661–670 of 816 posts
That’s hilarious … so he’s arrested and put on trial and all the senate and congress are doing the exact same and free? lol
No one likes insider trading especially when it's done by politicians, but let's not pretend they're the same
Many people here are talking about how more powerful people are also corrupt and are getting away with it. All corruption is bad. This soldier put the life of everyone on the mission in danger by doing this.
Is that ‘fair’ for everyone? No! Because no everyone has access to the same level of information. But no one forces you to bet either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only aristocrats can play that game. The soldier is being punished for doing something not allowed for his class status. This is how a caste system works. People is not judged based on their actions but their relationship to power.
You're almost right, but "class" and "caste" are not synonyms and cannot be used interchangeably.
The claims are that different outcomes in income, occupation, education, marriage, etc can result in changes in a person's "class." But even in the statistically insignificant number of Horatio Alger stories, did the person's class really change? Did Eliza from Pygmalion change classes or just learn how to "code switch?"
That’s hilarious … so he’s arrested and put on trial and all the senate and congress are doing the exact same and free? lol
If Nancy can get some stock for cheap prior to landing a big government contract, that's not the same as a solider possibly tipping the hand of a delicate military operation. No one likes insider trading especially when it's done by politicians, but let's not pretend they're the same
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too wonder why "Nancy Pelosi" has become basically synonymous with Congress insider trading when she's not even close to the top of the list among congresspeople.
Because of the Nvidia trade just before the CHIPS act passed. Which is ridiculous because the entire thing was largely fabricated by the media for those juicy clicks. It was a "half truth" story that hinged on the public's general ignorance of derivatives trading. While she acquired Nvdia shares days before the bill passed, it was entirely coincidental, because she had put in for those shares over a year prior. Crazi…
Not for ad views. Fox News does it demonstrably for political purposes, and the "Clinton News Network" has been bought and now joins them.
Bezos didn't buy a popular newspaper for a little extra money. Twitter doesn't work the way it does for profitability purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're almost right, but "class" and "caste" are not synonyms and cannot be used interchangeably.
Well, as social mobility between classes becomes increasingly difficult, they become more and more like castes...
That’s hilarious … so he’s arrested and put on trial and all the senate and congress are doing the exact same and free? lol
The Western corruption is called "lobbying" and is only allowed for the rich.
But when's the last time you had $300 million in your personal budget to spend on advertising to a specific human being to improve your personal income?
When's the last time you got a call from an actual politician begging you for money and "support"?
US congress members spend the vast vast majority of their time on the phone begging a list of rich people for a piss of nickles to fund advertising for their next election. There's always a subtle threat of strings attached.
Both the prince and pauper are forbidden from sleeping under the bridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct that sovereignty is a cornerstone, but since the founding of the UN that doesn't mean you have a blank check to do whatever you want within the sovereignty of a country. Things like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, violating other countries sovereignty with no strong justification, development of nuclear weapons, etc. So there's a bunch of red lines that clearly some countries will step o…
Only genocide has a 'duty to prevent and punish'; with UN Security Council approval of course. Restrictions on building nuclear bombs are defined in the voluntary Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is not applicaple to non-parties (India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan). Every foreign intervention done by US / NATO through-out has backfired, and worsened the problem it tried to solve. Case in point: CIA covertly arms Afgha…
The UN has a body that regulates nuclear energy, called IAEA, and they can definitely bring violations to the Security Council.
> Every foreign intervention done by US / NATO through-out has backfired, and worsened the problem it tried to solve.
That's quite a bold claim:
- first by focusing only in the US / NATO, and leaving out interventions of the UN. Why is that?
- would you say that the people in Kosovo are worse than they were before NATO intervention? Or South Korea with the intervention of the UN? Or even Ukraine today with the help of NATO?
- it's funny you blame the CIA for the consequences of the Afghanistan war, yet you don't blame the USSR who invaded Afghanistan in the first place!
It's like for you, the USSR losing the Afghanistan war was a bad thing, and the collapse of the USSR as well, and the CIA was to blame for all of that? What's going on there?
As for Saddam, he shouldn't have invaded Kuwait, let alone the other atrocities.
You seem to have a lot of grievances towards US / NATO, and very little against USSR and Russia "interventions".
Like what they did in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and the other atrocities in Africa, and Asia with their neo-nazi paramilitary group.
Anyway, I don't defend everything the US / NATO / UN did - but one thing is sure (up until today), none of them expanded their borders and attempted to annex land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a good compromise there is to get rid of shorting. And tax capital gains at a rate inversely proportional to how long the shares were held. E.g., 90% if held less than a second, 10% if held over 10 years.
what makes 'shorting' special? I understand what shorting is from a non-market-junkie point of view (essentially betting that a stock will go down).. is that just more 'gameable' than buying stock.. i guess i don't see the difference between 'i bet this will go up' and 'i bet this will go down' it's still a bet.