Crime Mike Johnson argues Congress trades stocks so they can feed their families

[Crazy Source]

Except it's taken completely out of context and he actually expressed clear support for the stock trading ban.

He "supports a ban" while actively trading.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It’s really too bad we can’t put aside our partisanship long enough to take care of this problem. Seems like 90% of people agree that this is #1 bullshit with congressman and judges and now the president taking bribes and doing insider trading.

This is how the people in power work though. They get all the voters to keep what shouting each other on it when the truth is most of them should get voted out of office over this. We had one candidate he really has campaigned and pushed to change this shit and we saw how hard the DNC worked to keep him out of the White House.

Edit: Someone kindly pointed out to me in a DM that I mistakenly referred to the source of the article in the OP as the LA Times, when really it is the Latin Times (a much smaller paper of relative insignificance). Stupid mistake on my part. I am going through my posts to make the corrections now, to eliminate the unintentional slander against the LA Times, but didn't want to just memory hole it without acknowledging my error. The post below has been otherwise unaltered.

What's sad is that what actually happened here was a case of Johnson putting partisanship aside for once to express support for a stock trading ban floated by AOC. The Latin Times decided to slice and dice his response and pretend that he was pushing back against the ban when he was actually crossing the aisle and endorsing the push by AOC and Schiff.

I know that people won't believe what I'm saying, but that really is what happened here. I've already posted it, but here's his actual full response to whether he supports a stock trading ban:

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's so hilarious watching the Trump Administration prove their supporters wrong on literally every issue they thought these f*ckin goons would stand against.

Edit: Someone kindly pointed out to me in a DM that I mistakenly referred to the source of the article in the OP as the LA Times, when really it is the Latin Times (a much smaller paper of relative insignificance). Stupid mistake on my part. I am going through my posts to make the corrections now, to eliminate the unintentional slander against the LA Times, but didn't want to just memory hole it without acknowledging my error. The post below has been otherwise unaltered.

Unfortunately, this article by the Latin Times is an actual incident of "fake news." Johnson was asked if he supported a stock trading ban on congress. He said that he does. The Latin Times sliced and diced his response to pretend that he was opposed.

I've never in my life spoken out in favour of Mike Johnson. But this is so blatant and dirty, and has managed to be so effective in having everyone on here assuming it's true (which is really not anyone's fault other than the Latin Times), that I just feel like it needs to be pointed out that the whole thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of facts (again, not by OP, but by his source).

 

[jeremyemilio]

He "supports a ban" while actively trading.

Look. I'm not here to argue partisan politics. Most of these people actively trade.

But it's such hackery on the part of the article cited in the OP.

He absolutely said that he supported a ban, and they absolutely cut up his response to make it sound like he was opposed:

 

[Crazy Source]

Look. I'm not here to argue partisan politics. Most of these people actively trade.

But it's such hackery on the part of the article cited in the OP.

He absolutely said that he supported a ban, and they absolutely cut up his response to make it sound like he was opposed:

He supports a ban...............

 

[jeremyemilio]

I don’t know about AOC but Bernie did not. That’s just not true. His net worth is 2-3 million. He’s a man in his 80s that’s been in a 6 figure job for like 40 years now.

Edit: I just looked AOC on google and that’s also not true. She’s worth less than a million. It specifically cites that the 29 million was so misinformation being spread on the internet.

This is how the rich keep the voters powerless.

Bernie and AOC both seem to be people who legit put their money where their mouth is when it comes to this issue. Which is a much bigger deal than people give them credit for.

I'm against congress trading stocks to get rich, but I will admit that if I was in congress, and this just seemed to be the way things are done all around me, I might find it tough to just leave tens of millions of dollars on the table.

 

[Sinister]

Unfortunatley, this article by the LA Times is an actual incident of "fake news." Johnson was asked if he supported a stock trading ban on congress. He said that he does. The LA Times sliced and diced his response to pretend that he was opposed.

I've never in my life spoken out in favour of Mike Johnson. But this is so blatant and dirty, and has managed to be so effective in having everyone on here assuming it's true (which is really not anyone's fault other than the LA Times), that I just feel like it needs to be pointed out that the whole thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of facts (again, not by OP, but by his source).

