5 ms·

It would be nice if Nancy Pelosi were not the classic strawman here. I don't excuse her behavior either but it's totally legal for now and there are so much wor

• bitexploder 5y ago
  It’s actually not legal. See: the STOCK act. It’s just not enforced.
  • lastofthemojito 5y ago
    "Not enforced" and "legal" are close enough to be considered synonyms in everyday speech. You often hear people say that marijuana is legal in Amsterdam. It is in fact illegal, but it exists in a funny grey area where it is tolerated and police don't enforce laws against recreational marijuana use. Enough that there's an entire "coffeeshop" culture that's sprung up there around marijuana use. So yeah, hearing "there's a law against this but there's no enforcement of that law"...most people shrug and say, "ok, that's legal".
    • ipaddr 5y ago
      It is decriminalized for personal use. Not exactly the same as not enforced. Not enforced means a cop could decide to enforce this on you for leverage or personal reasons.
    • chrismcb 5y ago
      No one, in their right mind would confuse "legal"and "not enforced." Most people understand the difference and would not use the synonymously. For one thing, a lot of people with principals would not do something that was illegal, even if it wasn't enforced (at least not knowingly)
  • fourstar 5y ago
    Oh you sweet summer goy.
• imgabe 5y ago
  It’s totally legal for the people who write the laws to trade on inside information. Golly, I wonder how that came to be.
  • harikb 5y ago
    If we are requiring spouses of elected officials to divest their investment business, we should also require Presidents to divest from their businesses as well, not just wink-wink transfer to his children. In additon there are thousands of elected officials across the country. If we need everyone to abandon/destroy their non-official form of income, nobody will join politics. It is easy to judge from that sidelines.
    • thesis 5y ago
      Let’s play apples to apples at least right? If the president you’re referring to was to do the same exact trades as Pelosi all hell would have broken loose and would have been impeached in the house for a 3rd time.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Let's be lucky that he's really a bad investor. It was already known in 1987 that he traded while spreading false information and after a couple of years the entire stock market ignored him. They were really years ahead of everyone else on what to do.
    • ta1234567890 5y ago
      > If we are requiring spouses of elected officials to divest their investment business, we should also require Presidents to divest from their businesses as well, not just wink-wink transfer to his children. Of course, or some other mechanism. > In additon there are thousands of elected officials across the country. If we need everyone to abandon/destroy their non-official form of income, nobody will join politics. It is easy to judge from that sidelines. So you are saying that politics is inherently corrupt and that if you take away the appeal of corruption then no one will participate?
• aaomidi 5y ago
  Lol discussing legality when it's the person who makes laws doing this.
• chmod600 5y ago
  None of the 36 are as notable as Pelosi. She just has the biggest name, so I don't know what you expect. And I don't see any strawman argument being made.