Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
Thank you, @realDonaldTrump for appointing me to your task force on re-opening America safely in the wake of #COVID19.
With 22 million Americans filing for unemployment, it’s clear we must start working to revive our economy and get the American people back to work safely.
Either punished or appointed to the task force to re-open America...
We good with this?
Absolutely fucking not.
She belongs in jail with Burr, Feinstein, and the others.
Government should be held to a higher standard than Martha Stewart.
I don't know what the right answer is.
Fundamentally, profiteering from knowledge that something is going to happen is not as bad to me as making laws that meet lobbyists (bribers) desires. Is it right? No. I'm much more concerned that we end up with the right laws and leadership rather than being concerned that some people got rich in the process. I think the accusations that Hillary sold the right to purchase Uranium to the Russians in exchange for money donated to her foundation is something that's much more serious if it were true. I think the rotating door between being a regulator of certain industries and then retiring to become on their board of directors is massively corrupt, much more so than Omar giving a plum job to family.
Hopefully, they'll be investigated for any wrong doing and charged as appropriate.
I also don't think we need a "revolution" or a "civil war to let the bad blood out". I actually don't think violent overturn over government would help. I'm a firm believer that the government we have now is the result of bad systems and bad structures, which is the product of bad knowledge and designs. If you don't have a workable design, when you have a revolution, you'll rebuild the government using the same bad systems you had before, and you'll get the same results. You need to create systems that work first, and that makes the need for revolution obsolete (unless the government holds you down by force).
Quote: @medaille said:
I don't know what the right answer is.
Fundamentally, profiteering from knowledge that something is going to happen is not as bad to me as making laws that meet lobbyists (bribers) desires. Is it right? No. I'm much more concerned that we end up with the right laws and leadership rather than being concerned that some people got rich in the process. I think the accusations that Hillary sold the right to purchase Uranium to the Russians in exchange for money donated to her foundation is something that's much more serious if it were true. I think the rotating door between being a regulator of certain industries and then retiring to become on their board of directors is massively corrupt, much more so than Omar giving a plum job to family.
Hopefully, they'll be investigated for any wrong doing and charged as appropriate.
I also don't think we need a "revolution" or a "civil war to let the bad blood out". I actually don't think violent overturn over government would help. I'm a firm believer that the government we have now is the result of bad systems and bad structures, which is the product of bad knowledge and designs. If you don't have a workable design, when you have a revolution, you'll rebuild the government using the same bad systems you had before, and you'll get the same results. You need to create systems that work first, and that makes the need for revolution obsolete (unless the government holds you down by force).
The system is broken. Zero doubt and benefits them, not us. These people (politics) are management, we are the shareholders of this country.
Revolution, as in a physical one. Doubt it, I do think there are those who want it to happen. They got their guns locked and loaded, you can find them on the Michigan capital steps. But we need an overhaul of the system, we need transparency, we need term limits, we need campaign finance reform. These are the things that Americans should be arguing for, but no, we are fed garbage and fight over things that like “guns”, “abortion”, “whether climate change is real or not”. Are they things we should be working on? YES, are they things that constantly distract us and divide us, no. Because while we fight about these things, politicians continue to benefit with lobby/special interest and nothing gets done.
Americans getting fucked is non partisan, that’s what has to change.
What would you have done differently?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
I dont like it, but insider trading in DC has been happening for as long as there has been publicly traded stocks and commodities. outrage now would be naive.
As this is among the many reasons I want the "main" parties destroyed/scattered, it's not so much "now" as "ongoing".
Quote: @Zanary said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I dont like it, but insider trading in DC has been happening for as long as there has been publicly traded stocks and commodities. outrage now would be naive.
As this is among the many reasons I want the "main" parties destroyed/scattered, it's not so much "now" as "ongoing".
It's not even the parties it's the people that control them, a referred amendment to the constitution that created term limits and establish true campaign reform would make it much harder for certain entities and families to maintain their control over the most powerful country on the planet.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
WHAT!!!!! You’re ok with her getting classified information to her “blind trust” controlled by her husband???
If you enter politics you should be forced into some index ETFs managed by a bipartisan task force.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
Before handing all of them, I'd like more information. If 3M stock (for example) suddenly skyrockets... and Amy Klobuchar happened to have stock in 3M (because she's a good Minnesotan): won't she be making money off this? If this example isn't what you're talking about, then you might need to give more details about what you're concerns are. But, in the scenario I suggested, I wouldn't have a problem with her "making money", simply because her stock went up.
I wonder if the reticence to accept Jimmy's proposition is because there is someone specific that the OP has in mind...?
If Klobachar had no money in 3M, had a meeting with US officials about which companies were going to be producing/receiving government contracts, and then purchase 3M stock ahead of time, that’s a party foul. It’s egregious. It is disgusting.
If Amy had money in 3M before this, that’s a different story. One that should considered for debate. A ban on trading stocks should have been and should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Holding your investments in a blind trust is an option or middle ground
The two cases that stick out like sore thumbs would be Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kelly Loeffler, personally benefitting or better yet disaster profiteering.
It seems that America is in a constant political party us versus them, it would make sense that we could all agree that the real us vs them is the people versus the people who we have put into office.
Having done a little research on this... I fail to see what Loeffler did wrong (other than have an "R" behind her name). She found out that the situation was going to be dire... and dumped stock because of it. What was she supposed to do- keep it, knowing that it was in trouble? Yes, she was privvy to that information before most other people... but what would you have done differently? And it was about $100,000 (which- compared to what I make- is alot... but a drop in the bucket for *some* politicians; shoot, Omar just gave $300,000 to her own husband as a "campaign expense"). So, in my mind, I don't have a problem with what she did. But perhaps you've done more research than me... and can tell me why she should be hanged for what she did?
Burr's "sin" certainly involved alot more cash... but, again: what was he supposed to do? Even though the GOP is investigating him (that's good, right), I guess I don't see the big problem. He sold stock- because he knew it was in trouble. I would've done the same thing (if I was into the stock-market). Now, the issue (I guess) is that he had that information sooner than everyone else. So- what was he supposed to do? Tell everyone else what he knew? Simply hang on to the stock and lose money?
I guess I'm failing to see the big issue here. It's not like they were "making money" off of people (such as the scenario I presented). They simply chose not to lose money. But, I'm open to hearing more details (about what makes their decisions so egregious). Please believe me when I tell you: I am truly open to being persuaded differently. But- as of right now- I don't see the big deal. Again: what would you have done differently, if you were in their shoes?
WHAT!!!!! You’re ok with her getting classified information to her “blind trust” controlled by her husband???
If you enter politics you should be forced into some index ETFs managed by a bipartisan task force.
I think we all agree that there should be other rules for those in DC, but since there arent other arrangements for all govt workers and politicians (why should it just be the elected people, plenty of govt workers in DC likely have insider access at times) since there arent other rules in place, what these 4 (?) have done is no different than what has been done for decades and any outrage now is purely political grandstanding.
Loeffler on Fox News just now. Looked like a lying piece of shit to me.
Someone please tell me what you would do differently if you were in their shoes.
|
![[Image: RmRIZObd_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1227258037469110272/RmRIZObd_normal.jpg)
