as the speaker she greatly normalized the corruption and made incredible money at the cost of her constituents
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.
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.
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.
Oh sorry, you wanted evidence for her normalizing it?
She’s the boss. If the boss does it, it’s okay.
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.
That may not sound complicated enough to you
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.
Did I get your question? If not then that’s on you.
There is no question to “get”. There is simply a request for evidence. Sources. News articles. Stock value tracking. Data analyses. Anything.
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
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:
directly relevant corroborating information
You are drawing inferences based on assumptions. You haven’t provided anything that constitutes evidence.
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.