I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
No. I'm saying that accusations require evidence, not team jerseys.
If the GovGreed logic is valid, it should apply consistently.
What I find interesting is that nobody is asking the OP for evidence that all of those congressional trades were actually insider trading. The AI report itself is being accepted at face value.
But the moment Trump gets mentioned, sauce is needed.
Either we should be asking for evidence in both cases, or neither. Applying different standards depending on whose name is involved is exactly the inconsistency I'm pointing out.
Do you really not understand the concept of one standard for everyone? I can't tell if you're being deliberetly obtuse or if it's such a bizarre cocept that you've never encountered before and are having problems understanding how it works....
You're arguing against something I never said.
I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
You seem to be claiming Trump is insider trading, no?
We expect sauce around here. Make it spicy.
u/#spicy
No. I'm saying that accusations require evidence, not team jerseys.
If the GovGreed logic is valid, it should apply consistently.
What I find interesting is that nobody is asking the OP for evidence that all of those congressional trades were actually insider trading. The AI report itself is being accepted at face value.
But the moment Trump gets mentioned, sauce is needed.
Either we should be asking for evidence in both cases, or neither. Applying different standards depending on whose name is involved is exactly the inconsistency I'm pointing out.
Do you really not understand the concept of one standard for everyone? I can't tell if you're being deliberetly obtuse or if it's such a bizarre cocept that you've never encountered before and are having problems understanding how it works....
u/#ummwhat
Uh huh