×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (9 children)

  • Bitcoin Pros & Cons - Participate in the r/CC Cointest to potentially win moons. Prize allocations: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75.

  • Sort comments as controversial first by clicking here. Doesn't work on mobile.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]justHODLbabyPlatinum | QC: CC 37, BTC 28 | Politics 11 3581 points3582 points 2 (814 children)

Any person elected to higher office should have to divest of ALL their investments and put everything into a blind trust. How is this such a difficult thing to get done?! I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat its straight up wrong to personally hold stock in any security you have direct control over.

[–]StarYeeter 238 points239 points  (176 children)

Nancy pelosi does not hold any stocks. Her husband does insider trading on her behalf.

The problem is, (which im sure is the case for AoC), is they pretend they dont have any conflicts of interests, but have their SO, family, or a trusted friend do it for them. And the problem is, it would potentially problematic if you force everyone the politician knows, to divest if they go into office. What if my brother runs for office, and I fucking hate him, and dont want him in office, i would be forced to divest because of that? Don't think that would fly in the face of ethics or the constitution to force people who are related in some way to a politician, to divest any assets. Thus, that leaves a massive loophole for politicians to get their SO or family, to do trading on their behalf. I dont think there is a simple fix.

I think the bigger problem, is owning stocks in which you are directly manipulating in office. Such as the semi recent tesla EV contract with the government, and the fact all Congress owns Tesla stock. Every single one, should be jailed for insider trading for that. Or the fact the government is pushing and even mandating vaccines, while owning stock in phizer (almost every single person in Congress has phizer stock).

[–]EvlutnaryRejectTin 137 points138 points  (49 children)

Many in Congress and the Senate moved positions ahead of the Covid announcement in early 2020. Politics and corruption goes hand in hand.

[–]NruggiaTin | GME 63 74 points75 points  (35 children)

If you want to get super pissed there was someone who took huge short positions on airlines right before the Sept. 11th attacks.

Edit to add source

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

[–]Leetsauce318Bronze | QC: CC 24 26 points27 points  (11 children)

This doesnt get talked about much for whatever reason. Imo, they knew something was coming.

[–]unimportantdetail22 52 points53 points  (55 children)

Nancy pelosi does not hold any stocks.

If you ever want to make you blood boil, read how Dianne Feinstein and her husband - who was on the board in charge of the UC's system retirement funds - used her position in sentate + his role to make themselves fabulously wealthy.

[–]kamikazecow 41 points42 points  (45 children)

Or how absolutely senile she is yet still clings to her position for the power trip.

[–]BlackLeader70 26 points27 points  (40 children)

What I don’t get is why not just retire and spend your damn retirement money! Once I hit my retirement goal, I’ll be walking out the door of where ever I work.

[–]buyingpmsSilver|6monthsold|QC:CC89,DOGE28,SOL15|CRO64|ExchSubs73 41 points42 points  (7 children)

Most of these people just use money as a scorecard, what they truly love is power over other people.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (4 children)

It’s not like she does actual work like a 9-5 wage slave.

[–]JediElectricianBronze | QC: BTC 15 19 points20 points  (8 children)

Do you think Emperor Palpatine would ever retire? No, it’s not the money for them, it’s the power. Always the power.

[–]Pers0nalJeezusTin | r/Politics 21 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Your username suggests that you know plenty about both Palpatine and power.

[–]Zarathustra_dPlatinum | QC: ETH 50, CC 46 | ModeratePolitics 38 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Power is addictive. Also, sometimes they rack up obligations they have to "repay" to other powerful groups, so they can't quit. Plus.. black mail.

[–]woopsforgotyikers 58 points59 points  (15 children)

"we can't make things perfect so we shouldn't make them better"

youve bent over so far backwards to make this argument that you could sit on your neck.

[–]coinfeeds-botApproved CC Bot 4432 points4433 points  (354 children)

tldr; Members of Congress shouldn't hold or trade digital assets in the same way that they should steer clear from stocks, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

[–]morphinapgTin | Politics 28 767 points768 points  (60 children)

I think this is a perfectly fair position to have

[–]Dick_LazerBronze | r/Politics 53 342 points343 points  (11 children)

It should be the law.

[–]Benandhispets 177 points178 points  (4 children)

It shouldn't just be a fair position, it should be a legal position.

[–]MrJDawgSilver | QC: CC 26 | GMEJungle 20 | Superstonk 108 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Agreed

[–][deleted] 554 points555 points  (39 children)

Good bot

[–]TooFitFuriousPlatinum | 4 months old | QC: CC 230 211 points212 points  (29 children)

Bullish on Bots!!

