you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 60 points 2 years ago (48 children)

For real. You know Pelosi is already investing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (35 children)

    If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (33 children)

    Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Politicians should be banned from stock market. Total conflict of interest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Eight Democrat Senators agree with you, and cosponsored a bill in September that died at introduction.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    if we keep electing people trying to maintain the status quo, then it'll never happen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s a catch-22. To get elected, you need to learn to manipulate within the system. Once elected, you know how to leverage the system, so why would you change it?

    The best chance we’ll have for systemic change will come when boomers die off. That shouldn’t discourage efforts today, but impart some hope for the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

    What does that mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It wasn’t put to a vote after being read aloud on two separate introductions. It was then forwarded to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where it went to die.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    They don’t review it and then hand it back to congress?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    I'd be fine if they were allowed to invest in things like mutual funds so that they could take advantage of the market without being able to do insider trading of a specific stock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    that would be better, but they could still invest in specific sectors or industries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (15 children)

    That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

    According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

    What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    It’s not a failure of the law. It’s a failure of the SEC for not enforcing it.

    MYTH: Members of Congress are exempt from insider trading laws.

    FACT: Both a Congressional Research Service Report and House Administration Committee memo indicates that Members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading rules as the general public.

    https://perry.house.gov/how-can-scott-help/myths-about-congress.htm#:~:text=FACT%3A%20Both%20a%20Congressional%20Research

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    That’s simply not true. They have no exemption to insider trading laws. It simply comes down to trade timing.

    The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

    What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    If everyone doing it gets away with it, then is it actually illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Yes. It is. They just need to be arrested and prosecuted. I agree that it should be taken more seriously, considering that it’s against the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    No one has ever been prosecuted in the decade and change that it has been illegal, despite frequent violations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    That doesn’t change the law. It’s simply evidence that Congress lives above it. Seven Democrat Senators cosponsored a bill in September to ban the practice entirely. It died at introduction.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    That doesn’t change the law.

    Oh you sweet summer child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Now you’re wrong, and condescending. Lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    You have a philosophy around what laws are and what they mean that is incongruent with reality.

    What is the word we use when people have believes that don't match up with the previous or future state of things?

    Laws on paper are only one aspect of what a law is. How those laws are interpreted and how they are enforced matter far, far more. Law is what is applied and enforced. If something is a 'law' but is not enforced, then its not really law.

    And its fine that you have a different philosophy around what the law means. I just don't find it particularly useful because it doesn't predict the past, present, or future states of the world.

    In other words:

    spoiler

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    People who don’t understand the problem typically have little success in fixing it. You should consider reading more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    While I’m flattered that you’d take the time to make a meme for me, it probably would’ve taken you far less time to research insider trading law as it applies to members of Congress.

    I’ll give you a little head start.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?

    And on that, you haven't outlined anything that's worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they've are applied. Its likely you don't even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn't predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn't how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

    This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.

    Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn't matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn't get applied.

    Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don't understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Fun fact: Everyone with hundreds of millions+ in holdings either trades with insider information or pays others to do it, because our metrics and enforcement for insider trading are a gallows joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Pathetic watching ancient, feeble rich people about to return to the dust from whence they came still frantically positioning to boost their ego scores.

    It's as if they believe their preferred invisible sky mommy/daddy will accept a bribe of earthly currency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Don't worry everyone, it's just pelosi's 3rd cousin doing the investing so that makes everything totally cool and totally legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Well, as it is what her husband did for a living his entire very successful life, but sure the Lady you don't like is wrong for him doing his job well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A. Her husband is not a lawmaker. B. I’m sure her position helps C. Don’t simp for politicians. They DGAF about you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    A: which is why him having a ton of money he made more with isn't a relevant condemnation of the woman.
    B: his having a shit ton of money already helps a hell of a lot more so fuck off with your unsubstantiated claim.
    C: at no point did I remotely suggest she did so fuck off with your attempt to imagine things to argue about since you've not a leg to stand upon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I’m pretty sure I could be incredibly successful at trading stocks as well if I was married to a Senator who could give me inside information, lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    As she didn't join Politics until '87, guess they invented communicating to with their past selves, lmao. If you've got any proof, kindly advise the FBI. Where as you've none, head on back to peddle that shit to fux nooz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Christ, am I supposed to memory hole that Pelosi’s husband making a shit ton of money off stocks THREE YEARS AGO is what led to a round of antitrust bills getting introduced? Is there literally any criticism of these rich fucks you can hear without immediately shrieking about conservatives?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    Well, you are shit holing that he made a shit ton of money before her first Campaign. So perhaps instead of doubling down upon your unsubstantiated right wing bull shit propaganda, actually check what happened. But you won't Instead you'll go on pretending you didn't know that folks with a shit ton of money go on to make more shit tons of money so you can maintain your delusional belief in fux newbs' distraction.

  • source
  • parent