It's more like he is playing both sides of the fence. He says he supports a ban, but he also absolutely said Congressional salaries are too low and that he understands why some members of Congress engage in it. His argument for a ban was more from the "a few bad actors abusing the system" perspective rather than a "Congresspeople shouldnt use their jobs to build wealth" perspective.

This is actually worse IMO because Republicans have demonstrated open callousness for raising salaries of literally any other class of people except for themselves and the comfort class. In no other context will you have a Republican politician speak empathetically about people committing crimes because they dont make enough money, except when they engage in insider trading and market manipulation. So Johnson can still go f*ck himself.

 

[jeremyemilio]

He supports a ban...............

Ugh...

You're being a child.

I'm not playing team anyone, here. I'm just calling out piss poor journalism. You honestly can't look at this and see it as piss poor journalism? If not, that really is fine with me.

I was never trying to start an argument. I was honestly trying to bring some context to the table that is clearly being missed by people who are depending on the bad faith article in the OP as their sole source. If you are fine with having your news delivered to you that way, fill your boots. You certainly aren't the only one and it certainly isn't a primarily Democratic problem.

Beyond that, I really don't have anything very interesting to say about all of this.

 

[Crazy Source]

"Beyond that, I really don't have anything very interesting to say about all of this"

You never had anything interesting to say.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's more like he is playing both sides of the fence. He says he supports a ban, but he also absolutely said Congressional salaries are too low and that he understands why some members of Congress engage in it. His argument for a ban was more from the "a few bad actors abusing the system" perspective rather than a "Congresspeople shouldnt use their jobs to build wealth" perspective.

This is actually worse IMO because Republicans have demonstrated open callousness for raising salaries of literally any other class of people except for themselves and the comfort class. In no other context will you have a Republican politician speak empathetically about people committing crimes because they dont make enough money, except when they engage in insider trading and market manipulation. So Johnson can still go f*ck himself.

I think that is completely fair. And I agree with you, overall (although as a Canadian I'll admit I don't follow American Congressional politics very closely).

I am only trying to point out that the journalism here is substandard and misleading, to say the least. It really does feel like most people in this thread are debating from a set of facts and quotations that are incomplete.

And the information is quite clearly intentionally incomplete, in my opinion, because although I can get behind your idea that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, in the article cited in the OP, there's no sense he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. The quotations are selectively edited to make it sound like his response to the idea of a stock trading ban was to say he was firmly opposed.

 

[jeremyemilio]

"Beyond that, I really don't have anything very interesting to say about all of this"

You never had anything interesting to say.

You have a wonderful evening.

 

[calavera2]

I mean... this is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what went down here. Not on your part, because you are simply going on what is written in the article.

Johnson was speaking out in favour of a stock trading ban and posed this as the "counter argument."

Then the LA Times took the words he used to present the hypothetical counter argument and presented it as his own broader perspective that he's laying out in opposition to the ban.

He did express some sympathy with the idea that if the pay is continuously going down (I don't know that it is, but that's his claim), then some people are going to want to trade stocks to supplement. But he also clearly stated that he feels the privilege is abused and all things considered he is in favour of the ban.

I'm not taking a political side in this. It's just a really dirty thing the LA Times did here, and pretty Fox Newsie if you ask me.

Anyway, here's his full response, in his own words, when asked if he supported a stock trading ban:

You are misrepresenting here...he did the old I support it but some people are saying argument....it's bullshit and so is your take on his answer

 

[Crazy Source]

You have a wonderful evening.

I am and I will.

 

[Crazy Source]

It's more like he is playing both sides of the fence. He says he supports a ban, but he also absolutely said Congressional salaries are too low and that he understands why some members of Congress engage in it. His argument for a ban was more from the "a few bad actors abusing the system" perspective rather than a "Congresspeople shouldnt use their jobs to build wealth" perspective.

This is actually worse IMO because Republicans have demonstrated open callousness for raising salaries of literally any other class of people except for themselves and the comfort class. In no other context will you have a Republican politician speak empathetically about people committing crimes because they dont make enough money, except when they engage in insider trading and market manipulation. So Johnson can still go f*ck himself.