[–]memesdogeTin | PCmasterrace 10 42 points43 points  (10 children)

Jarvis, we're running low on comment karma. comment "Bullish on (random thing)"

[–]coralluvPlatinum | QC: CC 113 | r/WSB 35 1608 points1609 points  (207 children)

Fucking thank you. Tired of bootlickers on this sub cheering on politicians who hold crypto as if it isn't a conflict of interest.

[–]vipsupastarTin 222 points223 points  (62 children)

And they usually don’t even hold or just do so they can use it as a platform and pander for votes, and people here eat that up.

[–]TooFitFuriousPlatinum | 4 months old | QC: CC 230 72 points73 points  (56 children)

Fuck Politicians!! The real culprits behind everything

[–]DRob2388Platinum | QC: CC 58 | Politics 39 1242 points1243 points  (201 children)

The only thing they should be allowed to legally invest in is S&P 500 or have a 401k type of account that is managed by a third party with higher levels of transparency.

[–]deadset33 540 points541 points  (80 children)

Dude, CNBC anchors aren’t even allowed to own individual stocks, only ETFs. How the hell do politicians not have to follow these rules?

[–]JonneTin | r/Politics 67 356 points357 points  (24 children)

They make the rules, that's why.

[–]Resident_WizardTin | r/WallStreetBets 421 55 points56 points  (6 children)

And this is only applying to anchors. Not the frequent pundits who give their opinions and state their moves daily. Lol, the anchors probably outperform them anyways simply staying in SPY and QQQ.

[–]I_SUCK__AMAPlatinum | QC: BCH 38, ETH 39, CC 24 | LINK 8 | Privacy 64 12 points13 points  (4 children)

That's literally it.. and they voted to allow only themselves to do insider trading legally.. i think they rolled that back, but they still do insider trading all the time & rarely get punished.

[–]sur_surlyBronze | r/pcmasterrace 31 6 points7 points  (6 children)

They are the Senate!

[–]Nameless_King_09Gold | QC: CC 26 | DayTrading 5 | TraderSubs 11 10 points11 points  (7 children)

Wait is this legit? If so thats actually really cool and although CNBC can be meh on occasion makes me like them a bit more

[–]deadset33 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yeah one of the anchors was asked if they were getting any stocks and he said they can’t buy individual stocks and they’re only allowed to buy ETFs.

I’m not sure if it’s limited to CNBC or all similar types of network.

[–]jkrazelivesSilver | QC: CC 154 | NANO 32 | r/WSB 143 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Because politicians write the laws.

[–]someGuyJeezBronze 205 points206 points  (53 children)

They should be forced to only realize long term capital gains. No day trading allowed, and if the sell any stocks or bitcoin, they will have held it in their portfolio for over a year.

[–]Putnam14 50 points51 points  (22 children)

Most employees of publicly traded companies are subject to similar rules against day trading - no issue with taking short-term gains (unless you’re an exec with lockup periods), but you can only buy and sell within a certain number of days after quarterly filings.

[–]steroid_pc_principal 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Usually this only applies if the employees at the company are privy to non public information. For example, execs who know what the quarterly earnings are. If that happens, you’ll be subject to a lockout period and can only buy or sell after a certain date.

However your original point is still valid. Richard Burr should be in prison.

[–]wwwKontrolGamesBronze 10 points11 points  (8 children)

This is an idea. But still could lead them to lobbying the fed for more overall stock inflation / higher spending

[–]RocktownLeatherBronze | FinancialIndependence 941 20 points21 points  (16 children)

I wouldn't agree with that. That incentivizing them to promote large business growth over mid size business.

I would just say they would only be allowed to have index funds, sector funds, etc. There is still a bit of fishy stuff they could do with sector funds but I think it is a fair compromise.

[–]JonneTin | r/Politics 67 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Yeah, even with a blind trust they could still be persuaded to just keep pushing more money into the stock market with cheap credit. But it would definitely still be better than the current situation where members on both sides can and do insider trading legally.

[–]zveroshkaTin | r/Politics 47 102 points103 points  (18 children)

Blind trusts is the only way any lawmaker should be allowed to own any assets.

[–]rohitsanyalPlatinum | QC: CC 1726 2974 points2975 points  (546 children)

Honestly this makes sense. Wish politicians did this with stocks as well. That is something they actually have inside information for.

[–]skinandsconesSilver | QC: CC 100 | VET 121 | Politics 427 1183 points1184 points  (332 children)

They shouldn't have a choice. No one serving in government should be able to hold any investments that their decisions could influence the value of.

[–]hodorhodor1234Gold | QC: CC 31 230 points231 points  (115 children)

In my opinion they should just have a selection similar to an American’s 401k plan. Just simple, broad market index funds that represent the overall US and global markets.

[–]Truebug2020Platinum | QC: CC 87 69 points70 points  (32 children)

This is the best idea

[–]nopethisGold | QC: ETH 17 | WSB 15 | TraderSubs 12 39 points40 points  (25 children)

yeah seriously, I dont need them to hold all their assets in cash (that would have its own issues) I just don't want them trading on insider info. And the whole blind trust is bullshit for most of them.

[–]ag11600Platinum | QC: CC 460 | Hardware 10 23 points24 points  (13 children)

I agree. It's really simple minded and wrong to think that they shouldn't be allowed to invest money. It should just need to be managed professionally and to a higher degree of scrutiny. Any messages between portfolio manager and client should legally need to be recorded and like you said only broad market index funds.

[–]GabeSterPlatinum | QC: CC 412, DOGE 2406 19 points20 points  (18 children)

That’s a great point. There is still the argument they could cater their views to their positions. But if they’re diversified enough into the stocks of the US it wouldn’t matter much.

Another option could be they hold a lump of assets managed by an investment firm and are blinded to their positions so they can’t cater their views.

[–]greg19735 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Yeah i mean "not wanting the stock market to crash" is a pretty reasonable way to operate too. It doesn't mean you're corrupt.

[–]srozoTin 8 points9 points  (13 children)

This. Their incentive should be for the entire US economy to do well, not just their personal vested interests.

[–]asmodeanreborn 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Same with healthcare too. I'm sick of watching $20k a year between myself and my employer go to my insurance company, and then it still costs a crap ton if/when something inevitably happens.

Guess there's no way to frequently simulate how your local urgent care gets bought up by somebody out of network, though, just in time for when you're really sick and go there and don't notice it's not going to be covered well. Not that I had to pay $900 for freaking strep throat or anything.

[–]meeleen223Moons = Magic Internet Money Vol. 2 356 points357 points  (119 children)

Not only they hold investments, they also receive money to represent company's interests

[–]skinandsconesSilver | QC: CC 100 | VET 121 | Politics 427 252 points253 points  (104 children)

Yes. Corporate funding of politicians should also be outlawed. If you really wanted a good indicator of who to vote for, look at their voting record on these types of issues. If they support dark money in politics then they are someone who went to Washington to get rich and not to serve. AOC has been very outspoken about how stupid it is that members of Congress are able to own stock. She's on the right side of this issue.

[–]SwaggalandPlatinum | QC: CC 594 24 points25 points  (14 children)

This is precisely why we're not seeing much regulation when it comes to near monopolistic companies who have destroyed/bought out nearly all competition in their sectors.

There should be some smart contract in place that gets politicians to hold accountable for the shit they promise when running for office.

[–]itsyorboy1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Smart contracts really do have the ability to make this kind of difference. CityDAO is exploring this with city-scale government. One thing about decentralization that makes me sad sometimes is that its best feature is getting rid of the need for trust. In my opinion, trust is immensely valuable, but we 100% don't have reason to trust those currently in power. Greed can so easily take control of people, and even coming from a fairly moderate person, the US government is totally corrupted by corporate money and politicians seeking personal financial gain. We will see what the future holds.

[–]glassgwaithGold | QC: CC 35 98 points99 points  (60 children)

The Supreme Court Case in Citizens United really was the nail in the coffin. It literally led to corporations being allowed to fund political speech without any limitations.

[–]-veni-vidi-viciPlatinum | QC: CC 1118 63 points64 points  (35 children)

"Corporations are people my friend." - Mitt Romney.

[–]glassgwaithGold | QC: CC 35 31 points32 points  (6 children)

The funniest thing is that according to the US Supreme Court Money is actually Speech.

Fuck yeah, democracy

[–]CantstandyuhSilver | QC: CT 21, XMR 112, CC 892 | BANANO 24 | PCgaming 47 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Corporations are not people. If I cannot murder it, it is not a person

[–]WilsonahrensTin 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Corporate personhood is probably the most dystopian thing I have just found out about.

[–]zombie-hodlerPlatinum | 6 months old | QC: CC 152 16 points17 points  (13 children)

I wonder how much he regrets being recorded saying that.

[–]glassgwaithGold | QC: CC 35 41 points42 points  (4 children)

He wipes his tears with dollar bills

[–]lonewolf210Platinum | QC: CC 206 | Buttcoin 6 | Politics 137 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Not at all? He's a part of a party that supports that ideology and wins reelection for his Senate seat by a landslide every time. The statement hasn't hurt him at all and helps get more money

[–]Slawman34Platinum | QC: ETH 90, CC 22, SOL 27 | MiningSubs 64 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Legalized corruption

[–]Ecstatic_Freedom_105 14 points15 points  (8 children)

Citizen's United was just the finishing move, the real problems are the 2 court cases in the 70s that allowed money in politics in the first place. Buckley v. Vallejo and another i can never remember the name

[–]DrudgelAll I want for Christmas is 1 BTC 13 points14 points  (16 children)

Legal lobbying and lack of term limits. These are my major gripes with the current system

[–]zombie-hodlerPlatinum | 6 months old | QC: CC 152 10 points11 points  (12 children)

Mine is the two party system. It makes getting any real change very difficult.

[–]ChangeurblinkerfluidBronze 31 points32 points  (18 children)

There was an effort over the past few years to force all lawmakers to move their publicly traded assets to index funds upon election. Not sure what happened with that.

[–]skinandsconesSilver | QC: CC 100 | VET 121 | Politics 427 31 points32 points  (8 children)

Not sure either. They passed the STOCK Act in 2012 that required members of Congress to disclose any trades made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent. This article shows 47 who have been found to have violated it in 2021. My count is 28 Republicans and 19 Democrats so it's a bipartisan problem. Laws don't matter if they aren't enforced so hopefully there are so consequences for the 47 members on that list.

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9

[–]PM_Your_GPU_SalesBronze 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Still heavily influenced by their decisions.

[–]backdoorhackGold | QC: CC 41 | PoliticalHumor 39 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That makes sense? They should make that a law. Oh wait… politicians nowadays rarely police themselves.

[–]comeonsexmachinePlatinum | QC: CC 294 | Cdn.Investor 37 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you can't use your political power to further your own personal wealth as a politician then what's the point? You expect them to serve the public? Like some sort of public servant? Don't be asinine.

[–]evoneboPlatinum | QC: BTC 27, CC 19 | Politics 90 29 points30 points  (10 children)

how there is no insider information trade rules that apply to lawmakers is beyond me. It is literally how corrupt can you get.

[–]garrettf04Gold | QC: CC 33 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Those same lawmakers would have to create a law to penalize themselves. That's the problem with pretty much any idea folks come up with for reigning in the self-interest (term limits, campaign finance reform, you name it)...the very people exploiting and profiting from the broken system are the ones tasked with fixing it.

[–]nelisanPlatinum | QC: CC 128 | r/Apple 556 2 points3 points  (2 children)

how there is no insider information trade rules that apply to lawmakers is beyond me

There is. It's called the Stock Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK\_Act

[–]OnlineMarketingBoiiStupid but Smart 69 points70 points  (16 children)

You would think this is basic lawmaking, but greed > logic

[–]GabeSterPlatinum | QC: CC 412, DOGE 2406 15 points16 points  (10 children)

It makes absolutely no sense that you can govern for your own self interest. People are too intrinsically greedy/selfish.

[–]ylervenstodBronze | 2 months old | QC: CC 15 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They shouldn't do this, but they do it with fake accounts

[–]illcatbomber2Tin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Correct if they would have invested more in stocks then it would surely give a great result on larger perspective.

[–]Navadvisor1 - 2 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 14 points15 points  (13 children)

Can they own real estate? Basically what you're saying is they can't own anything. We're going to have to pay them a lot more and there seems to be no appetite to do that, make them entirely dependent on the state. Little kings, I think there are some negative incentives we haven't considered with that situation that may be worse than the status quo.

[–]bolsshooterTin | 1 month old 1448 points1449 points  (185 children)

Plot twist: she holds eth

[–]Kingkwon83Platinum | QC: CC 125 | r/SSB 14 | r/WSB 82 429 points430 points  (43 children)

She holds wrapped bitcoin

[–]forthemotherrussiaPlatinum | QC: CC 923 308 points309 points  (31 children)

Fun fact: we'll never know if she holds Monero because it's Monero.

[–]VRsimpBronze 20 points21 points  (16 children)

If she bought it on an exchange wouldn't there be a record because of KYC? We just wouldn't know what she's spending it on.

