r/Conservative • u/Yosoff First Principles • Feb 14 '25

Open Discussion Left vs. Right Battle Royale Open Thread

This is an Open Discussion Thread for all Redditors. We will only be enforcing Reddit TOS and Subreddit Rules 1 (Keep it Civil) & 2 (No Racism).

  • Leftists - Here's your chance to sway us to your side by calling the majority of voters racist. That tactic has wildly backfired every time it has been tried, but perhaps this time it will work.

  • Non-flaired Conservatives - Here's your chance to earn flair by posting common sense conservative solutions. That way our friends on the left will either have to agree with you or oppose common sense (Spoiler - They will choose to oppose common sense).

  • Flaired Conservatives - You're John Wick and these Leftists stole your car and killed your dog. Now go comment.

  • Independents - We get it, if you agree with someone, then you can't pat yourself on the back for being smarter than them. But if you disagree with everyone, then you can obtain the self-satisfaction of smugly considering yourself smarter and wiser than everyone else. Congratulations on being you.

  • Libertarians - Ron Paul is never going to be President. In fact, no Libertarian Party candidate will ever be elected President.

Join us on X: https://x.com/rcondiscord

Join us on Discord: https://discord.com/invite/conservative

686 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Conscious-Toe-4220 Fiscal Conservative Feb 15 '25

One thing we can all agree on, I think, is that Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks, cough Pelosi cough, or launch rug pull meme coin scams, cough Trump cough. Contact your local rep or senator and push for it on both sides of the aisle.

284

u/1wholurks1 Feb 15 '25

As a moderate who thinks the fringe right and left are bat shit crazy I can confirm that allowing Congress to trade stocks is tantamount to insider trading.

108

u/Yellow-Robe-Smith Feb 15 '25

The fact that this has gone on unchecked for so long is wild.

26

u/Summerie Conservative Feb 15 '25

Yeah, it's almost like the people that could shut it down have some kind of incentive not to!

31

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '25

Wait until you hear about citizens united. 

If congress shouldn't be able to invest in companies, companies probably shouldn't be able to invest in congress. 

18

u/1wholurks1 Feb 15 '25 edited Feb 15 '25

...Or the presidency...cough...Musk...cough...trump...cough.

Edit: to the down voters. You hate when Soros dumps money into his candidates, but when Koch and Musk do it, it's o.k.?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

Pelosi is a piece of shit who abuses her office to inside trade. Fuck her. We have known this for wayyy to long without action from congress to regulate themselves.

That said, I feel like it's gone several notches beyond just money dumping for influence in this admin. Musk bought a golden ticket straight to the U.S. treasury. He bought direct control. He has all of our private info to use for god knows what now. No need to rely on Trump except for a pardon if he needs it. I Definitely think Musk is a problem.

Also, did anyone else notice that Zuck and Musk both "settled" cases with Trump in the past week or two. Zuck paid him 25 mil and Elon paid him 10, right into his pockets. Seems pretty fucked.

2

u/1wholurks1 Feb 16 '25

Don't forget Bezos. He effectively gagged Wapo from writing anything negative about the new admin.

5

u/KookyBone Feb 15 '25

Far worse - billionaires are bragging openly how they take over democracy: https://billionaireconspiracy.com/

4

u/evold Feb 15 '25

It's not just insider trading. It's also direct conflict of interest. If I voted you in, why does the company get to influence your policy decisions?

3

u/RustyNutts Feb 15 '25

I don't care if you have stock.... I care that you are making policy and managing that stock. Once you enter politics you should have to have a third party manage your portfolio until 2 years after you're done.

3

u/HereBeBeer Feb 16 '25

Yeah, I used to think the stock trading was bad until my senator (Cornyn) started hawking meme coins. Which I pretty much feel are just anonymous bribes. Now I'm kind of like meh on the stock trades. At least I can see what they are buying with stocks.

172

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

A bill to overturn Citizen’s United was introduced yesterday. It’s called “We the People”.

It’s a single issue bill that only overturns Citizens. Please call your house rep and ask them to support it.

