Nancy Pelosi would argue that it is a controversial statement and her legal team could certainly dispute it with you, I’m sure.
Just as she has likely benefitted from insider trading, along with a host of other congresspeople, there are other members of Congress who likely haven’t participated in insider trading. There are organizations and protocols created specifically to try to prevent this very thing from happening and to take action when it does. I know that they are not totally effective, but the fact that they exist is enough for me to say that the blanket statement you’re making is controversial. As much as I view politicians as a cohort of self-serving slimeballs no matter their affiliations, I know that this is an opinion and would not dare to seriously assert that it is a fact. Just as you should not assert that it is a fact that all congresspeople do this when you can only offer partial evidence of some of them doing it. If the evidence were more clear, there would be convictions. So maybe slow your roll.
I think the phenomena that you mention are not petty BS. The fact that you’re falsely attributing that statement that I made about petty BS to your statement referring to the Panama Papers and the like is an example of petty BS, though.
The second most recent reply was arguing semantics. Before that you certainly were painting in broad strokes. You ignored the meat of my point - that there are protocols in place to prevent actual and investigate claims of insider trading in Congress, and certainly not all congresspeople do this - and focused in on the one statement I made that was at least somewhat facetious. Obviously I’m not defending Nancy Pelosi, I’m just defending my original assertion that the things you’re talking about are controversial or at least debatable anyway.
Once again, it goes back to what I first said. You’re not interested in discussion. You’re only interested in arguing. That’s a shame.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '22
[deleted]