>

Haha.  As if politicians would be willing to agree to ethical, sensible regulations that apply to themselves.
Great, pass that shit. >

I'd say I'll vote against anybody who votes no on this bill, but...let's be honest, they all will. Abusing the public for personal profit has bipartisan support. >

We'll see. There's definitely gonna be some kind of poison pill in the bill. He wouldn't have named it that way if he actually wanted it to pass. >

It shouldn't be legal to have multiple unrelated motions in a single bill. Like poison pill shit is fucking evil. >

It’s the only way a lot of things can get passed (including good and important things). The system is pretty fucking broken. >

It's beyond broken. Stuff that's broken looks at the system & goes "damn, that shit's all fuckered up." >

I wonder if Pelosi could play the old Uno Reverse card and claim ownership of the bill. 
“This is something the American people support, and I’m proud to have my name on it.” >

I don't think she would be down for it, as she just sold Google stock right before the announcement that they will be questioning Google. Hawly is a pos, but why dress a turd with Pelosi? >

Kinda wild that people keep such tight tabs on Pelosi, but the 5 republican politicians who are doing it worse and some far worse are totally ignored and not spoken of. >

Yep. All  of them should have been pilloried in the media over these things. >

She's not even the top 10 in 2022 and people still keep railing her. >

They can all be crooked, ya know. >

Worth pointing out how reddit is obsessed with her in particular >

She’s the face of the Democratic Party, she gets about as much air time a McConnell in terms Reddit outrage. Which fits. >

When it comes to the stock trading thing she gets almost all the flack now adays despite not being the worst offender on either side of the aisle >

Yes because she is a high ranking official and a major figure of the democratic party.
To draw a comparison. Suppose that a rando republican house member and Obama during his presidency both got caught murdering their wife. Who do you think is gonna get the most media attention?
Leader figures are under more scrutiny than rank fillers. News at 11. >

Tragedy. The worst person I know just made an excellent point. >

But made it in the most asshole-ish way he could think of, of course. >

Who cares? Put my fucking name on the bill and then walk me through the streets yelling shame. This shit should’ve happened decades ago and is one of several absolutely essential changes to save our democracy >

True, but I am convinced this guy wouldn't have introduced this bill if he thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing. He probably checked to be sure McCarthy wouldn't bother to allow it to hit the House floor before he even ~~wrote it~~ paid someone to write it. >

Just a few months ago McCarthy said Republicans would pass a bill to change the current congressional stock trading behavior, and he noted he only owns mutual funds. >

Hell, maybe I'll be proven wrong and this really will happen. That would be great! >

He's not wrong, but this will fly like a lead balloon.
Naming it that just proves it's nothing more than political theater. >

Well good thing that mythbusters proved lead balloons do fly it just requires effort >

A mythbuster of culture I see >

Been doing a binge on discovery plus! >

Can you stream all the episodes there? >

Yup! I’ll cancel it once I finish I thought there’s be more on it that I’d want to watch but nope ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >

But but but Crocodile Hunter!!! >

Ok, sure. But go the extra step further. Ban immediate family as well. At least household members. Let the government investigate suspicious trades by congressional members family. What, you thought progressives would just jump in and whine to defend Pelosi because you called her out? We're not a cult of personality here bud. Fuck any politician screwing us. >

It's difficult to justify that. An immediate family member may have nothing to do with the concerned politician. To ban them just because they happen to be related is not fair. >

Companies ban immediate family members from winning sweepstakes all the time. Why can't the same logic apply here? just avoid the appearance of impropriety >

Bingo. And if you want to ride that political train, immediate family has to play by the same rules. Don't like it? Don't run for office. >

Heartbreaking: the worst politician you know just introduced great legislation >

He’s had a lot of good proposals. Worked with Sanders on pandemic relief checks and proposed a $15 min wage for large corps. He toes the GOP line when it comes to the performative culture war stuff, but his politics are actually pretty economically progressive >

I've said it before, but..
Fake-fighting corruption is going after individuals, your political enemies.
Real-fighting corruption is going after systems, that both political sides are exploiting. >

Fake standing up to corporations is criticizing them for putting rainbows on their products in June. Real standing up to corporations is criticizing them for fucking over workers and consumers. >


Real standing up to corporations is criticizing them for fucking over workers and consumers.

which neither party is willing or able to do. The railroad strike ban was approved by democrats and forced through by Biden himself, in order to sAvE ThE eCoNoMy >

And they call democrats leftists. >

meanwhile actual leftists criticize the democrats' pro-corporate policies and the dems call leftists Trumpists for not toeing the Dem party line >

I don't think I've seen them call actual leftist Trumpist.  They usually just ignore them and conservatives erroneously call them Tankies. Though there are some Tankies on reddit. (People who support authoritarian left crackdowns like Tienamen Square or some Stalin bs.) >

i remember when some the more extreme/hardline Bernie supporters got called every name under the sun for refusing to support crooked Hillary. It's tough for principled folks who just want to campaign on pro-working class policies.
Meanwhile, although tankies do exist, they're more likely to abstain from voting in elections altogether >

I agree with Josh Hawley? OK. Odd but OK. Now do other good stuff. >

It should be banned, but his blatant naming of it shows he's not really interested in the issue as much as scoring a political point. 
Oh, and fuck Hawley to hell and back. >

I'm fine with the name, just stop the bullshit insider trading, if it gets enough idiot right wingers to vote against their ability to do that it passes let's get it done >

But by naming it that you lose a lot of Ds who would have been supportive. If they truly want it banned, then name it something else and put it to a vote. Hawley naming it this is purely political because he knows the Ds won't go for it, and he can then turn around and say, "See the Ds don't care." >

Hmm... The Democrats should instead take ownership of it and have Pelosi herself start doing interviews in favor of it. Either get it passed out force the Rs to torpedo their own bill. Unless it's somehow written so poorly as to make things worse, which wouldn't exactly shock me... >

I haven't read enough about it to know holes, but I don't think the GOP would sink it, instead when Pelosi and others come out saying they are in favor of it, the GOP will scream, "See! We told you would could rein in the Ds! That's why you elected us." It's a massive propaganda win for the GOP.
My thought is the Ds should do what you say, but do it around a tighter, more appropriately named bill. >

I don't think I agree. The Rs might try to spin it that way, but it would be hard to do ("we stopped the corrupt politician... With this bill that she supported" doesn't seem very effective). A different bill would not have a chance of paying right now, so it's a moot point, unless your only goal is grandstanding without effect.
What's more important, scoring a propaganda point or closing an avenue of corruption? >

But who supports a bill is largely lost on the public. Look at the GOP Reps and Senators singing the praises of the Infrastructure bill - a bill they voted against. They realize the average voter isn't paying attention to the details. So Pelosi saying she voted for it will get lost, and the prevailing narrative will be, "GOP closes avenue for corruption." 
Obviously closing corruption is more important in an even split, but I don't think this is that simple. Put it this way, if there was a bill before Congress that was to better criminalize sex trafficking, and the Ds named it the Matt Gaetz bill, I wouldn't support that. Bill naming is already squirrelly enough, we shouldn't support using the names of bills as ways to personally attack fellow Reps and Senators. >


Look at the GOP Reps and Senators singing the praises of the Infrastructure bill - a bill they voted against.

You contradict yourself here. If people don't pay attention to who supported the bill, why would they give credit to the GOP? If anything, they'll end up crediting Pelosi.
I mean, partisans predisposed to crediting the GOP for anything they happen to like will continue to do so, but you can't let that stop you from voting for good bills. >

It's not a contradiction because everyone knows it as the inflation reduction act, or the infrastructure bill. The individual votes are largely unknown to the general public. Sure, some paid attention, but it is the name that is known. So if it's called the Pelosi Act, that will be not only how people refer to it, but every time it's mentioned, the newscaster will likely say, "it was named such because..." It creates a narrative this was a Pelosi problem, or more likely a D problem. 
The Ds simply don't have the media machinery to change the narrative to, "this was named this way because Pelosi led the charge in creating the new rule." 
And again, I don't agree we should be naming bills to personally hit opponents, as with the Gaetz example. >

Instead, we'll have "the Republicans proposed an anti-corruption bill which the Democrats killed because they're corrupt". Which honestly makes more sense than "because they thought the name was insulting".
Anyway, the last time Republicans tried it, we got Obamacare. 
I'm not saying it's a good naming practice, but voting against it just because of the name would be a huge own goal. >

I mean he’s right on this one.  It should be banned >

Terrible news: worst person you know makes a good point 😔 >

This is implying that there are people in politics that are decent enough to actually support this bill. This is never passing because none of them actually give a shit about serving us and just use their position to get themselves richer. >

It's good in theory, but what's the point of banning stock trading when lobbying is perfectly legal? This is only a small portion of the problem in Washington. >

I agree. I don’t think this bill was ever intended to pass anyway, but we should start passing bills like this one by one. Baby steps. Probably won’t happen though because nobody can get along anymore. >

She did sell $3m in google stocks a month ago prior to the regulation and investigations sooooooo. Like yeah it’s for sure political theater but also it’s right on the money >

DOJ brought up the charges in August 2022, she was way late if she sold last month >

Justice department and 8 states filed an antitrust suit this Tuesday… this isn’t the first time Google is being sued. >

This is purely a political stunt. He knows this will get zero support from Congress.
It's a bit hypocritical, too, considering his own considerable stock holdings. >

They'll never be able to pass this! What other government employees can become millionaires just after a few years on the job on a salary 170K? >


What other government employees can become millionaires just after a few years on the job on a salary 170K?

Any that are well know. They can write a book and easily make it. You forget that people getting elected or appointed to high/national level positions gives them a national platform to become known and then cash in on that fact with books, touring, etc.
Someone who doesn't become a millionaire in this position has no idea how to leverage their identity for their own benefit. >

Its unworkable as a rule, instead just remove the exemption from them in the insider trading laws and update to include passing laws or rules to enrich yourself: which I am fairly certain is already illegal in some way but just not enforced by the weak ass fuckers in the justice dept. >

Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a really good point.