It double speak bullshit. Nothing will change.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It’s not lazy if that’s how you feel. I look at both sides and what I see bothers me. And the wealthiest members of congress are usually 1 &2 republicans and then some dems and then reps and so on. They weren’t that wealthy when they were elected. And as much as I hate aoc, she seems to be one against the trading so I kind of like her for that

I'm sure that's how you really feel but I still find it to be a lazy analysis.

Congressman can make money in legitimate ways and become rich such as through writing a book or giving speeches for a fee.

 

[jeremyemilio]

You are misrepresenting here...he did the old I support it but some people are saying argument....it's bullshit and so is your take on his answer

Edit: Someone kindly pointed out to me in a DM that I mistakenly referred to the source of the article in the OP as the LA Times, when really it is the Latin Times (a much smaller paper of relative insignificance). Stupid mistake on my part. I am going through my posts to make the corrections now, to eliminate the unintentional slander against the LA Times, but didn't want to just memory hole it without acknowledging my error. The post below has been otherwise unaltered.

I'm not misrepresenting at all. I'm simply giving his full response, which the article in the OP didn't do.

I don't disagree with your analysis on what he said. I only disagree with the Latin Times chopping his response up like they did, giving its readers no chance to form their own analysis, and also sidestepping the responsibility to at least quote him in full and round it out with further context of their own. I would hope that no one would be okay with that sort of journalism.

I'm honestly a little surprised that my attempt to offer more context has been met with such apologetics for that kind of reporting.

 

[Crazy Source]

I'm not misrepresenting at all. I'm simply giving his full response, which the article in the OP didn't do.

I don't disagree with your analysis on what he said. I only disagree with the LA Times chopping his response up like they did, giving its readers no chance to form their own analysis, and also sidestepping the responsibility to at least quote him in full and round it out with further context of their own. I would hope that no one would be okay with that sort of journalism.

I'm honestly a little surprised that my attempt to offer more context has been met with such apologetics for that kind of reporting.

Your context is word salad bullshit and dances around the issue.

 

[calavera2]

I'm not misrepresenting at all. I'm simply giving his full response, which the article in the OP didn't do.

I don't disagree with your analysis on what he said. I only disagree with the LA Times chopping his response up like they did, giving its readers no chance to form their own analysis, and also sidestepping the responsibility to at least quote him in full and round it out with further context of their own. I would hope that no one would be okay with that sort of journalism.

I'm honestly a little surprised that my attempt to offer more context has been met with such apologetics for that kind of reporting.

That's all fine and good but his response was still wildly shitty...it wasn't misrepresented

 

[jeremyemilio]

Your context is word salad bullshit and dances around the issue.

You are free to go back and read the article in the OP, and then watch full response in the the video posted on the ABC. If you are fine with that sort of journalism, then like I say, you aren't alone. In fact, if Fox News has proved anything, it's that the majority of people actually prefer their journalism that way.

I legit hoped to be helpful. You are absolutely within your rights to reject the further context, or to dismiss further context as something that doesn't matter.

I sincerely apologize for the distress I've caused and I promise to leave you alone from now on to consume whatever sort of journalism you prefer.

 

[jeremyemilio]

That's all fine and good but his response was still wildly shitty...it wasn't misrepresented

Edit: Someone kindly pointed out to me in a DM that I mistakenly referred to the source of the article in the OP as the LA Times, when really it is the Latin Times (a much smaller paper of relative insignificance). Stupid mistake on my part. I am going through my posts to make the corrections now, to eliminate the unintentional slander against the LA Times, but didn't want to just memory hole it without acknowledging my error. The post below has been otherwise unaltered.

Are you honestly saying that leaving out the part of the response where he says that he is in support of a ban on stock trading (even accepting that you suspect his support), as though he didn't say that at all, isn't misrepresenting his response?

That legit seems crazy to me. Again, I'm not trying to fight. I just truly and honestly can't wrap my head around that. To me it seems like such an important part of the response to just leave out without comment as though it didn't even happen.

Edit: I'm going to put it another way. Here's an article by Politico on the exact same response the Latin Times reported on... except Politico quotes only the part that the Latin Times left out and leaves out entirely the part that the Latin Times quoted:

Loading…

www.politico.com

Are you really okay with that sort of reporting?