox.

    That article also spends a lot of time repeating something you said, which is the idea that she's already got enough money, why does she need to make more? This is not an opinion I've heard you have about any other wealthy person. If she were not wealthy, would that change your opinion on whether or not she should be allow to trade stocks? Is there a net worth limit where it moves from "probably not insider trading" to "definitely insider trading"? If there isn't, why does it keep getting mentioned?

    Finally, there's a difference between left and right leaning reliable news sources and propaganda. The Washington Examiner isn't as bad as, say, The Epoch Times, but it's still better used to wrap fish than to read. FWIW, I just searched WaPo and the NY Times for "Andrew Yang vendors", then searched on their websites for "Andrew Yang" and sorted by date and couldn't find an article on either "fuck[ing] with" him over street vendors.

  2. #19402
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,981
    Anyway, bottom line is that I believe public office holders should either sell all of their stocks or at least not touch them while theyíre holding office. Likewise if you own businesses. Doesnít matter if youíre Trump or Pelosi, we donít need politicians who are in it to enrich themselves. If the lure of stock market or if your family businesses are just too important to you, then please donít enter public offices.

    If this were an opinion piece on liberal media about a Republican politician, will your attitude change?

    If not, then yeah, letís just agree to disagree on this. I just think you are too naive to believe that congress has no insider knowledge.

    Regarding Andrew Yang, I guess only Neanderthal wants to fuck him? seriously, I have zero issues with expanding legal permits rather than just turn a blind eye on illegal street vendors. I really donít understand what that fuss was about.

  3. #19403
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,809
    He doesn't get it. smh

    Here's a tweet of some of the highlights low lights. https://twitter.com/RaymondDelRey1/s...760726018?s=19
    Last edited by neanderthal; April 14th, 2021 at 11:54 AM.

  4. #19404
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    I think it's fine for them to buy and sell stocks, but I didn't say they have zero access to insider information. I said there are already laws against insider trading, and as far as I know those apply to congresspeople too. If there's evidence of insider trading, it should be investigated. I don't know if they had access to inside information or not, and that's very different than me saying they have zero access to insider information.

    That article has a lot of talk about "appearances" and "might be's". Part of it looks bad, though I still argue the "exercising options" part doesn't. It wouldn't matter if the exercise happened before or after the news, the result would be the same, there would be literally no advantage to exercising them before the news came out. Nevertheless, there's no actual evidence of anything cited in there, just a lot of "hmm....". They also keep mentioning the Roblox part - that's not even remotely related to the defense deal Microsoft got. They bought the shares the day the company IPO'd. What's unusual about that? It's just as possible that they thought Roblox would be the next Minecraft and, like Minecraft, Microsoft might acquire Roblox.

    That article also spends a lot of time repeating something you said, which is the idea that she's already got enough money, why does she need to make more? This is not an opinion I've heard you have about any other wealthy person. If she were not wealthy, would that change your opinion on whether or not she should be allow to trade stocks? Is there a net worth limit where it moves from "probably not insider trading" to "definitely insider trading"? If there isn't, why does it keep getting mentioned?

    Finally, there's a difference between left and right leaning reliable news sources and propaganda. The Washington Examiner isn't as bad as, say, The Epoch Times, but it's still better used to wrap fish than to read. FWIW, I just searched WaPo and the NY Times for "Andrew Yang vendors", then searched on their websites for "Andrew Yang" and sorted by date and couldn't find an article on either "fuck[ing] with" him over street vendors.
    It was a tweet. https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/statu...051372548?s=19

    Simplify your search to "Andrew Yang street vendors" and you'll get a lot of hits.

  5. #19405
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,981
    Isnít it amazing that the die hard democrats have no issues with Pelosi trading stocks yet have endless complaints with Bernie, AOC and Yang.

  6. #19406
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,809
    I'm ignoring you, but here's a clue.
    A. Hasn't done the work.
    B. Hasn't done the work.
    C. Hasn't done the work.

    Now, why do you think
    endless complaints about...
    that might be.

  7. #19407

  8. #19408
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,809
    https://twitter.com/chris_notcapn/st...566891520?s=19

    Something something good cops

    The tweet says it all. But did you know officer Kwiatkowski was promoted the same year. :sadbanana

  9. #19409
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2,809
    I was today years old when I learned that Gutenberg did NOT in fact invent the printing press...

    https://twitter.com/hermit_hwarang/s...412937219?s=19

    The education system is so gentrified. All this time ...

  10. #19410
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,523
    Quote Originally Posted by neanderthal View Post
    It was a tweet. https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/statu...051372548?s=19

    Simplify your search to "Andrew Yang street vendors" and you'll get a lot of hits.
    Oh, yeah, I'm aware of the whole Andrew Yang street vendor thing. I just have a distinct feeling that what he considers "liberal media" paid little to no attention to it as opposed to "fuck[ing] with" him because it was easier. Mostly my point was that both that and the Pelosi story make for fun articles from propagandist newspapers while the "mainstream media" mostly just ignored them because, for the vast majority of the country, they're non-stories.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •