5 ms·

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

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/ https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/ Innocent till proven guilty seems to be appropriate here, not the other way around.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 5y ago
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.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  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.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    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.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

r00fus 5y ago

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.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
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.
- r00fus 5y ago
  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.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    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.