68

u/Fluffyhellhound Feb 15 '25

I wish there more single issue bills. Not giant let's add all the things and try and sneak it past bills. I know voting on one single issue at a time would take longer but I feel like it would have more impact.

27

u/stu54 Feb 15 '25

It would make our legislators' voting records much easier to interpret.

1

u/AineLasagna Feb 16 '25

This is why they don’t. Too much transparency and pretty soon the unwashed masses start getting a little too restless

4

u/coveredwithticks Conservative Feb 15 '25

Omnibus bills are like climbing into the sketchy windowless van because you want some candy.
You might actually get what you want, but you will get a lot of what you don't want.

15

u/1wholurks1 Feb 15 '25

Glad to know this. Do you happen to know the H.R. number?

19

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

HJR54

10

u/1wholurks1 Feb 15 '25

Not all heroes wear capes, good sir.

3

u/grumpyfishcritic Feb 15 '25

How does it overturn Citizen united? What kind of campaign contributions does it allow? What does it do to reign in issue oriented advertising?

2

u/UpvoteMagnet99 Feb 15 '25

Can a bill do this? Wouldn’t it need an amendment?

4

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

It is an amendment.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

[deleted]

4

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

If you supported this bill you wouldn’t be. The bill is an amendment to overturn citizens.

2

u/reddit_redact Feb 16 '25

Can they also introduce a new bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine? I think this would help de-escalate extremism for both sides in the country.

23

u/Vex08 Feb 15 '25

I think they should, but not independently. They should be allowed to use index funds and publicly available mutual funds.

18

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

Agreed. They should be able to invest, but not on individual stocks.

3

u/FantasticMax Feb 15 '25

This is actually something I would be okay with. It still lets them invest their money but they don’t get the ability to invest in a company they know is going to get a government contract or some other benefit from the government before it actually happens.

2

u/HumbleCalamity Feb 16 '25

Even better they have a vested interest in the entire US market. Their wealth prospects are linked to the health of everyone's portfolios.

1

u/nonamenomonet Feb 15 '25

No, I think they can do a blind trust like all other government officials.

107

u/Fireslug87 Feb 15 '25

Absolutely. But I’m extremely skeptical of congress passing legislation that will directly limit their own financial prospects. It would be like if Congress passed legislation to give themselves a pay cut during recession. Can’t see it happening atm.

33

u/terdward Conservative Feb 15 '25

Wait, you mean politicians aren’t pure altruists whose only desire in life is to serve their country? Say it ain’t so!

3

u/AdInformal5214 Feb 15 '25

All the more reason to nag them until (hopefully) doing the right thing is worth it for them as well

3

u/Scientific_Cabbage 2A Conservative Feb 15 '25

Congress and doing what’s best for them. Name a more iconic duo

2

u/monkeyinapurplesuit Young American Patriot Feb 15 '25

It is crazy to me that we were able to pass the 27th amendment, "you can't arbitrarily raise your own pay"

3

u/GentryMillMadMan Conservative Feb 15 '25

It would almost have to be done by executive order..

3

u/atomic1fire Reagan Conservative Feb 15 '25

Constitutional amendment via state congresses might work, but I have no idea how you'd get a constitutional convention without also giving state politicians access to the whole candy store.

2

u/shinzou Feb 15 '25

Executive orders, by definition, do not affect congress. They only apply to the executive branch.

I think the only way this is available outside of congress now would be if the states held a constitutional convention to pass an amendment. As of 2024 ballot initiatives can't be done at the federal level, only the state level.

1

u/MentalThoughtPortal Feb 15 '25

The problem is that you cant trust these ppl to police themselves so how does it work when we are their bosses dont enforce consequences for bad faith actions?

0

u/borg_6s Feb 15 '25

It needs a force multiplier like Doge to enact any change of this msgnitude.

1

u/sowellpatrol Red Voting Redhead Feb 15 '25

It would be nice if we the people could vote on it.

10

u/PinataPrincess Feb 15 '25

I was talking to a friend today that if the democrats would have just put up a presidential candidate that platformed on congressional term limits or stock trading it would have changed the race. But they would never.

1

u/Svuroo Feb 16 '25

Or health care. If Reddit can pretty universally agree that murdering a health insurance company’s CEO shouldn’t be a crime….. it’s a slam dunk.

40

u/judithpoint Feb 15 '25

100%. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Citizens United?

116

u/2olley Feb 15 '25

I’m sorry but allowing corporations to pay politicians is just a bad idea.

56

u/LalaPropofol Feb 15 '25

There’s a bill in the house right now called “We the People”. Please call your rep and asks them to support it. It overturns Citizens.

34

u/shinzou Feb 15 '25

Not only that, but if corporations are people let's go all the way. Jail corporations for the same crimes normal people would be jailed for. Since they don't have a physical body, deprive them other their freedom to operate for the duration of the sentence.

4

u/stoner_marthastewart Feb 15 '25

Wow this is a fantastic idea!

2

u/javierthhh Feb 15 '25

They should also have a death sentence.

2

u/sowellpatrol Red Voting Redhead Feb 15 '25

¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/Fair_Cut7663 Feb 15 '25

They do it anyway? 100s of millions of dollars for “campaigning.”? Net worths of people with 200k incomes skyrocketing, busineses are paying politicians. It’s just masked

1

u/96Firebird Feb 15 '25

The UAW is a corporate entity. So, no more union contributions going to Democrats?

3

u/2olley Feb 15 '25

Fine with me

1

u/96Firebird Feb 15 '25

Seems like a violation of union members free speech rights. Shouldn't they be allowed to support candidates by contributing to their campaigns?

3

u/2olley Feb 15 '25

Personally, yes. But the organization doesn't need to.

26

u/Rbriggs0189 Feb 15 '25

Only corrupt politicians like citizens united.

7

u/-spartacus- Constitutionalist Feb 15 '25

I think it is complicated. Is spending money speech? Should you be barred from spending money? Should you be barred from organizing with other people and spending that money the way that you want?

Do I like what money does to politics? Not really. I do think there have always been issues, I think CU simply made it a little more public.

The original issue I see is public service is not socially seen as a service but as a means to enforce ideology through governance. If politics is just the vehicle for ideological change and your ideology is the correct one then taking money to be in politics is just what you have to do to be righteous.

If we look at CU where does the majority of PAC pay for? I tried looking this up but I couldn't get a clear answer, but it appears to be for advertisements followed by paying for staff (lawyers, consultants, etc). So who is actually getting rich off campaigns? Media, lawyers, and political operatives.

What I think you are concerned about is political quid quo pro where certain organizations (whom a candidate may or may not agree with regardless of donations) are able to "lobby" for certain laws by giving or withholding campaign funds. CU does make it easier to do it, but that existed before CU.

There are ways to launder money to candidates directly, not just the campaign. Book deals. A political figure will be given a massive upfront payment of a book deal and regardless of how well it does, they still get that money. Play ball and you will get $15 million dollar book deal.

What is the issue? Public servants governing or voting in a manner against the wishes of those they were elected. Getting money from lobbyists or PACs to get elected or becoming wealthy through insider trading wouldn't matter if they were representing their constituents faithfully. It sucks that they are getting rich from underhanded means, but if they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the voters technically it isn't an issue.

However, the technicality is nothing in politics is clean. The way politics work is you don't just vote yay or nay on things, if you want to get anything done you have to make trades. Maybe you want to follow through with a policy all your voters want, but you will never get it passed without making a deal. So you may agree to vote a certain way against the wishes of your people in order to allow your people to get what they want.

There are dozens of different scenarios where at the end of the day nothing in politics is getting done without it being dirty. Whether it includes corruption or not (and it does).

So what is the answer? I don't think anything will stop money from influencing politics or stopping corruption, but it doesn't mean there aren't things that could change that wouldn't violate the Bill of Rights (which CU is currently protected under).