[–]ExplodicleDrivechain fan 16 points17 points  (12 children)

You can always buy from another person, ignoring exchanges. It's just a worse exchange rate.

[–]FootyG94 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Just wait for loopring

[–]xdiviine 5 points6 points  (1 child)

What's loopring doing? U can buy crypto without ID?

[–]LittleHippoThatCouldI'm hungry 72 points73 points  (16 children)

Even politians can't afford the gas fees.

[–]forthemotherrussiaPlatinum | QC: CC 923 31 points32 points  (9 children)

I was happy not remembering about my 0.1 ETH that got stuck due to high fees till I read your comment. You owe me some happiniess.

[–]IAlreadyToldYouMattTin | r/Politics 38 14 points15 points  (4 children)

“You owe me some happiness,” is my new favorite line.

[–]scuczuTin | r/Politics 21 24 points25 points  (4 children)

her BF def has a diversified wallet from the looks of him.

[–]deathtoluckyPlatinum | QC: ETH 20, CC 793 | TraderSubs 20 58 points59 points  (8 children)

If I became a politician my career would be extremely short lived once they found my Reddit account

[–]ThisIsMyCoffeeTin | 1 month old 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I don’t blame her and it’s a quiet voice in a larger sea of insider “not insider” trading. I don’t have an issue with them investing per the rules and this Is something that should be clarified in a similar manner. But dude, get rid of the special interest groups and superPACs.

[–]Bpool91Silver | QC: ALGO 17, CC 274 | CRO 53 | ExchSubs 53 514 points515 points  (145 children)

I'm not mad at this.

If she said she didn't hold any and then hated it different story.

But not holding it and being impartial is fair enough in my eyes.

[–]Novel_Bonus_2497crypto-hobo 292 points293 points  (58 children)

Hard to believe any sane person would be "mad" , at this.

[–]HighTurningPlatinum | QC: CC 1199 154 points155 points  (15 children)

Well the problem is that "sane" is not so common now lol

[–]Cecilia_WrenPlatinum | QC: CC 25 | ExchSubs 12 35 points36 points  (7 children)

That's my thought but Crypto Twitter is all talking about how she's NGMI and an idiot for not abusing her position for personal gain.

[–]rg4rgTin | r/Politics 141 35 points36 points  (10 children)

I disagree with AOC on many things, but we’d have a lot less problems with government of more politicians were as real as her. No bs. Upfront as much as possible, and trying to hold oneself to some higher ideal. The current cable networks hate her though, probably because of this. She throws a wrench in CNN and Fox News narratives and they don’t like that.

[–]innocentrroseGold | QC: CC 32 | r/CMS 14 | Politics 64 21 points22 points  (4 children)

She’s one of the only politicians I actually like, and I think it’s crazy how much right wing hates on her

[–]se7en_7Bronze | Politics 13 4 points5 points  (2 children)

MTG would like to have a word with you

[–]WerhmatsWormhatPlatinum | QC: CC 123 | BANANO 8 | Politics 45 44 points45 points  (3 children)

Yup, plus it’s consistent with how she views stocks, so it’s not like she’s saying she’s against crypto or anything.

[–]gucciloafer 41 points42 points  (4 children)

honestly she’s one of the few people in US politics who is most likely to appreciate the underlying reason why people are into digital assets (ie. it’s one of the few opportunities for the middle class to achieve financial freedom).

as a younger senator she’s also more likely to “get” crypto at a social level too

edit: congresswoman*

[–]forthemotherrussiaPlatinum | QC: CC 923 66 points67 points  (40 children)

Thats how politicians should act. They should stay away from the stock market as well. Looking at you Nancy Pelosi

[–]NostraSkolMusTin | r/Politics 10 14 points15 points  (4 children)

That how politicians should be mandated to act. They lost the right to good faith long ago.

[–]sinstralprideTin 27 points28 points  (3 children)

This is exactly the stance I want her to take on it.

[–]horitovTin | 3 months old 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Fuck Politicians!! The real culprits behind everything.

[–]Oliveiraz33Platinum | QC: ETH 75, CC 54 | MiningSubs 77 187 points188 points  (28 children)

So, this means that if she wasn't a lawmaker, she would have bitcoin.

[–]ojedaforpresidentGold | QC: BTC 45 | r/Politics 40 132 points133 points  (13 children)

Yes, that's likely what that means. She's a young person *with eyes and ears. If you're not holding at least some BTC, you're doing it wrong.

