5 ms·

Her husband is a professional investor who somehow manages to buy very deep options on troubled corporations right before the legislative branch hands them a bu

Her husband is a professional investor who somehow manages to buy very deep options on troubled corporations right before the legislative branch hands them a bunch of money, sending their stock price soaring. California can't be bothered not to elect this evil person that is the absolute epitome of corruption.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> California can't be bothered not to elect this evil person Except in the tiniest (by population) states, states at large do not elect members to the House, despite the fact that they are frequently identified by party and state. California is the maximum example of the error of this kind of description.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  OK. San Francisco, the fourth largest city in California, can't be bothered not to elect this evil person. Happy?
  - snerbles 5y ago
    A significant fraction of HN's readership resides in that district as well.
  - undersuit 5y ago
    The rich city that can't even be bothered to deal with the shitty conditions that drove most of them to Uber everywhere?
jjeaff 5y ago
Is there evidence of this? Anytime I have seen the details, in context, of Pelosi trades, they seem very unconvincing. When someone does a lot of trading, it is easy to cherry pick the successful trades or apparently conflicted trades while ignoring the whole picture, and scope of the portfolio.
- itsoktocry 5y ago
  >Is there evidence of this? Is this the right question? Insider trading is incredibly hard to prove as it is. But we know that Pelosi is privy to insider information. She's an 82 year old centimillionaire, does she really need to be day-trading options?
  - docmars 5y ago
    Not to mention it's commonsensical at this point -- we can let the courts decide, but there is enough reason to suspect something dubious is afoot, given her lack of integrity as a person from moral and ethical standpoints.
- thenightcrawler 5y ago
  I think her husband has beat the s%P the last year, I"m not sure long term.
  - pixelatedindex 5y ago
    There was a twitter account that was called "Nancy Pelosi's Stock Tracker" but since Jack left, the new CEO seems to have shut the account down. I have no idea why it was shutdown though.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      Ah yes, CEOs are in charge of banning individual accounts
      - docmars 5y ago
        Irrelevant. Why did Twitter ban an account reporting objective details on a public figure's actions and/or corruption? (The 3rd most powerful person in our elite ruling class, mind you)
        5y ago
bronzeage 5y ago
[dead]
jdavis703 5y ago
Oh come on. Have you seen the people who have primaried her? While their politics may or may not be better, they have been problematic personal and professional lives.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Have you seen the people who have primaried her? “Primaried” usually refers to opposing in a partisan primary (as a way of distinguishing those people from other electors opponents.) California has for some time not used partisan primaries except as part of the Presidential nominating process.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem. For all intents and purposes they are effectively partisan (ignoring the bad blood between “moderate” Dems and self-styled “progressives”), with Republicans relegated as essentially a distant third party.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem. No, they aren't, they universally include numerous parties and independents, including Republicans, as well as Democrats. They general election after the top-two nonpartisan primary is sometimes Dem v. Dem, though that’s only happened in exactly one (2020) of Pelosi’s five elections since the top-two nonpartisan primary was adopted, so even if you meant the general rather than the primary, “usually” is far misplaced.
      - jdavis703 5y ago
        The last primary we had for an empty seat was something like 4 Dems, 1 Republican and some other third party. The Republican didn’t really even show up to various debates and round tables.
docmars 5y ago
+1 to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29583254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29583254 This dead reply could not be more sound, and plausible. It was downvoted due to a dogpile of political disagreements, sadly. I am beyond excited to say "we told you so" when the populace is ready to acknowledge it, and gets beyond its hatred founded on veritable lies about a single man. While we're talking about Pelosi, it was rather funny to see how she has reacted to the Mark Meadows texts recently, which single-handedly disprove the Left's January 6 claims of Trump's involvement, a baseless conspiracy theory from start to finish. I truly can't wait until we no longer tolerate fabricated political scandals ruining the fabric of society by deceiving people to act their ugliest towards otherwise average people. Raw evidence or blind willful ignorance, take your pick — from a centrist's perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiqEVG55N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiqEVG55N0
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Mark Meadows texts recently, which single-handedly disprove the Left's January 6 claims of Trump's involvement Uh, Meadows’ texts do no such thing.
  - docmars 5y ago
    Then why else did the committee drop that evidence like a hot potato once they found out it complicated their case? We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump. In fact, in the video I linked, it shows a clip from CNN of all places supporting my point because they can't even twist it. Willful ignorance is a choice, it's just nice when folks are more honest about it.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Then why else did the committee drop that evidence On what basis do you claim they did? I mean, sure, it might look like they had if they didn't question Meadows about it when he showed up to testify after they got it...but he didn't, which is why he’s facing a contempt referral. Short of that, other than it's absence from any final report, I’m not sure what concrete sign would exist that they had “dropped” it at all. > We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump. While I agree with the exact wording here, as what is being belabored is not trivial and the analysis of how it is evidence against Trump and his inner circle is not twisted, the media that's not full-time right-wing propaganda is indeed pointing to them as a “smoking gun”, so, if “major media pundits aren't claiming that they are evidence against Trump” is the basis of your claim that the committee is dropping the texts, the premise is as faulty as the logic (a few examples of thousands): https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/mark-meadows-text-messages/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/mark-meadows-text-me... https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/january-6-committee-mark-meadows/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/january-6-committee-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/13/mark-meadows-jan-6-committee-contempt-coverup/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/13/mark-mead... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38514277/mark-meadows-texts-fox-news-trump-conservatism/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38514277/mar... About the best you can say for the texts is that they are sometimes being treated as less of a smoking gun than the PowerPoint presentation on the strategy for the coup turned over by Meadows.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> California can't be bothered not to elect this evil person Except in the tiniest (by population) states, states at large do not elect members to the House, despite the fact that they are frequently identified by party and state. California is the maximum example of the error of this kind of description.