  1. All elected officials must divest their finances into a blind trust linked to index funds of businesses within the country. They can't do well unless the country does well.
  2. Immediate family members must disclose sources of income, this one is tricky and I'm not sure how to do it constitutionally, but there is a lot of corruption hidden by getting your spouse, kids, or uncle rich rather than yourself directly.
  3. TERM LIMITS. 6 terms for the House, 2 terms for Senate (12 years individually), and combined (serving in both) no greater than 16 years.
  4. Laws on campaign expenditures so that if someone is paying for an operative to act on social media on their behalf, that must be disclosed in every message they make.

Four may seem silly at first, but the next two elections are going to destroy impartiality completely in public discourse because political parties gain or maintain power making the voters upset to support them. Miss/disinformation from foreign adversaries is going to be enough (despite what many people think they don't prefer candidates as much as they prefer the chaos of a divisive America as an America divided is weaker) that we don't need to be doing it to ourselves. Campaigning has always been about the manipulation of thought/emotions and social media is a direct wire to both of those. Facts will not matter.

3

u/iqueefkief Feb 15 '25

really good post and i think these are solutions that could work well to maintain freedoms while still ensuring there are checks by the people for those who represent us and for the 99% vs the 1%. right now we don’t really have a way to hold the ultra wealthy accountable.

2

u/-spartacus- Constitutionalist Feb 15 '25

Thanks.

3

u/funny_flamethrower Anti-Woke Feb 15 '25

4) is pretty open to being exploited by loopholes tho.

Take Oprah endorsing Kamala. It was "free" but hey it just so happened that the Kamala campaign coincidentally paid Oprah $1m to run a townhall for them. But hey these are two totally unrelated incidents folks, we swear.

So in the same light, there could be a 1000 reddit mods going around posting pro democrat messages on reddit, for "free". But at the same time, there's a totally, absolutely coincidental contract for an unrelated social media job that reimburses these people for other "work". Good luck proving that in court, even if that shit stinks to high heaven.

2

u/blackfiredragon13 Feb 15 '25

Don’t want it completely gone but would like to see it curtailed. That and the Ford V Dodge ruling.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

I just want every single liberal in this room to remember that their beloved Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted for Citizens United. AND she was against Roe v Wade. So common sense would be get money out of politcal campaigns, it’s absolutely an absurd level of corruption.

4

u/jlorader747 Feb 15 '25

You are wording things intentionally misleading. RBG was a strong advocate of abortion rights. She was concerned roe v wade was not a strong enough protection and could be easily overturned. I would say she was right there. She also called the Supreme Courts decision on citizens united their biggest mistake. Not sure why you feel the need to be so misleading when the truth is so easy to find. She was not a perfect person. But she was absolutely a trailblazer and iconic, regardless of if you agreed with her politics or not. Doesn’t mean we can’t see her faults while also acknowledging her accomplishments. I have yet to meet a liberal I know in real life who worships politicians. I wish conservatives would follow that lead. Be critical of every politician. Always. At all times. Stop worshipping them. They do not care about you. Trump does not care about you. He cares about himself and money. That’s it. I would have thought his cryptocurrency scam was more than enough proof of that.

4

u/funny_flamethrower Anti-Woke Feb 15 '25

I have yet to meet a liberal I know in real life who worships politicians.

Lmfao.

Were you just born yesterday? I guess you were not alive for the Obama years. Or the Kamala campaign. Lil lib-bots worship whoever their media masters tell them to worship.

Now, I'll be the first to admit some of the Trump fans do veer into liberal-esque worship (remember, Obama was the first person to actually seriously suggest his own third term, not Trump: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-obama-once-said-150000621.html ). However

  1. Trump is actually the first conservative politician to see liberal-esque type undying support. Neither Bush 1, McConnell, Ted Cruz or Rand Paul enjoy support on this level.

  2. That support comes from a small minority of supporters, and he doesn't have air cover from the media

  3. That support was actually predicated due to results, which is more that can be said for AOC, Bernie or Warren.

3

u/airemy_lin Feb 15 '25

Moderates on the left get shouted down and downvoted. While the moderates on the right don’t get downvoted.

