Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Starlord said:

4 Senators sell stocks after January Coronavirus briefings

 

The following should resign immediately:

 

Richard Burr, Republican, North Carolina

Kelly Loeffler, Republican, Georgia

James Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma

Dianne Feinstein, Democrat, California

 

The 1% didn't get there by being altruistic. They got there with opportunism and a lack of empathy. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to resign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NYT followed up:

 



Update: Several readers have asked about the other senators who sold stock during the same period, including Dianne Feinstein (a California Democrat), James Inhofe (an Oklahoma Republican) and Ron Johnson (a Wisconsin Republican). But none of their trades look particularly suspicious.

Feinstein has said that she did not attend the Jan. 24 briefing; her stock was in a blind trust, which means she didn’t make the decision to sell; and the transaction lost her money, because the trust was selling shares of a biotechnology stock, the value of which has since risen. Inhofe’s transactions were part of a systematic selling of stocks that he started after he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Johnson sold stock in his family’s plastic business, as part of a process that has been occurring for months; his sale also occurred well after stock market began falling.

Jeff Blehar of National Review has a helpful summary on Twitter, in which he argues Burr’s transactions are the worst. Loeffler, who is extremely wealthy and married to the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, frequently sells stock and has said “multiple third-party advisors” — not her or her husband — made the decision to sell shares in January and in February. The notion that Feinstein or Johnson did something unethical, Belhar wrote, is “flat wrong.” Don Moynihan of Georgetown University agrees.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rush to put up attention-grabbing headlines before anyone else does, instead of fact-checking before publishing. I can hear a host of American journalists rolling in their graves. :no:

 

If the media want the public's trust, they have to show they're earning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

The rush to put up attention-grabbing headlines before anyone else does, instead of fact-checking before publishing. I can hear a host of American journalists rolling in their graves. :no:

 

If the media want the public's trust, they have to show they're earning it.

 

Some news sites handled it better than other and got comments from the senators involved before going press.  Ultimately, the quality of the news you receive varies widely depending upon the source you get it from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2020 at 2:42 PM, Badger said:

 

Hillary cost Hillary the Presidency.  Time she get to the stage of acceptance.

 

Hillary was so unpopular that she got three million more votes than Trump. Trump's margin of, "victory" in many states was demonstrably less than than the number of Democratic votes suppressed by Republican tactics. Why do you keep trying to deflect from this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

The NYT followed up:

 

 

All Things Considered reported that Sen. Burr was recorded telling a group of his wealthy supporters about coronavirus weeks before he and the Trump administration changed their happy tune that there was nothing to worry about. ATC even played the recording. So it sure sounds like he and a group of his chief donors are all guilty of inside trading.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Hillary was so unpopular that she got three million more votes than Trump. Trump's margin of, "victory" in many states was demonstrably less than than the number of Democratic votes suppressed by Republican tactics. Why do you keep trying to deflect from this?

 

Because statistically, that argument for why Clinton lost the election has long since been debunked. For example, check this analysis: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016

 

Republican tactics were cynical, deplorable, perhaps unethical, although not illegal; but they don't explain the outcome, and even if the laws in Wisconsin hadn't been changed -- the one state where it could have made a difference -- that wouldn't have been enough to give Clinton the electoral college victory.

 

Everything else is just revisiting "hanging chads." Hillary Clinton is attempting to rehabilitate her legacy by writing a new narrative for the election. Given the controversies surrounding Donald Trump she should have beaten him easily. Everyone expected that, including her, and her ego won't accept her share of the blame for failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Hillary was so unpopular that she got three million more votes than Trump. Trump's margin of, "victory" in many states was demonstrably less than than the number of Democratic votes suppressed by Republican tactics. Why do you keep trying to deflect from this?

 

Not sure what I am deflecting from.  Trump has been the President since Jan, 2017.  Even if you dump the EC, that fact will not be altered.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Because statistically, that argument for why Clinton lost the election has long since been debunked. For example, check this analysis: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016

 

Republican tactics were cynical, deplorable, perhaps unethical, although not illegal; but they don't explain the outcome, and even if the laws in Wisconsin hadn't been changed -- the one state where it could have made a difference -- that wouldn't have been enough to give Clinton the electoral college victory.

 

Everything else is just revisiting "hanging chads." Hillary Clinton is attempting to rehabilitate her legacy by writing a new narrative for the election. Given the controversies surrounding Donald Trump she should have beaten him easily. Everyone expected that, including her, and her ego won't accept her share of the blame for failing.

 

A lot of that,  it is frustrating to see how the Dems have been since November 2016.  If they had been able to move on from this, they would likely be in a much better position than they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose they're in good company with Republicans who still haven't gotten over Obama being elected president in November 2008.

 

Trump: Botched Coronavirus Response Is Obama's Fault

 

Fact Check: Trump's Accusations About The Obama Administration And Swine Flu

 

Republicans Blame Obama During Trump Impeachment Debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, csyphrett said:

They're still investigating Hillary for emails even after the investigating office, and most republicans were found to be doing the same thing.

CES

 

Yeah, I've pretty much accepting, National Security doesn't matter to anyone in power.:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans are just following Donald Trump's lead in blaming Barack Obama, as they do almost all the time nowadays. But that's the other example besides Hillary Clinton of a prominent politician who just can't let go of something in the past which is no longer relevant. I'm not sure I've figured out why Obama still features so prominently in Trump's thinking. I'm certain part of it is Obama being the most obvious scapegoat for Trump's problems and mistakes. Of course that argument doesn't hold water after 3+ years of the Trump "administration," but he does like to beat dead horses. But I'm starting to suspect another motivation is Obama being the President immediately preceding him, and Trump is insecure about being compared to him, so feels he has to run Obama down at every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as a conservative I probably did blame too much on Obama (in the heat of the moment in some cases).  But pretty much at some point in 2017, why bother?  Kind of have to move on.  

 

Though, having that knowledge makes it frustrating to see it in real time (D&R).   (course, I have had some heat of the moment against Trump, too.  but, I don't post it much, because I think it gets covered here, kind of a "dept of redundancy dept" thing. 😁)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Republicans are just following Donald Trump's lead in blaming Barack Obama, as they do almost all the time nowadays. But that's the other example besides Hillary Clinton of a prominent politician who just can't let go of something in the past which is no longer relevant. I'm not sure I've figured out why Obama still features so prominently in Trump's thinking. I'm certain part of it is Obama being the most obvious scapegoat for Trump's problems and mistakes. Of course that argument doesn't hold water after 3+ years of the Trump "administration," but he does like to beat dead horses. But I'm starting to suspect another motivation is Obama being the President immediately preceding him, and Trump is insecure about being compared to him, so feels he has to run Obama down at every opportunity.

Donald Trump is still mad that Obama made fun of him years ago. That's why he's always claiming that he's doing a better job when he isn't. He's a grudge holder that can't take a joke. One of the stories that went around was someone said he had little hands and he sent a picture of his hands to the guy 15 years later saying they're normal hands. The guy sent back a note saying they're miniature

CES 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...