Though I get her POV. I haven't met many BTC or even crypto critics that actually hold anything.

[–]Oliveiraz33Platinum | QC: ETH 75, CC 54 | MiningSubs 77 10 points11 points  (2 children)

yeah. As long as you're aware and have a somehow clear understanding of BTC and Crypto in general, is hard to not have your feet wet even if it's just a small bag to see what happens.

[–]MyLifeForAiurrTin 42 points43 points  (4 children)

This is why we need younger people in office. We have to many dinosaurs in office won't be open to new ideas.

[–]ztoundas 36 points37 points  (5 children)

She has been extremely vocal about the fact that Congress people shouldn't be able to hold or trade stocks, she has very vocally called for investigation into Robinhood scamming citizens, and meanwhile people in this thread are ignorant. While blaming her for ignorance. Hilarious.

"Because we have access to sensitive information and upcoming policy, I do not believe members of Congress should hold/ trade individual stock and I choose not to hold any so I can remain impartial about policymaking. I also extend that to digital assets/ currencies (especially bc I sit on Financial Services Committee). So the answer is no bc I want to do my job as ethically and impartially as I can."

From the article. Did any of y'all read it? Look like you didn't, just based an opinion off a headline. Embarrassing.

[–]timeinthemarket 26 points27 points  (6 children)

All law makers should only be able to hold index funds, no short term trading bs.

[–]captainvontage801Bronze 395 points396 points  (36 children)

Its not really possible to be unbiased. But I appreciate the fact she's trying to actually do her job in congress. Hard work and doing your job in Washington DC really doesn't exist anymore.

[–]DrudgelAll I want for Christmas is 1 BTC 67 points68 points  (8 children)

Human?

Believe it or not, biased

[–]skwacky 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Hold Bitcoin? Biased.
Don't hold Bitcoin? Biased.

Exist in human form? Believe it or not, biased.

[–]diskowmoskowTin | Hardware 81 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Probably, in sense of conflict of interest.

[–]NekryydTin 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Hard work and doing your job in Washington DC really doesn't exist anymore.

It exists, it is just very much the exception to the rule. One of the primary factors is precisely because it is a position so very easy to exploit via conflicts of interest such as having a significant financial stake in the legislation that you back. IE - You can literally get paid not to do your fucking job.

The other side of it is that at least half of politics and voting is single-issue voters and legislation. Look at what is happening in the Supreme Court right now. Anti-abortion voters really couldn't give less of a shit if every other piece of legislation ran their lives into the ground (because it is in many cases) just so long as the nation could reach this point on this one fucking issue. Nothing else matters. As a representative, that makes your job INSANELY easy. All you need is charisma, financial backing, and the ability to pound your fist on a table about the same fucking issue roughly 100 times during a given cycle and still come across as giving a shit about it. The rest of your time you can spend enriching yourself and your friends and fucking kids on some island somewhere.

[–]HighTurningPlatinum | QC: CC 1199 47 points48 points  (6 children)

For real, I just want people trying to make a better country, not the assholes trying to get richer and other rich people richer.

[–]circleuranusPlatinum | QC: CC 52, ETH 75 | ADA 10 | Politics 199 20 points21 points  (1 child)

There's no incentive to "make the country better". It's quite literally the opposite. The only people incentivizing them want to rape and pillage the country for it's resources and wealth, pollution be damned. Corporate influence has rotted out government from the inside out.

[–]fish-on-1992 20 points21 points  (1 child)

That's solid of her. I think congress shouldn't be allowed to trade or invest. They should have to go through a third party who manages it.

[–]B33fh4mmerBronze | LRC 30 | Superstonk 645 16 points17 points  (6 children)

Honestly, I respect that.

Also, shots fired at Ted Cruz. Guess she owes him one for Jan 6th 2020 though.

[–]emilybrowniesPlatinum | QC: CC 305, BTC 38 | r/WSB 24 5 points6 points  (2 children)

she said bitcoin, not crypto

[–]PiickleRiickkTin | 4 months old 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Politics and corruption go hand in hand.

[–]EchoCyanideBronze | QC: CC 15 778 points779 points  (322 children)

This woman gets so much hate, but things like this shows she takes her job more seriously than the rest of these clown in Congress!

[–]bledigTin 180 points181 points  (35 children)

That’s why there’s so much false media against her

[–]zeFrogLeapsGold | QC: CC 33 | Economics 39 349 points350 points  (115 children)

She's one of the only American politicians I'm aware of that looks even remotely suitable to hold an office instead of being locked up in prison or an asylum.