anoonmoose 5y ago
OK. San Francisco, the fourth largest city in California, can't be bothered not to elect this evil person. Happy?
- snerbles 5y ago
  A significant fraction of HN's readership resides in that district as well.
- undersuit 5y ago
  The rich city that can't even be bothered to deal with the shitty conditions that drove most of them to Uber everywhere?

jjeaff 5y ago

Is there evidence of this? Anytime I have seen the details, in context, of Pelosi trades, they seem very unconvincing. When someone does a lot of trading, it is easy to cherry pick the successful trades or apparently conflicted trades while ignoring the whole picture, and scope of the portfolio.

itsoktocry 5y ago
>Is there evidence of this? Is this the right question? Insider trading is incredibly hard to prove as it is. But we know that Pelosi is privy to insider information. She's an 82 year old centimillionaire, does she really need to be day-trading options?
- docmars 5y ago
  Not to mention it's commonsensical at this point -- we can let the courts decide, but there is enough reason to suspect something dubious is afoot, given her lack of integrity as a person from moral and ethical standpoints.
thenightcrawler 5y ago
I think her husband has beat the s%P the last year, I"m not sure long term.
- pixelatedindex 5y ago
  There was a twitter account that was called "Nancy Pelosi's Stock Tracker" but since Jack left, the new CEO seems to have shut the account down. I have no idea why it was shutdown though.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Ah yes, CEOs are in charge of banning individual accounts
    - docmars 5y ago
      Irrelevant. Why did Twitter ban an account reporting objective details on a public figure's actions and/or corruption? (The 3rd most powerful person in our elite ruling class, mind you)
      - 5y ago

bronzeage 5y ago

[dead]

jdavis703 5y ago

Oh come on. Have you seen the people who have primaried her? While their politics may or may not be better, they have been problematic personal and professional lives.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Have you seen the people who have primaried her? “Primaried” usually refers to opposing in a partisan primary (as a way of distinguishing those people from other electors opponents.) California has for some time not used partisan primaries except as part of the Presidential nominating process.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem. For all intents and purposes they are effectively partisan (ignoring the bad blood between “moderate” Dems and self-styled “progressives”), with Republicans relegated as essentially a distant third party.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem. No, they aren't, they universally include numerous parties and independents, including Republicans, as well as Democrats. They general election after the top-two nonpartisan primary is sometimes Dem v. Dem, though that’s only happened in exactly one (2020) of Pelosi’s five elections since the top-two nonpartisan primary was adopted, so even if you meant the general rather than the primary, “usually” is far misplaced.
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      The last primary we had for an empty seat was something like 4 Dems, 1 Republican and some other third party. The Republican didn’t really even show up to various debates and round tables.

docmars 5y ago

+1 to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29583254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29583254 This dead reply could not be more sound, and plausible. It was downvoted due to a dogpile of political disagreements, sadly. I am beyond excited to say "we told you so" when the populace is ready to acknowledge it, and gets beyond its hatred founded on veritable lies about a single man. While we're talking about Pelosi, it was rather funny to see how she has reacted to the Mark Meadows texts recently, which single-handedly disprove the Left's January 6 claims of Trump's involvement, a baseless conspiracy theory from start to finish. I truly can't wait until we no longer tolerate fabricated political scandals ruining the fabric of society by deceiving people to act their ugliest towards otherwise average people. Raw evidence or blind willful ignorance, take your pick — from a centrist's perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiqEVG55N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiqEVG55N0

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Mark Meadows texts recently, which single-handedly disprove the Left's January 6 claims of Trump's involvement Uh, Meadows’ texts do no such thing.
- docmars 5y ago
  Then why else did the committee drop that evidence like a hot potato once they found out it complicated their case? We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump. In fact, in the video I linked, it shows a clip from CNN of all places supporting my point because they can't even twist it. Willful ignorance is a choice, it's just nice when folks are more honest about it.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Then why else did the committee drop that evidence On what basis do you claim they did? I mean, sure, it might look like they had if they didn't question Meadows about it when he showed up to testify after they got it...but he didn't, which is why he’s facing a contempt referral. Short of that, other than it's absence from any final report, I’m not sure what concrete sign would exist that they had “dropped” it at all. > We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump. While I agree with the exact wording here, as what is being belabored is not trivial and the analysis of how it is evidence against Trump and his inner circle is not twisted, the media that's not full-time right-wing propaganda is indeed pointing to them as a “smoking gun”, so, if “major media pundits aren't claiming that they are evidence against Trump” is the basis of your claim that the committee is dropping the texts, the premise is as faulty as the logic (a few examples of thousands): https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/mark-meadows-text-messages/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/mark-meadows-text-me... https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/january-6-committee-mark-meadows/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/january-6-committee-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/13/mark-meadows-jan-6-committee-contempt-coverup/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/13/mark-mead... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38514277/mark-meadows-texts-fox-news-trump-conservatism/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38514277/mar... About the best you can say for the texts is that they are sometimes being treated as less of a smoking gun than the PowerPoint presentation on the strategy for the coup turned over by Meadows.