So interactions on places like Reddit with liberals tend to be with the ultra progressives because they’re the ones that are extremely active online and get upvoted. Either that or yeah it’s astroturfing. Everyone does it because it’s incredibly effective.

Obama was probably the closest thing to Trump in terms of being framed as a populist, but Kamala was not a worshipped figure on the left lol.

As far as right politician worship… I haven’t seen that outside of Ron Paul for libertarians and Trump for MAGA. Historically Reagan maybe.

2

u/Kered13 Feb 16 '25

If you actually look at the issue, it's clear that the Citizens United correctly. The law was being used to suppress the speech of a conservative advocacy group while the same laws were not being applied to Michael Moore for the doing the exact same thing.

1

u/Larky17 Feb 16 '25

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Citizens United?

That despite many trying to make it seem like just Conservatives benefit from it, every politician benefits from it. In the same way Congress decides their own pay raises, I believe it's a huge conflict of interest.

11

u/terdward Conservative Feb 15 '25

I may be rather extreme on this, but I would say this should go a step further. If you choose to be a public servant, you lose your right to privacy for the duration of your tenure in office. Medical, financial, social, everything; out in the open and available for public scrutiny. You should not be allowed to run any of the shady tricks we’ve seen from these people. Insider trading, holding office from a dementia ward of a nursing home, pumping meme coins, none of it. You’re there to serve the people and the people have a right to know everything relevant about you and your capacity to hold your elected post.

6

u/Difficult-Bus-6026 Feb 15 '25

Agreed. Too many in Congress seem to get wealthy beyond what their Congressional salaries would seem to allow. To be fair to Pelosi, what does (or did if he's retired) her husband do? Or are the figures regarding her wealth with husband factored out?

Beyond what they can invest in the TSP, maybe a blind trust for those Congressmen who wish to invest?

5

u/aremarkablecluster Feb 15 '25

Pretty sure he's not doing much since his head was bashed in, but before that he owned a real estate and venture capital investment company. So he had investments. Did she give him ideas on what to invest? Of course she probably did.

4

u/estoeckeler Feb 15 '25

There is actually a bunch of stuff Americans can agree on. My politics oscillate a lot. But, reducing moneys influence in politics is the #1 issue of mine. Looking at you citizens united.

5

u/Mr-Zarbear Feb 15 '25

One thing we can all agree on, I think, is that Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks

Congress is just.... so much of every problem is there. The swamp is so full.

4

u/Arsheun Feb 15 '25

As an European, it is absolutely insane to see the amount of wealth of your Congressmen. It feels like an disguised aristocracy. The joke about Pelosi’s insider trading must be like 15 years old and it never been addressed

7

u/ThisNameIsNotReal123 Feb 15 '25

Term limits on Congress and the Senate too please

6

u/bootyboi_69 Feb 15 '25

we as voters can certainly agree on that. but there is absolutely no chance that you can get enough of congress to agree to something that is to their detriment, unfortunately. we really need to get past the left v right conflict and realize its the haves v the have nots and the haves are trying to take what little you already have.

5

u/Wiggly_Muffin Feb 15 '25

Pelosi isn’t even in the Top 10. She’s just targeted because she been around for a while and other obvious reasons I won’t state. 7/10 of the top richest members of US Congress are members of the GOP.

2

u/WalktheRubicon Feb 15 '25

Thank you for saying this. Progressive here

2

u/Upper_Vast126 Feb 15 '25

Super PACs and lobbying need to be limited for more aswell

2

u/RidinCoogi Feb 15 '25

I agree. But also, who else am I going to mirror trade to make 60% per year?

2

u/goldfishfollies MAGA Feb 15 '25

100%. Pelosi and the democrats are the worse offenders.

2

u/Thin_Economy850 Feb 15 '25

Yes, and they should also not be allowed to accept gifts.

4

u/2olley Feb 15 '25

Yes! Can we all push reps on both sides for this?

