USA Politics

Nancy Mace stated just recently that FBI investigated Donald Trump for criminal sexual predatory stuff and that there are loads and loads of rich and powerful people being redacted and protected in the files. Even Boebert is absolutely disgusted with this Democrat hoax.
 
I can see Nancy Mace pulling an MTG and just bailing out of Congress. Greene got pissed the state/national GOP apparatus wouldn't support her to run for senate, the same thing is happening with Mace's bid for South Carolina governor where she's coming in third or worse in each primary poll that's come out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Just a random observation about the U.S.

As far as I understand, members of Congress aren’t prohibited from trading stocks. One of the most prominent examples is (or was) Nancy Pelosi. I mean, her stock-trading track record - the returns, the net gains - seemed almost unreal. Some freedom-loving folks might argue that politicians have every right to participate in the market like anyone else. But to me, especially considering her apparent win rate, it inevitably raises eyebrows and casts a shadow of doubt. Really? She managed all that without any insider knowledge? I personally find that hard to believe.

And if she truly was just a stock-trading beast - and I’m not simply absorbing disinformation or meme-driven narratives - then it still means she leveraged her political status to enrich herself.

It may not be illegal in the U.S., so technically there’s no crime there. But for me…
Yeah, maybe in the end that’s just my issue.

I even googled it, just to make sure I had at least minimal accuracy. There was a Yahoo article titled: “Nancy Pelosi Outperformed Nearly Every Hedge Fund in 2024 - Even Beating the Infamous Inverse Cramer Stock Tracker.”

Are we really sure there’s no problem here? A politician - presumably, possibly - using certain information for personal gain? Huh.
 
Yes, it's a problem. But the vast majority in Congress wants to keep it like it is, because they trade on inside information, so any stock ban motions get voted down instantly. Politicians rarely miss a beat when it comes to lining their own pockets. One prime example of that is if you serve one term in congress, you get free healthcare for life. One set of rules for the political class, another set for the working class.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Dawg why are you ten years late to every party
Click to expand...

Like I said, just a random thought. I’d actually known about this for five to seven years already - I only brought it up to say that I think this kind of behavior should at least be reviewed, and possibly changed.

Also, I found your reply a bit passive-aggressive. Was there really nothing you could say about the substance of my point? Or did you just want to nudge me into second-guessing myself a little? You naughty leftie. (Now I’m being a bit aggressive in return.) Ha.
 
Vaenyr said:
That's what happens when Twitter is being used as the main source of political news.

Is there even a single person on this forum who is a fan of Nancy Pelosi?
Click to expand...

Oh look - here we go again. I only posted something observational - maybe not exactly breaking news, but still a reasonable question - and they all seem so agitated. I’m late to the party, sure, I’m a Twitter sucker and all that. But still… Houston, we have a problem. The lefties are still out of their minds. :rolleyes:
 
Azas said:
But still… Houston, we have a problem. The lefties are still out of their minds. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You misinterpreted my comment. What I meant with "are there even Pelosi fans here" is:

Go after her, and after any politician who is doing insider trading. I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that. I can't imagine anyone here would defend her. Unlike the MAGA folks, we "lefties" don't have unconditional loyalty for every Democrat. If they break laws they should be held accountable, regardless of if they are blue or red.
 
I read both users’ comments as somewhat patronizing - lightly gaslighting, almost a “he doesn’t know shit” kind of interaction. I’ve also seen that style of reply before: “Is there even a single person on this forum who’s a fan of [insert politician’s name]?” It’s popped up several times already. Isn’t that a form of downplaying too? Like, “Silly, why are you posting such uneducated takes?”

I don’t know - maybe it’s just me. But like I said, that’s the vibe I got from both responses. Never mind.
*
As for the U.S., its interests really do seem to have shifted. They’re openly talking about “interests” now rather than “shared values.” And I doubt that shift will simply disappear with the end of the Trump administration. It feels like something deeper is going on.
Munich.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
To be fair, I think you've got a point Azas regarding your post and the tone/content of the replies - and there is room for interpretation and nuance here - but I don't think there's any malice here, but rather that this interaction is a product of the fact that we have all been going back and forth locked into our "roles" in the discourse here for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Azas said:
I read both users’ comments as somewhat patronizing - lightly gaslighting, almost a “he doesn’t know shit” kind of interaction. I’ve also seen that style of reply before: “Is there even a single person on this forum who’s a fan of [insert politician’s name]?” It’s popped up several times already. Isn’t that a form of downplaying too? Like, “Silly, why are you posting such uneducated takes?”