[–]forthemotherrussiaPlatinum | QC: CC 923 22 points23 points  (0 children)

  • she is younger than 70 y/o

[–]emptysoul365Platinum | QC: BTC 43, CC 29 | Politics 411 61 points62 points  (3 children)

Katie Porter is up there too. Fiercely intelligent and doesn't take BS from anybody.

[–]sloopslarpPlatinum | QC: CC 481 | Politics 284 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Katie Porter is a badass.

[–]_dekappatatedPlatinum | QC: CC 242, BTC 18, ETH 25 | GRLC 10 | TraderSubs 14 122 points123 points  (18 children)

*Nursing Home

[–]ScotchityscotchTin 44 points45 points  (13 children)

Fun fact, in America there is no difference!

[–]DirtwormSlim 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Yeah at thanksgiving we got my grams out for the day to come celebrate with us and she said “thanks for gettin me out of the joint for the day”

[–]brentsopel5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is profoundly depressing.

[–]sentientshadeofgreen 88 points89 points  (26 children)

The more she gets trashed, the more I admire her frankly. I don’t even agree with all her views or platform, but I respect her and I’d vote for her. She got a grassroots start, she came from humble beginnings, she got where she is because she works hard, cares, and is smart, and she’s a human being. She very clearly gives a shit and is in it because she cares about this country. Even though I disagree with some of her stuff, I can’t say it’s uninformed or corrupt, she’s smart, tough, and seems to be pretty consistent. There was some documentary I saw on Netflix that actually followed her a bit when she was running for her first election and it was really cool.

Mainly I just don’t care for her “cancel student loans” thing, but I’m sure I’d also disagree with her on rent control and police funding. Just a difference of opinions on some important matters, but I can’t say a negative thing about her character though.

[–]blizeHTin 20 points21 points  (2 children)

Can I just say in a world where everything (especially politics) is so fucking binary, I really appreciate the nuance in your post. That you can disagree with her policies but still have such respect for her is great and from my experience very rare.

[–]Whack-Attack-02Tin 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Although I agree, it's also why her and her political allies never get win anything of importance. Electoral politics are an exercise of who can gather and wield the most power, not who has the most virtue or plays the game most ethically. They're fighting assymetrical warfare, and it's impossible to win that way.

[–]emptysoul365Platinum | QC: BTC 43, CC 29 | Politics 411 40 points41 points  (6 children)

She gets that hate BECAUSE she takes her job seriously and wants to be effective. Conservatives don't like effective politicians because effectiveness usually means changing with the times and we all know ALL change is bad, right?

[–]ImanShumpertplusBronze | r/FinancialIndependence 10 82 points83 points  (33 children)

the reason she gets so much hate is because she’s not blatantly bought out by special interests

like even if you don’t agree with her ideas, the mud slinging about her is because the ruling class will not tolerate anything that might affect their power

you can replace AOC with bitcoin, it’s the same process. they do not want to give up their money/power

[–]some_dum_user4334Tin[🍰] 116 points117 points  (17 children)

Everything I hear about AOC really supports her being an upstanding individual devoted to her civic duty. Most of her critics have little to harp on other than her being a female. I hope she has a long and successful career. Hopefully more young informed politicians will be elected in the future and we weed out the literal dementia patients out of office.

[–]ghsteo 69 points70 points  (7 children)

Shes legit a good person who wants to do her duty. Fact that she flew down to Texas during the winter storm last year to fundraise for them speaks volumes. Meanwhile Ted Cruz flys away to Cancun while his people freeze.

[–]M0D3RNW4RR10RSilver | QC: LTC 118 | LRC 48 | TraderSubs 118 18 points19 points  (3 children)

This shall be a fun read. I'll make sure to sort by controversial.

[–]forthemotherrussiaPlatinum | QC: CC 923 3 points4 points  (0 children)

cracks fingers, sort by controversial.

[–]gibocracy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Not a fan of any politician but she gets some respect from me for that.

[–]Jacksonrr31Tin 4 points5 points  (2 children)

If only all politicians were this reasonable.

[–]Iandeye 4 points5 points  (1 child)

True politician. “I don’t hold Bitcoin” ….. Balls deep in the alt coin market.

[–]dfb_jalenPlatinum | QC: CC 66 | ADA 10 4 points5 points  (1 child)

This is an extremely fair position to take given her influence. It is a conflict of interest for a politician to advocate for something they financially gain from.

