• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it

Mac77 said:
A computer could do that based on the census

BUt it would eliminate some majority-minority districts that blacks and white liberals are so fond of
Click to expand...

True. Gerrymandering is in the eyes of the beholder.

We recently had that issue here. A judge rejected the original districts as containing too many minorities, which in his eyes meant too few in other districts. In another situation a predominately suburban district was amended to include part of Richmond.
 
Jetboogieman said:
snip

Snip

First on CNN: Trump's cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it - CNNPolitics.com

Drain the!

Oh...
Click to expand...



Good grief... This stock purchase was part of a broker-directed Morgan Stanley stock portfolio that Price has no input into. This purchase was in a report that Price received from his broker on April 4th, which Price then disclosed. The bill was introduced before Price had knowledge of the investment, and most of his investment was sold before the bill was even voted on. He no holds $2000 in stock in this company.

If the goal was to cash in on insider trading (which is unfortunately legal) Price did it in the smallest, most milquetoast way possible.

Another non-story where Trump haters read the headline and ignore the meat of the article. :roll:

It's as if CNN is aware of the shallowness of their readership....

Trump is the target of disinformation in a for-fee oppo report: No worries! Just disclose that in paragraph 15, our readers won't get that far!

Trump pick's stock broker bought and sold a stock that the pick later disclosed before any bill was voted on that could have influence the price of the stock? Just make the headline sound like corruption... odds are our readers will only read that far!

A lot of people seem happy to be played....
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
I heard on CNN this morning that it may have been just ironic timing, because a trader (not the Congressman) made the purchase of the stock without him even knowing that it had been bought. Who knows? I guess it's possible.
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible.

I'm less concerned with the dollar amount and more concerned with any possible error of judgement that resulted in the public interest being betrayed.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Ever wonder why Congress is exempt from insider trading laws? All in all though, with the small amount of money this story is talking about, this isn't that big of a deal like many others are.
Click to expand...

Technically they are not exempt because of the STOCK Act which was signed in 2012. But, congressional attorneys have fought all investigations and possible investigations at every turn.
 
Praxas said:
Are you under the perception that corruption is automatically illegal? Here's a hint, you don't have to do something illegal for it to still be corrupt. The way Gerrymandering is done in many cases is corrupt, however, it is a legal form of corruption.
Click to expand...

And is that a legal opinion?
 
Praxas said:
Not sure your question here? Are you trying to say that corruption cannot be legal?
Click to expand...

I am saying if it is not against the law you will have to have that law changed. Until then.........
 
coldjoint said:
I am saying if it is not against the law you will have to have that law changed. Until then.........
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the point that corruption can still be legal? Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.
 
Praxas said:
What does that have to do with the point that corruption can still be legal? Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.
Click to expand...

You do understand that thinking something is not right means little or nothing to the law?
 
coldjoint said:
You do understand that thinking something is not right means little or nothing to the law?
Click to expand...

So YOU think insider trading for congress being legal is right even though for everyone else it is illegal. That says all I need to know about you.
 
Praxas said:
So YOU think insider trading for congress being legal is right even though for everyone else it is illegal. That says all I need to know about you.
Click to expand...

Do your Congressmen and women have Obamacare?
 
Praxas said:
No and neither do I.
Click to expand...

So you see Congress does have privileges that others don't. I am not saying I like it, but if you want it to change start electing people of character. And have those people change the laws.
 
coldjoint said:
So you see Congress does have privileges that others don't. I am not saying I like it, but if you want it to change start electing people of character. And have those people change the laws.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that you cannot say existing laws are WRONG. When you tell the public that it is ok for congress to get rich off of insider trading but illegal for everyone else that is wrong. The fact you cannot see that is astounding. I don't ever want to hear how Obama was "corrupt" when the fact is Trump is far far more corrupt with himself and his choices.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Ever wonder why Congress is exempt from insider trading laws? All in all though, with the small amount of money this story is talking about, this isn't that big of a deal like many others are.
Click to expand...

Yea, he only cheated a little. Let's give him a pass. LOL.
 
Praxas said:
That doesn't mean that you cannot say existing laws are WRONG. When you tell the public that it is ok for congress to get rich off of insider trading but illegal for everyone else that is wrong. The fact you cannot see that is astounding. I don't ever want to hear how Obama was "corrupt" when the fact is Trump is far far more corrupt with himself and his choices.
Click to expand...

OK. One more time. Change the law if you do not want people taking advantage of it. As far as Trump being as corrupt as Obama only time will tell. So far it is Trump 1, detractors 0.
 
coldjoint said:
OK. One more time. Change the law if you do not want people taking advantage of it. As far as Trump being as corrupt as Obama only time will tell. So far it is Trump 1, detractors 0.
Click to expand...

And that is a law I do try to have changed TYVM. But that doesn't mean that it isn't corrupt nor does it mean Trump isn't corrupt.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Ever wonder why Congress is exempt from insider trading laws? All in all though, with the small amount of money this story is talking about, this isn't that big of a deal like many others are.
Click to expand...

[bold mine]

Jesus, I completely forgot about that. Like the initial vote to tear down the ethics committee, that is really palm-forehead worthy stuff.
 
danarhea said:
Yea, he only cheated a little. Let's give him a pass. LOL.
Click to expand...

Looks like your post, CNN's story, and the Democrat's narrative, and my original impression of Price are all wrong on this one. Even CNN tried to do a little back walking later this morning. People should stop grasping at accusations and begin to look for truth and accuracy. Or not. The current rant fest is fun to watch.
 
coldjoint said:
Oh Oh!
Click to expand...

From what I can tell in the series of tweets written by an employee of Mr. Price's, no debunking took place. Everything CNN reported can be true, and everything Ms. Carmichael says can be true, and it can also be true that Price is corrupt and used his power in the U.S. Congress to enrich himself. Of course, it is at least plausible that Price might not have known about the trades executed on his behalf, and his broker might not have known about the legislation he planned to introduce. My experience of corrupt individuals tells me that's probably not the case, but logically, we have to acknowledge that it could be. In short, there's not enough here to convict Mr. Price on ethics charges--as much as I might want it to be otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom