Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#31

Post by r00fus »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #12

You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account. She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of. Like: they already had plenty of successful investments…

> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough.

Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated?

The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#32

Post by NicoJuicy »

r00fus wrote: post #31
NicoJuicy wrote: post #12

You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account. She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of. Like: they already had plenty of successful investments…

> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated? The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).

She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts.

She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career.

I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successful and didn't need Nancy to be successful either. She's without a doubt a very smart and successful woman on her own.

It's pretty rude to set aside all those accomplishments during many decades with simple and unsure accusations.

Additionally, I'm 100% sure the opposing side in politics would use any knowledge about Pelosi to their benefit if it was true. After all their shit that came out, the fact remains I haven't seen much (any?) facts discrediting Pelosi.

There was a time, not long ago, that more proof was needed than just yelling "lock her up" and blind faith.

https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/

Innocent till proven guilty seems to be appropriate here, not the other way around.

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#33

Post by [deleted] »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #32
r00fus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated? The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).

She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts. She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career. I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successfu…

[deleted]

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#34

Post by r00fus »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #32
r00fus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated? The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).

She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts. She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career. I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successfu…

Pelosis (as many of her colleagues in both parties) are guilty of essentially doing insider trading. The fact is that it's not currently illegal.

These guys work for us not the other way around.

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#35

Post by NicoJuicy »

r00fus wrote: post #34
NicoJuicy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts. She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career. I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successfu…

Pelosis (as many of her colleagues in both parties) are guilty of essentially doing insider trading. The fact is that it's not currently illegal. These guys work for us not the other way around.

Pelosi Insider trading: opinion/suspicion or fact? If so, please provide source.

Fyi, the possibility for trading stocks does not mean insider trading. A lot of people trade stocks and this would be the first "job" to make it illegal.

What should be done is improving transparency and accountability. Not the witch hunt you are proposing.

And i mean a real check/punishment on insider trading+family. Not the weak enforcement that is going on now, which is the real problem.

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#36

Post by r00fus »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #35
r00fus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pelosis (as many of her colleagues in both parties) are guilty of essentially doing insider trading. The fact is that it's not currently illegal. These guys work for us not the other way around.

Pelosi Insider trading: opinion/suspicion or fact? If so, please provide source. Fyi, the possibility for trading stocks does not mean insider trading. A lot of people trade stocks and this would be the first "job" to make it illegal. What should be done is improving transparency and accountability. Not the witch hunt you are proposing. And i mean a real check/punishment on insider trading+family. Not the weak enforc…

It's not my job to reveal what's well known.

There are several ways for heads of large companies or states (which she presumably is as she's 2 steps removed from being President) to divorce themselves of direct control.

One is a blind trust which executes trades without the direct involvement of it's beneficiary. 2nd is execution of trade schedules (e.g. CEO sells company stock on a schedule to prevent appearance of timing his/her sales).

You and I agree on what needs to happen. Pelosi is only part of the problem but she happens to be the most powerful person in government whose spouse trades stock. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife and her lobbying cash moves are equally as corrupt.

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#37

Post by torstenvl »

prirun wrote: post #24
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not s…

I'd go further and say once you've been a politician at a certain level, you should be banned from being in politics for the rest of your life. Why? Because if a person's total purpose in life is to be a politician, IMO they will eventually be a bad / corrupt one. If a person goes into with "here's my attempt to make things better for 4 years", great. But that's all you get. I'd also ban the next 2 generations in the…

This is a terrible proposal whose immediate and obvious effect would be to worsen corruption. No rational human being could believe that making sure power can only be wielded by the naive and weak-willed, while banning lifelong public servants, will somehow shield it from manipulation.

You effectively want to set up a Fellowship of only Hobbits, and expect them to stand up to Sauron without the assistance of the elves or humans or Gandalf.

Re: Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

#38

Post by NicoJuicy »

r00fus wrote: post #36
NicoJuicy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pelosi Insider trading: opinion/suspicion or fact? If so, please provide source. Fyi, the possibility for trading stocks does not mean insider trading. A lot of people trade stocks and this would be the first "job" to make it illegal. What should be done is improving transparency and accountability. Not the witch hunt you are proposing. And i mean a real check/punishment on insider trading+family. Not the weak enforc…

It's not my job to reveal what's well known. There are several ways for heads of large companies or states (which she presumably is as she's 2 steps removed from being President) to divorce themselves of direct control. One is a blind trust which executes trades without the direct involvement of it's beneficiary. 2nd is execution of trade schedules (e.g. CEO sells company stock on a schedule to prevent appearance of…

I agree that the "checks and balances" need to be improved and definitely the follow-up/prosecution on that, for sure!

BUT, as someone who has a 100% yoy stock gain since 2017 ( I started with a small amount to experiment fyi). I would be very reluctant to say "insider trading" instead of "common sense".

I think "the public opinion" would be very suggestive against me concerning "insider trading", if I would be in politics.

I also wouldn't go in politics if someone else decided "picking stocks" for me. There are certain risks I'm easily willing to take, because ( I think) I have some knowledge of that sector ( yes, tech) and that isn't easily transfered to a 3rd party.

I hope we can agree on that too.

Post reply on HN