[HN Gopher] Not inside trading just 100% winning rate
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Not inside trading just 100% winning rate
        
       Author : throwaway888abc
       Score  : 64 points
       Date   : 2022-09-16 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (twitter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
        
       | GeneT45 wrote:
       | 99% of them had the last name 'Pelosi'...
       | 
       | They _are_ the government, so clearly there is no will to do
       | anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps
       | because the single, viable, alternate option is even more
       | despicable.
       | 
       | If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are
       | clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we
       | deserve.
        
         | pstuart wrote:
         | > They found that 81 Democrats & 101 Republicans filed up to
         | 3,700 trades and $100M in possible volume
         | 
         | Corruption should be a non-partisan concern.
         | 
         | But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean
         | campaign contributions is _the_ problem and will never be
         | solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which
         | means never, unfortunately.
         | 
         | These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling
         | amongst ourselves.
        
           | maerF0x0 wrote:
           | > Which means never, unfortunately.
           | 
           | With that attitude you're correct
        
             | pstuart wrote:
             | Your comment reads as a personal attack. I remain hopeful
             | enough to consider the possibility.
             | 
             | I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry
             | that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at
             | dialog here in HN _never_ bear fruit.
             | 
             | We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary
             | goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over
             | country.
             | 
             | Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless
             | downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to
             | discuss the details in a non-partisan manner.
             | 
             | I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past
             | experience and it's not encouraging.
        
           | landemva wrote:
           | It wasn't such a big problem until two changes:
           | 
           | - direct election of Senators basically eliminated them being
           | recalled and fired; and
           | 
           | - capped growth of House of Representatives with population
           | growth.
        
         | throwaway14356 wrote:
         | > because the single, viable, alternate option is even more
         | despicable
         | 
         | these 2 lies continue to crack me up.
         | 
         | Lets look at it from the other perspective. There are people
         | trying to provide alternative options. They are not winning
         | because you are not voting for them. There is no excuse, there
         | is no one to point to, it is your vote and you cast it. What
         | others do should have no influence.
         | 
         | If all the voters really cant make their own decisions, if they
         | really cant think for themselves: Then you would provide a
         | major example by doing your own thinking and making your own
         | choices. They would all follow like the sheep they are
         | portrayed as by these lies.
         | 
         | if non of that makes sense, maybe those ignorant enough to
         | provide alternative options deserve your support in their
         | futile effort? it seems the honorable thing to do
        
       | vondur wrote:
       | They should all be locked up. Look what they did to Martha
       | Stewart for insider trading.
        
         | haunter wrote:
         | >... she served five months in federal prison and was released
         | in March 2005. There was speculation that the incident would
         | effectively end her media empire, but in 2005 Stewart began a
         | comeback campaign and her company returned to profitability in
         | 2006
         | 
         | So nothing? lol
         | 
         | I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they
         | reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position
         | in the government in any form
        
         | jc_811 wrote:
         | Martha Stewart was actually _not_ tried nor sentenced for
         | insider trading. Her charges were related to obstructing the
         | investigation and lying to federal agents.
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdi...
        
         | maerF0x0 wrote:
         | Rules for thee but not for me
        
       | csande17 wrote:
       | I enjoy that the author of this Tweet thread is working on a
       | "copy Nancy Pelosi's stock trades" robo-investor app:
       | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/autopilot-investment-app/id161...
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | Maybe Vanguard could create a US Politicians ETF.
        
       | wildrhythms wrote:
       | I know it's never going to actually be implemented, but I admire
       | Elizabeth Warren for actually trying to do something to address
       | this -
       | 
       | >Senator Warren's bipartisan bill with Senator Daines would ban
       | Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading
       | individual stocks.
       | 
       | https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hea...
        
       | sarcasmatwork wrote:
       | Unusual whales has been tracking this for a long time.
       | 
       | https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate
       | 
       | Nancy Pelosi has her own page:
       | https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pel...
       | 
       | https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/pelosi
        
         | exabrial wrote:
         | If you really want some fun, look up her husband's business
         | relationships with train to nowhere in California.
        
           | throwayyy479087 wrote:
           | Are you referring to the HSR?
        
       | johng wrote:
       | This is bonkers. Will they do anything about it though?
        
         | esalman wrote:
         | https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/349...
        
           | johng wrote:
           | I want the previous insider traders punished as well.
        
             | ttymck wrote:
             | Insider trading is currently illegal (nominally).
             | 
             | Congressional stock trading (not necessarily insider) would
             | be banned by that bill, and to your point about "previous":
             | I think it's fairly well established that laws can't be
             | enforced retroactively:
             | https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-
             | conan/article-1/sec...
             | 
             | My point is that this bill won't help our desire to see
             | punishment for (alleged) _insider_ trading by congress that
             | is already happening.
        
       | fancyfredbot wrote:
       | It's fun that the motivation for exposing insider trading is
       | selling an app these days, rather than selling newspapers (or
       | advertising space in newspapers if you are being cynical).
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-16 23:01 UTC)