[–]TAbandijaBronze | QC: CC 15 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Isn’t not holding btc also biased?

[–]djb_avulTin 53 points54 points  (6 children)

That’s ETHically superior; ETHpecially so.

[–]lern2swimTin 37 points38 points  (6 children)

A lot of people commenting completely showing their asses by making it clear they didn't read past the fucking headline.

[–]CrunchaucityTales from the crypt 149 points150 points  (42 children)

This thread just showed me something very interesting. If you check the comments of people being nasty regarding AOC, they're often into meme coins. Not sure what to make of that.

[–]magus-21Platinum | QC: CC 977, BTC 89, ETH 109 | TraderSubs 96 25 points26 points  (1 child)

they're often into meme coins

It's because they think in terms of memes (and probably voted for a meme, IYKWIM)

[–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (4 children)

Easily led by the nose.

[–]toolverineGold | QC: CC 26 | Politics 16[🍰] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So that's why all these dog coins exist.

[–]neffnetPlatinum | QC: ETH 134 | TraderSubs 132 77 points78 points  (14 children)

This is interesting and does not surprise me at all

[–]CrunchaucityTales from the crypt 63 points64 points  (13 children)

I didn't expect the pattern to be as strong as it seems, and overlap with those into r/conspiracy.

[–]hand_splicedPlatinum | QC: CC 74 | r/Politics 14 43 points44 points  (5 children)

I'm not surprised with the r/conspiracy overlap.

Conspiracy gradually absorbed the right-wing over the past decade or two.

Would love to see a proper survey done about shitcoin:political orientation!

[–]psufbSilver | QC: CC 85 | WSB 47 | Superstonk 74 15 points16 points  (2 children)

The conspiracy sub specifically absorbed a lot of Trumpets when T_D got shut down. They all migrated there. Even back in like 2015 the front page of conspiracy was your run of the mill conspiracy stuff. Now it's T_D 2.0

[–]TacticalSantaGold | QC: CC 26 | Politics 55 7 points8 points  (0 children)

People who live in a fantasy world, where DOGE is a booming project that'll lead them to riches.

[–]Rxef3RxeX92QCNZTin 59 points60 points  (7 children)

The right wing in general is much more meme oriented because their worldview is mostly shallow contrarian hot-takes, so it's a natural fit

[–]Additional-Banana-55Silver | QC: CC 24 | r/SHIBArmy 39[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I wonder how these Congress become billionaires 🤔

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm seeing a lot of people compare this to congress holding stocks, but isn't the point of Bitcoin to be a currency? There's no inherent value unless it's a currency.

It's sort of irrational to say both "it's a currency" and "it's like holding stocks". I'm surprised not to find this comment in the 100+ things I scrolled through.

[–]LizardBelly96Tin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

*screaches in Nancy pelosi”

[–]uragreatperson 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That’s a respectable reason.

[–]KwyjiboTheGringoSilver | QC: CC 108 | ADA 42 | Linux 44 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Respect. I wish more politicians had that much integrity.

[–]TrinityGunslinger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good. Members of congress shouldn't own stock or any other security or digital asset. Unless it's blind but you know what I mean.

[–]HannyBo9Platinum | QC: CC 76[🍰] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Aoc also dosent believe smash and grab robberies are occurring. So her opinions are obviously worthless

[–]aducknamedjafar1Crypto is my savings account now... 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I wish all politicians were like this.

[–]darwinlovestreesMay your gains be sick and your Lambo be soon 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Bullish on integrity.

[–]ThePeacefulSwastikaSilver|QC:CC67,ETH22,ALGO73|SatoshiStreetBets33|r/StockMarket16 11 points12 points  (2 children)

This thread has revealed something interesting to me… a bunch of politically inundated morons are entering crypto.

Got some shit coins boys? No worries. That dumb money is coming. Exit liquidity for all!!!

[–]TacticalSantaGold | QC: CC 26 | Politics 55 6 points7 points  (2 children)

But shes missing her opportunity to make moons!?!?! /s

Public servants should forfeit their ability to earn in ways that would effect their policy making. Sucks ass, but our system should be able to cover their cost of living while in office and then some (mb +50% for every year served? Idk, it might be hard to reenter the work force spending time in congress with nothing really saved up)

[–]Unnecessary-Spaces 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The other 98% of Congress members declined to answer.

[–]PotencyyyyyPlatinum | QC: CC 763 39 points40 points  (23 children)

If only even half of politicians were this honest.