I don’t know - maybe it’s just me. But like I said, that’s the vibe I got from both responses. Never mind.
Click to expand...
It certainly wasn't my intention of accusing you of having "uneducated takes" because you posted about Pelosi, so apologies for that. It simply felt kinda random, because the story about her in particular is a few years old already.

You ended your post with:
Azas said:
Are we really sure there’s no problem here? A politician - presumably, possibly - using certain information for personal gain? Huh.
Click to expand...

And that's what my previous comment was in response to. Is anyone here defending her? Or saying that there is "no problem"? As I said, I'm all for holding her accountable, just like any other politician as well. No politician should be immune to consequences, especially not for conveniently being on the same team. Remember all that "lawfare" nonsense? If politicians are above the law, the legal system has failed.

Insider trading is simply one symptom of a larger problem with America's political systems.
 
There's more and more smoke that AOC might run for president in 2028, and I'm not quite sure how that would turn out.

On one hand she's a popular target for conservatives and has been for a long while. She's not a moderate candidate, something that would cause pushback from the DNC. She'll get attacked for being too left, too "woke", too young, too inexperienced. It feels like the establishment wants Newsom. Also, she's a woman and part of a minority which would disqualify her in the eyes of a good chunk of voters.

On the other hand she'd be challenging the status quo, which is something the political center in particular appreciates (see Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric). Thanks to Trump's mishandling of the economy any Dem will get a boost to topple the incumbent. She's likely to follow Mamdani's play book of focusing on the economy. Instead of being tied to Biden's popularity (or rather lack thereof) like Harris was, AOC can leverage the idea's of Bernie that got a lot of popular support in the past, and put her in a much more favourable position.

Personally I'm really not a fan of Newsom, so I'd be really happy with someone like AOC. Her making it through the primaries and becoming the Dem candidate is a different matter though.
 
I think AOC would be more of a gamble than Newsom, his California chip included, as the Presidential candidate. I think she would be suitable for the VP slot though under Newsom, because the ticket could appeal to a broader base and to swing voters that way better than Newsom + random moderate or AOC+whoever else.
 
Last edited:
I love AOC, but I don’t see her as a contender (yet). Maybe once the current crop of octogenarians die out, but until then she’s too young for their eyes.

I don’t know who I think IS a front runner, but I do know that if the party doesn’t start rallying behind a single candidate right now - we’re fucked again.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
I love AOC, but I don’t see her as a contender (yet). Maybe once the current crop of octogenarians die out, but until then she’s too young for their eyes.

I don’t know who I think IS a front runner, but I do know that if the party doesn’t start rallying behind a single candidate right now - we’re fucked again.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's necessarily the case. The Obama/Clinton primary was contentious at best and dragged on. But yes, there needs to be a couple of grade A candidates early next year making names of themselves. As it stands, Newsom is the only one with name recognition, the look and the zing. He's no Obama, but the guy is presidential and doesn't back down from a fight. He hasn't really spelled out any true political beliefs and aspirations beyond repairing any damage done by Trump though, whereas that's one of the things that are needed the most to win - vision.
 
Eh, Newsom cozies up to Ben Shapiro and the like, and completely capitulates to their disingenuous framing of various issues. He's slimy and can't stand up to pressure or hold up against scrutiny. Having a savvy social media team that mocks Trump is not enough. Newsom went to a podcast, where the host mentioned AIPAC, and the dude completely short-circuited. He said "that's interesting" almost ten times in less than a minute. I really hope anyone but him will run for the Dems. Of course he'd be better than whatever the GOP will run, but I can't imagine there being any other realistic Dem candidate that I'd like less than freaking Gavin Newsom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top