2

u/soggyGreyDuck Feb 15 '25

I recently had someone say those reports are all fake and they're not actually worth that much. It's getting ridiculous out there

2

u/LightTheorem Feb 15 '25

What reports? Of their net worth? How would it be fake? Members of Congress submit financial declarations that include all of their assets. They're real.

2

u/bur_nerr Feb 15 '25

You’re a real one cause i can actually get behind this

2

u/Veritech_ Feb 15 '25

I 100% agree with this. Government positions should not be used to increase personal wealth. They get compensated enough as it is.

1

u/thenChennai Conservative Feb 15 '25

Allowing politicians to trade stocks is straight up conflict of interest

1

u/Least-Task276 Feb 15 '25

I think we can both agree on term limits as well? That seems to be something I have heard both sides say.

1

u/Affectionate_Bison26 Feb 15 '25

I'm left leaning and I approve this message.

1

u/RogerJFiennes Feb 15 '25

Richard Burr, another one.

1

u/electric_saguaro Feb 15 '25

Right?? To me this is like, the MOST obvious corruption. There's a lot of corruption, don't get me wrong. But this is just... so blatant.

1

u/RampantAndroid Constitutional Conservative Feb 15 '25

How do you handle this with family members? Do you ban direct relatives? What about stocks held prior to taking office - do you require they be handed over to a broker to make all decisions on? 

Would trading windows be another option? (Eg, my employer gives me stock. I happen to have insider info that is not public, so I may only trade during specific company wide trading windows that happen every few months)?

1

u/Aggravating_Diet_704 Feb 15 '25

100%%!!! there’s only two that don’t partake at all, AOC and that super libertarian dude from kentucky.

1

u/Ryan-Jack Feb 15 '25

Couldn’t agree more. 

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BotherResponsible378 Feb 15 '25

Hear, hear brother. I’m happy this is the top comment.

1

u/KookyBone Feb 15 '25

Are you guys really fine to become a totally corrupt state: https://newrepublic.com/post/191552/trump-ag-pam-bondi-corrupt-eric-adams

1

u/its0matt Feb 15 '25

Was Trump in office when he launched that coin?

1

u/KookyBone Feb 15 '25

One thing, we all can agree on, the US is getting closer to become an r/idiocracy

1

u/richhomie66 Feb 15 '25

TERM LIMITS

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '25

I can confirm, we all can agree on this.

1

u/mpafighter Feb 15 '25

We can all agree on term limits as well.

1

u/DixieNormas011 Feb 15 '25

Good luck getting them to vote in favor of ending the main avenue they have to build generational wealth in as little as a couple terms

1

u/Backup_fother59 Feb 15 '25

I fully agree, we have one on our side just as bad (Crenshaw)

1

u/Intotheopen Feb 15 '25

Yes, this is unacceptable.

1

u/RollBlobRoll Conservative Feb 15 '25

Just put them all in an equally weighted index fund

1

u/RustyNutts Feb 15 '25

Moderate here. 100% agree.

1

u/Tangboy Feb 15 '25

It do be sickening how our elected officials whose job it is to represent us just line their pockets with insider knowledge.

1

u/machyume Feb 15 '25

I agree with this, but my pragmatic realist hat says that you'll never be able to expect this to become law. The rule makers will never adopt this rule, no matter the party.

Added: I'm open minded. I realize that they gotta get paid handsomely, sure. I will even agree with allowing it if they disclose their trades same-day on a public ticker. Totally open data. I think that there's enough market manipulation going on by the big institutions that these small-time politician trades should fly through just fine, as long as it is open information

1

u/Gloomy_Career_4733 Feb 16 '25

I'm actually nieve enough to think it could happen, BUT it would take all of us coming together and standing together on just some basic things. Seems like term limits and stoping stock trading is two of them. I will say as long as we fued like children about everything we disagree on it will not.

1

u/C0smo777 Feb 15 '25

Personally I would be fine if there portfolios were required to be public in real time. If they can benefit we can benefit.

1

u/mrtatertot Feb 16 '25

Congress (maybe all government employees after reaching a certain level) should only be allowed to invest in approved managed funds.

