• venusaur
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    6 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    For real. You know Pelosi is already investing.

    • hddsx
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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

      • Gork
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

        • venusaur
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

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

            • venusaur
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

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

              • disguy_ovahea
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                6 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                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.

                • venusaur
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  I want to believe that the most change will happens when boomers are gone, but I don’t trust that the new era of politicians won’t get caught up in the game.

            • venusaur
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

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

              What does that mean?

              • disguy_ovahea
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                6 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                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.

                • venusaur
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

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

                  • disguy_ovahea
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    If they see value in the bill they can mandate a vote. That was over six months ago, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

            • venusaur
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Thanks! I never heard of this show.

          • AFK BRB ChocolateEnglish
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            6 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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.

            • venusaur
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

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

              • AFK BRB ChocolateEnglish
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                6 months ago
                edit-2
                6 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                Yep, and maybe that’s somewhat acceptable, but we could also confine it to diversified mutual funds meeting specific criteria.

                Edit: confine, not congratulations

                • venusaur
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  Congratulations!

                  But yeah you gotta limit it

        • disguy_ovahea
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago
          edit-2
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

          • DharkStareEnglish
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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.

            • disguy_ovahea
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              edit-2
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              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 Both a Congressional Research

            • disguy_ovahea
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              6 months ago
              edit-2
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              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.

        • AllonzeeLV
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

      • venusaur
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        For sure they’re already in way before general public

    • AllonzeeLV
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago
      edit-2
      6 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

    • Ultragigagigantic
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago
      link
      fedilink

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

      • Maggoty
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Congressional Representatives and Senators are shielded from most insider trading laws. She could literately buy in, flip the SEC the bird, and go on her merry way.

    • TigrisMorte
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      6 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • venusaur
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

        • TigrisMorte
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

      • Catoblepas
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

        • TigrisMorte
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

          • Catoblepas
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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?

            • TigrisMorte
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              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.