politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nope! She's not alone in the practice but as the speaker she greatly normalized the corruption and made incredible money at the cost of her constituents.
She did a fair amount of good but her deserved legacy is someone who ripped off those she represented for her personal gain.
So, what evidence do you have to support this conclusion? Because this sounds an awful lot like the narrative that gets pushed by Fox and Trump about "corrupt Democrats".
The evidence is how incredibly well her portfolio has out performed index funds. She just happens to be one of the luckiest investors and coincidentally was a house rep.
Please don't defend someone "on our team" when they do shitty stuff. We're better than the Republicans.
Couple points:
Asking for evidence for your claim is not equivalent to defending Nancy Pelosi's stock trading habits, and it's a dirty little trick for you to try to equate them.
Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio outperformed the SPY trust fund in 2023, but underperformed it in 2022. She has not "out performed index funds" on a regular basis, which could be evidence of corruption - if it had happened. Please read my other post where I discuss the actual data.
Still waiting on that evidence.
Oh sorry, you wanted evidence for her normalizing it?
She's the boss. If the boss does it, it's okay. That may not sound complicated enough to you but that's absolutely enough to normalize behavior in a workplace - if the person with the power to set rules does a thing than that thing is alright. She is the first speaker to be called out for her behavior and she refused to change.
That wasn't a dishonest debate topic you were just vague with your question, and I misunderstood you.
Oh and in case I doubt misunderstood your question (it was just highlighting my statement and asking "Why?"). If you were asking how she's taking money from her constituents then it's also pretty simple. Ignoring dividend focused investment, which she minimally engages in, the stock market is a zero sum game - if you make money in it, it's at the expense of someone else... the value of the market may traditionally be going up but that isn't a guarantee and, arguably, it has been growing at a deeply unhealthy rate since the 80s.
Did I get your question? If not then that's on you. Me writing up this wall of text to your vague gotcha question is an underhanded tactic on your part - you left your question extremely vague so I'm not certain what to answer... I've answered every interpretation I could think of so most people will just skip my response.
Also, regarding the index fund, she absolutely has out performed the market just not over each YoY period. You shifted the goal posts and that's absolutely an underhanded gotcha response.
I didn't ask any "extremely vague" questions, I asked you for evidence that supports your opinion. There's nothing remotely vague about that.
This is not evidence, it is conjecture. Evidence requires you to present some corroborating information which substantiates your opinion. You still haven't presented any. Everything you have said is still just your opinion - that is, a load of hot air.
Being complicated or not has nothing to do with it. You need to present information that backs up your claims, otherwise they're not worth the time you spent typing them.
There is no question to "get". There is simply a request for evidence. Sources. News articles. Stock value tracking. Data analyses. Anything.
To put it bluntly: [citations needed]
I can't help you if you reject evidence.
We have one government and we can't gather data on how it responds to different stimuli... unless, that is, you look at the thousands of workplaces we have with similar power dynamics (and general sociology studies) where people set social contracts by observing seniority and leadership.
If you want a discussion of how social norms emerge in most settings, see Section 4 in
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322
But if you work in an office this should be pretty self-evident.
What evidence? You haven't provided any. You need to substantiate this claim:
with some directly relevant corroborating information.
Points at link.
Points at the entire field of sociology.
That link is an academic paper about social norms in general. It has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi or insider trading or government corruption, which is why I said:
You are drawing inferences based on assumptions. You haven't provided anything that constitutes evidence.
As I said in my comment above. We have one US Government, we cannot run experiments on it. I don't know if you've ever worked in statistics or even just taken uni level statistics, but your desired level of proof is simply ridiculous and unattainable.
Here, I have given you a mountain of data that paints a pretty clear picture but no, I can't "prove" it was Pelosi - just like you can't prove it wasn't ancient aliens.
I really do hope you're trolling because this beyond silly.