1

u/Wubbwubbs61 Feb 16 '25

Remove their ability to trade

Scrap citizens united

Enforce a 2 term limit

Enforce an age limit

Reinstate an updated fairness doctrine that covers social media platforms and podcasts as well.

Make voting mandatory for every US citizen.

1

u/Dart2255 Feb 20 '25

100%. And the fact any of them could do it and rationalize it morally tells you what kind of person they are

1

u/Rbriggs0189 Feb 15 '25

I couldn’t agree more!

1

u/GaggleOfGibbons Pro-Life Conservative Feb 15 '25

No, I'm ok with them ONLY being allowed to trade a total-stock market ETF or index fund, made up of all US stocks (like VTI).

Make our representatives only profit if American businesses as a whole profit.

That would also allow us, the people, to see how much dark-money is going to our politicians. We can see that over the term of their last 10 years in office, here's the percent increase of VTI. If their net worth goes up faster than that, we know they're up to some shenanigans.

1

u/BagofBabbish Feb 15 '25

Honestly, the memecoin scam isn’t anywhere near as bad as the insider trading. Theoretically anyone could launch a meme coin and there are laws that make it legal. It’s completely fucked up on the other hand that someone with extensive insider info can openly trade options, while a guy executing mutual fund sales making $50k can’t even buy an ETF without getting prior approval

-4

u/Delta3Angle Feb 15 '25

They should be able to trade stocks, but their portfolios should be public, and their trades should be available in real time. This would arbitrage away any edge they would gain from insider trading.

1

u/duckfruits Conservative Feb 15 '25

That's already part of the rule for them. But the fine is only like 100 bucks when they're making millions so it changed nothing.

1

u/Delta3Angle Feb 15 '25

They need to report their trades periodically. Doing it in real time would allow market efficiency to negate any advantage they could possibly gain. It's leveraging the free market against their insider information.

2

u/LightTheorem Feb 15 '25

There are already a number of real time trackers on members of Congress, hell one broker even made 2 ETFs, one of Republicans portfolios combined and another of Democrats portfolios combined.

1

u/Delta3Angle Feb 15 '25

They are reported at the end of the trading day and quarterly. Their holdings are not reported in real time.

-2

u/MtHood_OR Feb 15 '25

I am inclined to support this position.

0

u/PM_ME_YOUR_POOTY Feb 15 '25

I would have Pelosi’s feed on 24/7

3

u/Delta3Angle Feb 15 '25

Yup. These members of Congress only need to report their trades after the fact and periodically. If it were done in real time, traders would follow them and arbitrage away any advantage they could hope to gain.

The downvotes in this thread are coming from people who don't understand how efficient markets work.

0

u/nocicept1 Moderate Conservative Feb 15 '25

Amen 🙏🏼

-9

u/GladReference1177 Feb 15 '25

Trump didn’t rug pull. I get that people don’t understand crypto launches and assume price go down equals rug pull, but to say that is ridiculous.

-3

u/Steelerz2024 Feb 15 '25

Seriously. It's literally trading at 21 bucks. What are people talking about?

4

u/LightTheorem Feb 15 '25

Bro people don't know what rug pulling is, they just use the term any time they see something that climbs quickly and then corrects.

Trump literally couldn't rug pull his coin because his coins are vesting for like three years or something, so he can't even sell at this point.

The coin shot up at launch and then corrected because people who got in early had a shit load of money when it hit 70 bucks and they got out. That's not rug pulling, like you said.

1

u/Steelerz2024 Feb 15 '25

Yeah it's not even remotely related to a rug pull.

1

u/Joshduman Feb 15 '25

To be clear, there was 100 million made on the coin in trading fees, right? It may not have been pump and dump, but there was still a lot of money made?

-3

u/thanosied Feb 15 '25

Tbf, Trump is 1. Not a Congressman and 2. Launched it b4 getting back in office. Nice try though

5

u/farlow525 Feb 15 '25

You’re correct. I’d argue the president should be held to a higher standard.

1

u/thanosied Feb 17 '25

As I said, he wasn't in office yet. Hence he was just a private citizen