Fauxcahontas heap big mad. Ugh. Squaw on warpath. Ugh. She not know wampum talk. Ugh.
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
More off-topic nonsense from Nerdsperg? Who's suprised?
WinterBorn
Verified User
How is that off topic? It seems to contradict the OP, and provides additional information.
How does it seem to contradict the OP, and what relevant additional information does it provide? Do you even know what the Secretay is discussing with Fauxcahontas?
WinterBorn
Verified User
The OP was a slash piece on Senator Warren. Nordberg simply defended her.
Is that so?
The OP (Diogenes) posted Bessent’s X post plus the Treasury letter image. Visible replies so far are short and almost entirely off the letter’s substance.
What Bessent’s Aug. 27 letter actually says
It answers Warren’s Aug. 13 letter on the coordinated yen intervention (Treasury selling existing ESF euros to buy yen after the yen hit a ~40-year low). Core claims:
- Warren’s opening paragraph treated the operation as if Japan had borrowed from Treasury and U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook if Japan failed to repay. Bessent says that is factually wrong on three points: source of funds, nature of the transaction, and whether there was a borrower at all.
- Mechanism: Treasury exchanged existing ESF foreign-currency assets for yen. No new appropriation, no credit extended to Japan, Japan owes Treasury nothing.
- U.S. interest: Japan is a large holder of Treasuries and a treaty ally; a disorderly yen could force unwinds that raise U.S. borrowing costs.
- Legal basis: 31 U.S.C. § 5302 (the statute Warren’s own footnote cited).
- Distinction drawn with the earlier Argentina ESF operation (illiquidity support that did involve a swap-line framework). This yen action was a straight currency purchase, not a loan or swap.
- Tone: accuses Warren of “sciolistic” error, media of missing it, and offers a sarcastic “Foreign Exchange for Dummies” tutorial. Closes by saying oversight should be grounded in facts, not slogans.
Relevance of the forum replies
| Post | Author | What it actually addresses | Relevance to the letter |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | Nordberg | Warren is a “very good senator” who investigates “looting of the masses”; “Pocahontas” nickname is childish | None. Character defense and nickname complaint. Does not touch ESF mechanics, loan-vs-purchase distinction, Japan’s Treasury holdings, § 5302, or the alleged factual error in Warren’s opening paragraph. |
| #3 | Diogenes | Nordberg’s post is “off-topic nonsense” | Meta. Correctly flags that #2 ignores the letter. |
| #4 | WinterBorn | Asks how #2 is off-topic; claims it “contradicts the OP” and adds information | Weak. Does not specify what in the letter is contradicted or what additional relevant information was supplied. |
| #5 | Diogenes | Asks WinterBorn to explain the contradiction and whether WinterBorn even knows what Bessent and Warren are discussing | On-point as a demand for relevance; still no one has engaged the FX substance. |
No reply examines:
- whether Warren’s first paragraph did in fact describe a non-existent loan/repayment risk,
- the difference between selling existing ESF euros for yen versus extending credit,
- why a disorderly yen could affect U.S. rates,
- the statutory citation Warren herself used,
- or the Argentina contrast Bessent draws.
The thread title itself (“Fauxcahontas heap big mad… she not know wampum talk”) is mockery. The first reply then treated that framing as the issue to rebut, instead of the letter.
Bottom line
As of the posts visible this afternoon, the replies are tribal/personality arguments about Warren’s general value as a senator and about nickname etiquette. They do not engage, confirm, or refute any of the specific factual, legal, or market claims in Bessent’s letter. Diogenes is the only participant so far who is even trying to keep the discussion on the document itself.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Warren is typical of what you get when you let liars... err, lawyers... ruin, err, run things. She's an idiot and she's a lawyer, but then again, I repeat my myself.
About 32% of U.S. House members and 47% of Senators in the 119th Congress (2025–2027) hold law degrees, or roughly 35% of voting members of Congress overall.
The Congressional Research Service reports 140 House members (31.7%) and 47 Senators hold law degrees. A contemporaneous LegiStorm count put the total at 184 members with J.D.s (137 in the House + 47 in the Senate). Slight differences reflect timing, vacancies, and whether the count is “holds a law degree” versus “practiced law.”
Law remains one of the three most common professional backgrounds, though the share of lawyer-legislators has declined from historical highs of 55–80% in earlier eras.
State legislatures
If the question includes the roughly 7,386 state legislators, the share is lower—typically 14–17% in recent surveys (e.g., ~14.4% in 2015 NCSL/Stateline data; ~15% in a 2024 Indiana count; professional degrees including J.D. around 16% in a later NCSL survey). Combining federal and state bodies yields an overall figure closer to the mid-teens.
Congress is the usual reference for “legislators in the USA” in this context. Figures fluctuate modestly with elections and vacancies.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
See! This is a major reason Congress is as fucked up as it is! In fact, it's a major reason politics are as fucked up as they are in this country.
Non sequitur.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Perfect sarcasm.
Sure is hard to tell, IMO. Start typing in green when you're being "perfectly sarcastic". I doubt you will, of course.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Should I use different shades for say envy versus greed and the like?
No, just "perfect sarcasm". That way you won't be able to claim that's what your utterances were after the fact.
